Response to "A Case for Torture"

Michael Levin argues that torture can be acceptable under certain circumstances.  Although he recognizes that torture is unconstitutional, he also states that it is necessary in life or death situations.  He uses many examples of terrorist that could potentially kill hundred or thousands of people and they only way to stop them is to torture them in order to obtain the answers we need to stop the attack.  What he does not recognize is that torture is not going to automatically stop the attack, and in most circumstances we don't usually know who the perpetrator is. 

Michael Levin uses several extreme cases that seem inhumane not to agree with.  he does this to further prove his point in that torture needs to be used to some extent even if it is agaisnt our constitution.  I would have to mainly agree with Levin's argument in that I believe if a terrorist is willing to harm others then they need to be prepared for harm themselves.  There is no part of me that can argue that a person trying to kill many people life should be spared and in return hundreds die.  But, what Levin seems to believe is that torture is the answer to all our problems if in certain terrorist situations.  I can agree that in certain situations torture needs to come into account, but there are other ways of getting around such things that he fails to mentions.