One final matter. The writers themselves are very diverse, as they have almost every imaginable qualification to their names, in all fields and at all levels. It follows that very careful thought needs to be given to the establishment of any additional structure of roles and associated practices that is to be woven into the fabric of the institution.
One section will address the immediate weaknesses of the scenario, and another will look at the wider implications of a decision to torture. Therefore, first, the argument would need to appeal to self-preservation and not self-defense; second, this in turn would crash against the accepted legal doctrine that bystanders, even guilty ones, may not be hurt intentionally.
What the two advocates would have in common is the belief that even the revised ticking-bomb scenario involving only the death of ten innocent people is, nevertheless, a fanciful scenario that has not occurred, and will not ever occur.
I intend here to lay the foundation for a strong, cogent anti-torture position.
I have a very specific research paper guideline. However, this does not demonstrate that justified torturing of the guilty to save the innocent they threaten is essentially a species of justified self-defence and that, therefore, it ought to be legalised. But this is presumably because terrorism has implausibly come to be identified only with non-state terrorism.
By torturing the thief the police might break his will and, against his will, cause him to disclose the whereabouts of the stolen goods. The conservative code, for example, tells us that the best way for government to help the poor is not to help them at all.
Accordingly, this small number of exceptional cases might be analogous to killing in self-defence. Pleasing though it may be, this simple answer won't do.