After September 11, 2001, hereto referred to as 9/11, the then current President of the United States of America, George W. Bush, declared a “War on Terror” and demanded that other democratic countries participate as well. This so-called war created a challenge for the U.S., Europe and the International community as a whole. Tough and synchronized action was clearly needed to prevent and punish terrorist acts. However, the international community now realizes that these actions not only violated the core principles of established human rights but also failed to produce a safe, terror free world. While members of the U.N. stayed silent or even cooperated with this alleged war, the international community began to receive information regarding indefinite detention without trial and other human rights violations. The disastrous mistake after September 11, 2001 was not the resolve to respond, but the choice of how to approach and resolve this issue. Terrorism should have never been fought with terrorist means. Instead of feeling safer, America and its allies are constantly being threatened by those whose members were tortured. Meanwhile, countries that have refused use torture in any way whatsoever have enjoyed a peaceful coexistence with their neighbors. To them, it is inconceivable that anyone could condone torture of any kind. For example, South Korea, an industrialized country, is surrounded by China, North Korea and Russia, all of whom have been accused of using torturous acts. Yet, South Korea adheres to the U.N.’s strict edict of Zero Tolerance for torture. As a result, South Koreans cannot envision an industrialized, democratic country that would violate their promise to avoid the use of any torture whatsoever. As a result, South Korea has not experienced the assaults that the U.S., U.K. and other industrialized countries have experienced. Here is a general legal context in which this debate has evolved, as well as the arguments raised on both sides. After a short introduction of the human rights law framework regarding the prohibition of torture and the presentation of well-known and recent academic and antidotal evidence that torture does not always accomplish its goal, there is an argument that enough is enough and that the United States of America should stop torture. This is the right time to accomplish such an ambitious undertaking. Thus, set forth are the reasons why 2013 is the year that the United States will seriously consider ending the War on Terror.