Is torture ever justified? The war on terror is a fight against a very different kind of enemy. Does that justify different rules of engagement?

• Author: Krauthammer, Charles
• Position: DEBATE

YES

Imagine this scenario: A terrorist has planted a nuclear bomb in New York City. It will go off in one hour. A million people will die. You capture the terrorist. He knows where it is. He's not talking.

If you have the slightest belief that hanging this man by his thumbs, or some other method of torture, will get you the information to save a million people, are you justified in doing so? Not only is it permissible; it is a moral duty.

However rare the cases, there are circumstances in which torture would be required to acquire life-saving information. And once you've established the principle, the argument is not whether torture is ever permissible, but when--in other words, how big, how imminent, how preventable does the threat have to be to justify it?

In 1994, 19-year-old Israeli Corporal Nahshon Waxman was kidnapped by Palestinian terrorists. The Israelis captured the driver of the car used in the kidnapping and tortured him in order to find where Waxman was being held.

Faced with a similar choice, an American President would have a similar obligation. To do otherwise--to give up the chance to find your soldier lest you sully yourself by authorizing torture of the person who possesses potentially lifesaving information--is a deeply immoral betrayal of a soldier.

There is much to admire in those who refuse on principle ever to take up arms (or, in this case, torture) under any conditions. One should be grateful for the saintly among us. And one should be vigilant that they not get to make the decisions upon which the lives of others depend.

--Charles Krauthammer Washington Post columnist

NO

To fight terrorism we need intelligence. But the intelligence we collect must be reliable and acquired humanely, under clear standards understood by all. Using torture, even for the best of...