Should Torture Be Justified in Extreme Circumstances to Prevent Terrorism?

Any act intentionally inflicted to a person which outcome severe pain and suffering to either mental or physical for the purpose to gain certain advantages from him or any other persons for the consideration of information or confession is considered as torture. It may include an extraction of valuable information through certain levels of pressure, intimidation, or humiliation. History experience torture from the early age of Neolithic Europe about 7000 years ago. It was used as a part of the judicial system and punishment at the same time. Torture served the public in two ways; to extract information and confession as well as a deterrence process in hindering peoples from committing crimes. Torture as a mechanism to extract information was criticised heavily as it opposed human rights. Totally being banned under international law does not negate such an act; instead, states still practicing torture by far in completely changed techniques. Legal theorists’ views vary on the matter of the balance between torture and preserving human rights. Most of them especially the Kantians led by David Sussman favours all international legal provisions against torture. The Consequentialists have a different view of torture. This chapter aims to assess the justifications of torture against terrorism from both legal and moral perspectives. Whilst the act of torture might potentially infringe upon specific human rights, it is important to acknowledge that the state also bears the responsibility of safeguarding the rights to life and security. Although the concept of torture may initially appear severe, it has demonstrated efficacy and is considered as one of the most potent strategies for addressing terrorism. Therefore, the justification for the utilisation of torture in certain exceptional situations is warranted in order to counteract terrorism and preserve lives.