The main argument is that torture is inexcusable even in high stakes cases involving “ticking bomb” scenarios. The author begins by examining the idealized and abstract hypothetical case of the ticking bomb and notes that such ticking bomb hypothetical cases are misleading for two reasons: (1) they offer idealized versions of reality that add positive features; and (2) they offer abstract versions of reality that remove negative features. Together, they offer a picture of reality that is far from real and should not be the basis for political policymaking. The author further argues that torture is an institution, requiring a bureaucracy with apprentices and experts. Torture, he argues, is not for amateurs, but requires practice and mentoring. The moderate position on torture then, that it may be permissible in ticking bomb cases, is impractical and is an abstraction of how reality actually functions. The moderate position on torture is likened to a recovering alcoholic who claims they will avoid the extremes of alcohol while still enjoying a drink every now and then. It makes little sense in reality. Moreover, the author argues that the use of torture is not moderate but is rampant and high-end U.S. government officials are its poster-children. U.S. policies regarding torture must do as international law indisputably requires--never use torture in any situation. Footnotes