These arguments can be reasoned with to say that not to be tortured is indeed an inalienable human right. But there are instances where it is defended in examples as “The Ticking-bomb Argument”. This scenario typically involves the police capturing a terrorist, suspected for having placed a bomb that is about to explode in the middle of a large city. The police believe that only torture will make the suspect disclose the information needed to prevent the deaths of thousands of people. Is it not justified to use torture in such a case? There is a moral issue in the ticking-bomb argument. The captured terrorist and his/her intended victims are the principal parties whose welfare is at stake. This may be called the Principal Parties Premise. The ticking-bomb argument simply assumes that torturing the terrorist is the right thing to do because many innocent lives were saved with the sacrifice of one guilty person. This characterization of the principal parties though is an artifice of the stripped down moral reasoning of the ticking-bomb argument. Under practical consideration, the very elements adduced to limit the damages of torture interrogation — only of knowledgeable terrorists, only when innocent lives are at risk, only when destruction is imminent — actually expand the scope of damages. The accuracy and speed of virtuoso torture interrogation dictate long advance preparation and coordination, and ultimately corruption, of many key social institutions. The principal parties actually include the medical establishment, the scientific establishment, the police, the military establishment, the judicial establishment, and a great many innocents falsely tortured.