Professor Dershowitz (among others) have suggested that the ethical arguments against torture may be outweighed where: (1) the magnitude of harm at issue is great enough, (2) the suspect is known to be in possession of the information necessary to neutralize that harm, and (3) the use of torture is absolutely restricted to those cases. The ethical justification is that in the modern age of, biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the safety of millions of civilians threatened by the use of WMDs outweighs any moral obligation to a single individual involved in such attacks (Dershowitz, 2002).
In such cases, a judicial authorization of a torture warrant is appropriate, pursuant to the satisfaction of common principles and criteria (i.e. probable cause), simply because any moral concern for the...
Unlike the use of torture on individuals not known to be in possession of the information sought by authorities, and unlike the use of torture as punishment, the suspects tortured under a torture warrant always have the ability to avoid or terminate their torture, simply by providing the information necessary to protect the innocent. Provided that such warrants are appropriately controlled and restricted to use in connection with the ticking time bomb scenario, the interest of public welfare justifies the use of any means necessary to protect the public.
References
Dershowitz, a.M. (2002). Shouting Fire: Civil Liberties in a Turbulent Age. New York: Little Brown & Co.
