The war on terrorism has revived the idea that torture would be an effective means to fight terrorism. That is the thesis of Mirko Bagaric and Julie Clarke of Deakin University. According to their thesis, is a time bomb were planted anywhere, it would be legitimate to torture people who were undoubtedly involved in the attack. The main idea of this argument is that torture allows obtaining reliable information. However, when you torture somebody, you can either kill the person or obtain information that he or she would reveal to stop suffering, but the information could be false or difficult to verify.
Torturers can never know when they should stop the torture. When have they obtained all the information? How to know if they are true? Is it necessary to continue torturing until verifying the information obtained? This inability to verify the information immediately leaves out the thesis of the time bomb. In addition, when can anyone say that somebody is involved in a crime “for sure”?
The legalization of torture would have a significant impact on society since such practice would entail the training of specialists and the creation of infrastructure with a group of professionals whose trade would be torture. How can anyone say that it is immoral to reject torture if innocent lives can be saved while many people are being encouraged to become executioners? This argument is false, from the moral and legal points of view.

The Age (Australia)

" Torture is inhuman, illegal and futile ", by Sarah Joseph and Marius Smith, The Age, May 17, 2005.