America had no business using torture as a way of getting information.

When it comes down to the security of not simply the American people, but also countries elsewhere that have had to deal with Terrorist attacks, such as England or Spain, we have seen an issue that could have been solved had we been more persistent in our goal of the prevention of terrorism. Be it either by an increase of funding, or by means like you have stated-Means in either physical or psychological traumatic situations incline the target to reveal information that would otherwise be unobtainable. In this-That we can cause the suffering of one to prevent the deaths and/or suffering of many. In that, the action is justified. As a sectarian society where religion is not accepted, we must look to the ideas of Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra- in that based on how humanity killed God, the moral order imposed by Christianity could no longer be utilized. Because of that, mankind must recreate their values, and thus, the new moral order that is to be used is clear and quite so indeed-The utilitarian order. We place the greatest good for the greatest number as our priority. There is no moral objections because there is nothing to predicate a moral objection upon. Think of the outcry of the population-How many people would find torture wrong if we could have, utilizing Torture, prevented 9/11? Is it still questionable then? We have prevented hundreds if not thousands of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Look to the statistics of plotting terrorists being caught. Staggering, our methods of preventing terrorism have allowed a grand total of 0 attacks to be made on the US since 9/11, even there are those who think they are wrong-Their efficacy is undeniable. Moreover, look to the thoughts of other major philosophers, those like John Locke, or others on the rights to man. Most if not all conclude that once an individual violates the law of man, they forfeit their claim to it. Therefore, when Terrorists conspire in the effort to bring death and destruction to humanity, they lose their claim to law, and we may extract information as we see fit. If they torture If what we do to others is reflected on our own people, there are a still a couple of reasons why this argument should be rejected. First, clearly, the only ones of ours that have been negatively affected are our soldiers, and in reality, that simply comes down to US soldiers and Insurgents killing each other, not the background conditions which facilitated said killing of each other. And second, if anything, recognize that we are retaliating to what the terrorists did on 9/11. This more readily applies to those who designed and carried out the 9/11 attacks. And finally, the ends most certainly justify the means. First, The media's opposition and portrayal of torture is going to be based upon a dislike of the political right, opposing Conservatives just to oppose Conservatives. Second, you have no foundations in logic to state that a single terrorist is more important than many civilians. The terrorist-Of whom would gladly kill you, your family and your friends, or civilians (Excluding Soldiers, criminals, etc.) would do nothing of the sort. Bottom line. If we stop even two unnecessary, innocent deaths because of the means we used to extract information from one who would otherwise do us harm, we have justified the act.