A former top adviser to President Bush in Iraq, Robert Blackwill, who was a national security adviser during Bush’s first term, once said that torture should never be totally ruled out. One of the central pillars of the court process in the common law system of justice is built on the bedrock assumption that coercive interrogation works. All people in common law countries must give evidence in court when subpoenaed to do so. This is even when they have no connection to the case, apart from having to be a witness to a relevant event. Many people have no desire to get involved in any form of litigation. It is often stressful and nearly always time consuming. Sometimes it puts them at risk of reprisal by a party to the proceeding. Despite this, they are always forced to give evidence under threat of imprisonment if they do not provide relevant information. It is assumed that this coerced evidence is truthful (Barnet et al. 6) Therefore, the argument that torture never works is unsupportable. Rather, the most accurate assessment of the efficacy of torture as an information-gathering device is that it will sometimes fail, while, on other occasions, it will succeed. However, torture should not be mistreatment for punitive reasons and the suspect should have the relevant information. Although most of the philosophers and scientists have speculated that torture’s objective and goals are achievable, it is never justifiable. It transpires that even the most effective torture techniques only elicit the relevant information in a small number of cases. For the torture to be justified, it would mean that the plus side of the scales would need to be heavier than the negative side. In the case where thousands of lives were at stake, even 20 percent likelihood that torture would be effective would justify its use. Ultimately, one cannot be guaranteed that torture will work in any given instance, but one can be virtually certain that doing nothing will fail when faced with an imminent catastrophe. According to Hickman (181), he believed that torture is more efficient than other forms of punishments in obtaining the relevant information and enhancing national security. He claimed that society’s most basic response to those who violate the law is imprisonment. The utilitarian-expediency argument is that one has to be kept in prison for a long time in order to achieve the desired punitive and deterrent goals of the state. However, if torture can achieve these goals in a shorter period, torture is justified regardless of the mental pain of time and the long-term effects associated with being subjected to torture. Consequently, it is not that faith and values frames do not also apply; it is that torture is inseparable from the national security of the Americans. It is just a fundamental truth that Americans, and American policymakers, perceive torture in this context. It is not disputing the enormity of the moral implications of torture; rather it is that framing opposition to torture in terms of moral or religious imperatives is vital. However, it does not remove torture from the national security context. One of the elements of this perspective that has regained favor in the West following the e