responce to "A Case for Torture"

In the article, “A Case of Torture”, Michael Levin, the author, presents an argument that augments the, most commonly opposed, idea of torture. He does this by providing situations in which the method that I formerly thought of as inhumane torture would be the only humane method to use. His prime argument is that: if torturing someone who means to harm an innocent life, or multiple innocent lives, will save the innocent(s) lives, then the torturing of the harmful person is necessary.
Levin provides a situation where a terrorist is going to kill thousands of lives, so what do you do? Levin says that yes, torture is barbaric, but mass murder is far more barbaric. Levin says that although torture is most likely unconstitutional, the life of an innocent outweighs the unconstitutionality of torturing someone who is harming the innocent. Levin is not saying that torture is a good method for government, or that it should be used commonly; but he is saying that in extreme cases, torture is the only moral thing to do.
Yes, torture doesn’t always work. If a terrorist bomber sets a bomb at a theatre and the bomb will kill three hundred people in five minutes unless it is detonated, the terrorist could give false information during the torture, and the torture would be declared useless because it did not save the three hundred lives, but instead, killed three hundred and one lives, but what else could have been done? Torture doesn’t always work, but in some cases it does, so does it hurt to try?
I believe it doesn’t hurt to try, because when there’s no other option, all you can do is try, because if you don’t try, then you’ll never know if those three hundred innocent lives could have been saved.
Although Levin does use some biased and unlikely arguments in this article that deal with a survey of four, babies, and clever terrorists, the main idea in his article makes perfect sense. Torture should not be used unless absolutely necessary, but when necessary, it should be used.