The "ticking bomb" argument is used to justify Israel's use of "moderate physical pressure" (claimed to fall short of torture) to obtain information from incarcerated terrorists. This argument makes a number of assumptions. First, it posits a known -- and not merely a possible or even probable -- threat; second, there is a pressing need for action; third, the threatened evil is of enormous magnitude; fourth, only torture is likely to succeed in getting the information needed to avert the evil; fifth, the person to be tortured is the perpetrator of the threat; and sixth, as a result of the torture, the evil is very likely to be averted. Under this argument, national security interests are often viewed as more important than human rights violated under inhumane and degrading treatment, punishment, and torture. This paper argues that the "ticking bomb" argument should not be invoked as a general practice for all persons suspected of terrorist activity. Each case must be thoroughly analyzed to determine whether or not national security and the saving of lives is in fact at issue in the specific case. Unexamined appeals to national security to justify human rights violations are unacceptable. Torture will continue to be used from time to time even by those states that best exemplify the ideals of liberal democracy. Those in power will judge that some ends are so compelling that torturous means have become "necessary." When such events occur, those who do them should be held publicly accountable. Justification should be required in an open forum, rather than having such violations of human rights performed behind the formal veil of legality. 69 notes