The use of torture is justified in ticking time bomb situations.

1. Water boarding is effective Water boarding is used only when lives are at stake. It's not for punishment or for extracting confessions. Suppose terrorists have hidden a nuclear bomb somewhere in New York City. One of the terrorists is detained and there is good reason to believe he knows where the bomb is located. The terrorist may have been captured with his notebook or computer revealing his close involvement with the plot or there may be wiretap or surveillance evidence The objective is to obtain the information from him in time to stop the detonation. I claim that it would be immoral not to use water boarding under those circumstances, because the potential is for saving many innocent lives, and the worst case for the detainee is that he is terrorized temporarily, but not permanently harmed.The phrase "ticking time bomb" is somewhat misleading. The detainee must have information that is likely to save lives if revealed, but the information may retain it's critical nature for months. The case of a nuclear weapon is extreme, but it is a valid hypothetical to demonstrate the principle. There were only three cases at Gitmo when the CIA used water boarding In one case, a plot to blow up the Brooklyn Bridge was uncovered and prevented. Water boarding is extremely effective in the approximately one case in 500 when a less harsh methods do not work. Former CIA operative John Kiriakou told CNN:... the CIA decided to water board the al Qaeda operative only after he was "wholly uncooperative" for weeks and refused to answer questions.All that changed -- and Zubayda reportedly had a divine revelation -- after 30 to 35 seconds of water boarding, Kiriakou said he learned from the CIA agents who performed the technique.The terror suspect, who is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, reportedly gave up information that indirectly led to the the 2003 raid in Pakistan yielding the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, an alleged planner of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Kiriakou said.The CIA was unaware of Mohammed's stature before the Abu Zubayda interrogation, the former agent said [4. http://tinyurl.com...]2. Water boarding is non-lethal Is it morally justified to kill one innocent person to save the lives of many others? That's debatable. Our question is whether it is justified to subject a terrorist to temporary discomfort to save the lives of many citizens. It's not only justified, it is morally required. Why stop at water boarding in torturing terrorists? Because harsher techniques are not required, and water boarding is extremely unlikely to cause permanent physical or mental injury. Subjects are first given a physical exam to ensure they have no hidden physical defect. Wikipedia quotes a CIA manual:"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air flow is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth... During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of twelve to twenty-four inches. After this period, the cloth is lifted, and the individual is allowed to breathe unimpeded for three or four full breaths... The procedure may then be repeated." [5. http://en.wikipedia.org...]Members of the U.S special forces, Air Force, and CIA have been systematically subjected to water boarding as part of training without harm. A fair number of journalists have volunteered to be water boarded, so they can write about the experience. Those in include Kaj Larsen and Christopher Hitchins They report a horrible experience, but they would not have volunteered if they thought it would seriously injure them, and it did not. How many other forms of "torture" has a list of journalists volunteering for it? None.3. The alternative to water boarding is renditionFBI interrogation methods do not work on terrorists. Criminals succumb to bribery, such as offering reduced sentences or better prison conditions. Ideologues consider bribes an insult. Good cop/bad cop methods are viewed as weak and confused. The FBI wants confessions; the CIA wants information.No moral leader is going to let a terrorist enjoy a comfortable retirement while the terrorist holds information that could save innocent lives. The policy of the Clinton Administration was to turn over detainees to other countries [6. http://tinyurl.com...] who would use torture to extract information. The Bush Administration changed that policy to use the more limited enhanced interrogation techniques, including water boarding in the extreme, in order to improve the reliability of the information over that being obtained by poorly trained foreign interrogators, and also to prevent the severe torture used.The Obama Administration has continued a policy of rendition. The impasse and lack of detention options, critics say, have led to a de facto policy under which the administration finds it easier to kill terrorism suspects, a key reason for the surge of U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Renditions, though controversial and complex, represent one of the few alternatives.In a way, rendition has become even more important than before,” said Clara Gutteridge, director of the London-based Equal Justice Forum.. [7. http://tinyurl.com...]Killing terrorists eliminates the possibility of gaining information from them. Rendition provides less reliable information, and has fewer controls. 4. There is a slippery slope to complete ineffectiveness Opponents of water boarding often claim that allowing the method might lead to widespread use of torture. The error in that argument is that all slopes are slippery. The check is independent judicial review and Congressional oversight. It does not necessarily follow from this understandable fear of the slippery slope that we can never consider the use of non lethal infliction of pain, if its use were to be limited by acceptable principles of morality. After all, imprisoning a witness who refuses to testify after being given immunity is designed to be punitive— that is painful. Such imprisonment can, on occasion, produce more pain and greater risk of death than non lethal torture. Yet we continue to threaten and use the pain of imprisonment to loosen the tongues of reluctant witnesses. [8. Dershowitz, Alan M. (2008-10-01). Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat, Responding to the Challenge (p. 147). Yale University Press.] There is a slippery slope in the direction of so protecting terrorists that they fail to reveal any useful information, even information they might have otherwise revealed under conventional interrogation. Rodriquez reports that al Qaeda had told their operatives that they would be treated gently if captured. A single slap across the face so shocked some of the captured terrorists that they began talking. Kalid Sheik Mohammad told CIA captors to have their lawyers talk to his lawyers in New York. He talked after being water boarded. Once Abu Zubaydah broke under water boarding, he told our officers something remarkable. “You must do this for all the brothers,” he said. AZ explained to them that Allah knew that they were only human and once they had been tested to their limits there was no shame in their cooperating with us. … Once he became compliant, the information AZ willingly provided us was by any reasonable measure some of the most important intelligence collected since 9/ 11. Those who say otherwise are simply ill informed or misleading the public. [9. Rodriguez Jr., Jose A.; Harlow, Bill (2012-04-30). Hard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives (p. 72).]