Charles Krauthammer’s argument would be a sound one if everyone accepted all of his premises. However, when he defines terrorist, he describes one as “an unlawful combatant [who] lives outside the laws of war because he does not wear a uniform, [who] hides among civilians, and [who] deliberately targets innocents.” However using this definition, almost any criminal, from a simple shop lifter to the most elaborate bank robber, would be considered a terrorist. Any thief is unlawful, and therefore combating the law. A thief hides among civilians since they don’t normally sport uniforms, and they target the innocent and the defenseless since that is the easiest target group. Therefore, according to Krauthammer’s definition of terrorist, almost all thieves are probably terrorists. The question now, is at what point is someone considered a high enough level of a terrorist to be subjected to torture? Morally, this is a question that no human being should be given the power to answer. By answering this question, humans are in effect playing God.
Krauthammer attempts to answer this question by using the hypothetical situation of a terrorist that has information that could save lives if it was released. Krauthammer argues that the terrorist should be tortured in order to obtain the information and save the lives. However, such a situation is rare in reality. Often, the government only has no idea of whether or not a person’s information can help, or if they have any information at all. Similarly to the first premise, the question becomes, at what point does level of confidence in the impact of the alleged terrorist’s information make it moral to torture? This question is morally too much for human beings to answer, and would once again be an example of playing God.
Ultimately, if the decision to do something is based on premises that are immoral, then that action is immoral. The decision to torture is based upon immoral premises of playing God. Therefore, torture is an immoral action in every situation.