The United Nations “Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment,” considers torture as a serious violation of human dignity (HREA para 1).The UN argues that torture is not justifiable since it amounts to a violation of peoples’ fundamental freedoms. As such, the UN unconditionally bans torture in whatever form and for whatever reason. The UN defines torture as: “severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or third person information or a confession or punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed” (HREA para 3). This definition alludes to the fact that torture is improper in a civil society. However, this view is perceived as too shallow, one-sided, unwise, and not in reality with present-day challenges (para 1). This implies that there are some instances when the use of torture is not only permissible but morally right. Suffice to state that torture has been used successfully in the past to thwart future terror attacks. As such, President Obama should not prosecute those who advocated for it. The UN unconditionally bans the use of torture against terror suspects. However, this ban is not in reality with the present day challenges. There are instances when torture is not only necessary but also the only effective way to ensure that the safety and security of innocent people is safeguarded. For instance, torture is necessary if it prevents the occurrence of terrorist attacks. To elucidate the need for torture as a terrorism prevention measure, it is vital to consider several hypothetical cases. To begin with, consider a situation when a terror attack is imminent. Torture is necessary to save the lives of innocent civilians. As such, it is morally appropriate to subject any person suspected of plotting the attack to save the lives of innocent citizens. While terrorism is an extreme case, there are other modest instances when torture seems necessary since any other method of investigation might not be fruitful. Levin (para 5) states that the public too, would agree to the use of torture against terror suspects, especially if the victim is a child. According to the results of a hypothetical poll conducted on mothers, a majority of the members of the public would approve torture against terrorists who kidnap newborns from hospitals. While these are just hypothetical cases, memos released by CIA prove that future terrorist attacks would not have been prevented if waterboarding would not have been used against terror suspects (Thompson and Ghosh para 5). This justifies the need to consider the use of torture as a means to safeguard the safety and lives of innocent civilians. It is evident that the use of torture against terror suspects can deter the loss of innocent lives. However, the definition of torture has been the subject of legal debate. Some of the torture methods used to obtain information from terrorists are not legally considered as torture. For instance, debate exists both within and without the US justice department on whether waterboarding falls under torture. Some critics argue that torture means any method which inflicts severe physic