To take just one example Bush favours the use of torture to combat terrorism because he considers the threat so great that it's a necessary preventative measure. According to him torture is justified because it has prevented the greater evil of terrorist acts being perpetrated against society. <br><br> I would argue that there is no greater evil than one's own government sanctioning the torture of innocent people. Terrorist acts and torture should both be illegal and over here by the way, they are. What Bush wants to do is to legalise one to prevent the other. The essential fallacy of his argument is in the fact that, since torture is a pre-trial procedure, it could be applied (as we have seen) by some unaccountable person* to someone who is innocent of any wrongdoing. Bush presumes that:<br><br>1. anyone that someone* decides to torture must be guilty or <br><br>2. though not guilty their innocence is a sacrifice worth making for some greater benefit.<br><br>Item 2 above accepts the idea that someone* on behalf of the state should have the power to torture innocent people. There's no need to attempt to change the meaning of the word to disallow only acts resulting in organ failure and all that bullcrap - according to Bush torture is acceptable and that's that.<br><br>However, nobody with any modicum of intelligence would accept the idea of being tortured themselves merely as a means for someone* to obtain information. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the flaw in Bush's argument - that torturing innocent people necessarily means torturing other people and not themselves.<br><br>key: * an unaccountable person is someone* who can do whatever they like.<br><br>km<br><br>