It must always be present in some form or another

sometimes is required in order to protect the citizens of a country.

"We" don't get useful information from those "we" torture. "We" get them to say anything that will stop the torture.

As Jesse Ventura said, "Give me Dick Cheney and a waterboard and I'll have him confessing to the Sharon Tate murders in a matter of minutes." (or something to that effect).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zoqmH49VBC0

UPDATE:

Wouldn't it be nice if torture was never an option for governments?!?

Of course, "we" don't "torture". "We" use "enhanced interrogation techniques". "We" don't have a war department either.

Torture is never an option for a Government. The Government has to set the rules and the boundaries to guarantee the nation safety using civilized tools.

In my America, people driving 65 in the fast lane would be waterboarded.

Child Molesters? Sick bastards should be put in a very low voltage chair, just enough to feel pain, for a long, long time. People like that should pay for the physical or psychological damage they do.

I MEAN ITS OK BUT ITS NOT THE BEST TORTURE I WOULD USE DEPENDS ON THE HATE I GUESS I DUNNO

Well - those crazy sons of bitches do it to our people if they capture us why the fuck should we not do it back and fuck their shit up?

Fuck being civilized to some of these assholes.

I kinda stuck on what to think, but I guess it shouldn't be used enless it's neccessary.

"Three Marines in Mahmudiya used an electric transformer, forcing a detainee to 'dance' as the electricity coursed through him."
International Committee of the Red Cross, February 2004

A former Iraqi general "died of asphyxiation after being stuffed head-first into a sleeping bag … at an American base in Al Asad."
The New York Times, October 23, 2005

"Al-Qatani was forced to perform dog tricks on a leash, was straddled by a female interrogator, forced to dance with a male interrogator, told that his mother and sister were whores, forced to wear a woman's bra and thong on his head during interrogation, and subjected to an unmuzzled dog to scare him."
Newsweek, November 21, 2005

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment." Article 17 of the Third Geneva Convention (1949) asserts that "no physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war," but, instead, "persons taking no active part in the hostilities … shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." The 1985 U.N. Convention Against Torture defines it as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person." The United States has signed all of these international declarations and has historically incorporated their principles into military doctrine.
the 1992 U.S. Army Field Manual tells soldiers that "[Geneva] and U.S. policy expressly prohibit acts of violence or intimidation, including physical or mental torture, threats [or] insults, … as a means of or aid to interrogation."
since September 11, 2001, the Bush administration has, in the name of national security, attempted to carve out room for acts that brush up against the boundary line separating aggressive interrogation from torture, without -they believe- crossing over it. Called "enhanced interrogation techniques," "professional interrogation," "moderate physical pressure," or "torture lite," these have included a variety of measures, some approved as policy by our government and others not publicly acknowledged or approved. But both independent and government investigators have discovered that such techniques have been used in U.S. detention facilities.

We are breaking our agreement to act on these inhumane methods. Since I have a general distrust in government- this doesn't surprise me. What surprises me is the public acceptance of it. What surprises me is the fact that Christians are split on this issue. An issue that the Bible condems. Gen. 1:26-28, Ex. 22:21-23, Psalm 94:1, Romans 12:19, And in fact sees those who torture as ungodly and the victims as righteous Hebrews 11:35. We now must tread lightly lest we prove al-Qaida right. This is not something I ever want to do.

With all the ballyhoo given to the advancement of psychology over the last half century or so - it would seem that we may have evolved to a point that we could get information out of someone in ways that would not involve beating the crap out of them. My only frame of reference is this; as a child I was much less responsive to corporal punishment than I was to a good old fashioned parental passive aggressive head game. Smacking people around starts off with fear and then ends with a really pissed off even more rebellious subject.

I've always believed in American exceptionalism, and its nice to see that our Liberal friends do to, although most of the time you wouldn't know it. I would say that in *extreme* cases it could be used.

Maybe it's because I am, at heart, a Pacifist, maybe it is because I was told by Americans that America is the best Country on earth, I don't know, probably Both. Regardless, I am having a very difficult time wrapping my brain around the fact that there is a significant number of Americans who Actually Support Torture. WTF? How is this even possible? I see a lot of Arguments saying "Well, other countries are using Torture." This reminds me of a three year old saying "Well, that kid gets to (insert here) Why can't we." If we are the Best Country on Earth, this would not even be an Issue. Where is the outrage? We are furious and judgemental when we speak of acts of torture commited by the Nazi's, the Japanese, the Israeli's, etc. Why are we not furious and judgemental now? We have to maintain that there are some practices, like slavery, like murder, like rape, that are wrong unconditionally. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights provides the premises for this position and clearly instructs us that there are limits to what one human being can do to another, without their humanity.
I have heard Arguments stating that "We can get information that can save American Lives."
First of all, No, we can't. Experts have stated repeatedly, that the information obtained under torture is not always accurate.
Secondly, That is not even the point. Not when we know that there are other, Legal, more ethical ways about gathering said Information. It's not Morally bankrupt to decide against the policy because pursuing it would promote harm while simultaneously NOT Preventing Harm on the part of innocent People.
Another thing to remember is that we are thinking of LEGALIZING Torture. Again, WTF?
We are taking torture out of the hands of a few Rogue Soldiers and putting it in the hands of the
Government. The Government will abuse it, the Government will use it incompetantly and the Government will find new, Inappropriate contexts in which to use it. All the while Breeching the Constitution and Breaking International Law to do so.
70+ years ago, Hitler commited Heinous Crimes against the Jews, The Japanese commited Heinous crimes Against, well, All of Asia and America. The governments of those Countries acted in a way that shocks and saddens decent Human Beings. The people in those Countries did not have the Balls to rise up and say "NO!" And thus, are labeled as guilty by Association.
Well I submit, that 70+ years from now, the world will look back on America, and judge the government for its Actions. The Citizens will then be Judged by our inaction.

The arguments in I've read on here favor of torture strike me as surprisingly relative coming from the mouths of people who often speak in absolutes. Somehow, this issue becomes a fine shade of grey in contrast to all the surrounding black and white.

A few people have defended torture on the grounds that we're doing no worse than those we fight against. Personally, I'm proud to live in a country that holds itself to a higher standard and participates in international treaties like The Geneva Convention. Those are worth a read if you haven't already...here's a good quote: No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.

I'm also not buying the defense that we must get information by any means necessary. A crime isn't absolved just because it is proven to be an effective means to an end. By that Machiavellian definition, terrorism itself is justifiable.

Tough to "maintain" when I read some of the reviews on this.
First of all, Obama's own people have verified that so-called enhanced interrogation techniques saved American lives- period.
But this has been hashed through before. The question is this: what is torture?
Apparently, for many here on RIA, it is anything that does or may make another human being uncomfortable.
How about the practice of placing these people in a 62 degree room, on a wooden bench for prolonged periods of time? Oh my GOD....the horror.
Comparing any of this to anything the Japanese did is profane, and a slap in the face to the men and women who served this country in World War Two.

While I understand the "eye for an eye" mentality that approves of this (being Irish, I fully understand vengeance) I cannot support it on any grounds, and for much the same reasons I oppose capital punishment. In my opinion, a state that resorts to barbaric means to protect itself, becomes itself barbaric, no matter how justified the cause may appear.

Bear in mind that the torturers in the Lubianka in Moscow, or in the SS prisons, or Argentinian jails, or in the Maze, also acted on the principle of protecting the greater good as they or their superiors saw it. I don't buy it from them (nor has the judgement of history) and I don't buy it now.

Matthew Alexander, an Air Force officer directly involved with terror suspect interrogations, wrote a good book on the subject, "How To Break a Terrorist". Alexander used non-torture methods of interrogations with great success. In fact, one cooperative terrorist even told him that he was expecting to be tortured, but when Alexander didn't pursue that option, the terrorist then assumed that everything he had been told about the Americans had been wrong and he cooperated. The author also found another interesting phenomenon: the number 1 reason foreign fighters were flocking to Iraq were the abuses that took place in Guantanamo Bay and Abu Gharib. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups in Iraq.

Alexander's experience should demonstrate that we don't need to lose our humanity in the fight against terrorism.

It seems as if we find ourselves at a crossroads with the issue of torture. We are at a point where we need to decide if torture is something that can be considered justifiable and reasonable under certain circumstances, or is America really better than that. Truth be told, "enhanced interrogation techniques" as some would call it, has been used throughout history by despotic governments to cruelly punish or to extract politically useful statements from political opponents. Government's that use such tactics invariably bring shame onto themselves. These tactics were ultimately very damaging to the Bush Administration's political standing, both domestically, but especially internationally.

Information extracted under duress is extremely unreliable, which is why it's not admissible evidence in a court of law. Courts consider legally valid information to be given by someone of sound body and mind. Someone in excruciating pain or brought close to death by some barbaric procedure is not in any state of mind to give reliable information and certainly no actions should be taken based on such information.

For all these reasons, it is illegal under both US law and the Geneva Accords to torture prisoners. Waterboarding was not considered an exception to these laws during the Second World War. Japanese military officers used such tactics against US Troops during the war. After the war, we tried and executed Japanese officers for war crimes for using waterboarding. It's status as a torture method has already been decided by OUR courts long ago and the legal precedent is there. To look the other way now, when we do it, is the height of hypocrisy and it shouldn't be tolerated. Torture is illegal, no if's and's or but's.

The Obama Administration has reversed its position on releasing evidence of torture by the Bush Administration and we must ask why? A moral nation would have the courage to face the truth so it can abide by the rule of law. To look the other way implicates all of us, and of course, it would further radicalize people against our troops on the ground in the Middle East, thus making their task that much more difficult. Now we have the chance to limit culpability for torture to strictly only those who were responsible for these acts.

Now I should point out that not everyone who was given illegal orders to torture necessarily followed them. Many government agents understood that an illegal order must be disobeyed (true under both positive law and natural law--concepts lost in our post-modern haze), and they did so. The others who followed the orders must be prosecuted accordingly.

Our government's own actions and operations in torturing people, and in acting upon illegally obtained and unreliable information to kill and capture, are forces that are radicalizing people in both the Middle East and South Asia against America. It isn't our religion that's radicalizing people over there, nor is it the fact that we are rich and free. The fact that our government engages in such barbaric acts under the implicit backing of the people is what poses the greatest threat to American interests--and it must not be allowed to stand under law.

I'm a hedonist...not in the sense that I put my pleasure above that of others...but in that I believe that large decisions should be made based on the overall long-term perceived consequences of an action. I also believe that we shouldn't separate "torture" with "the threat of torture". When we see a video of an American denouncing America, they certainly were facing the threat of torture. Do we get reliable information from captured terrorists? Of course we do. Most recently, plots to level Chicago and L.A. were uncovered. I don't believe that there is any sane person who would deny they we are in a pre-holocaust predicament. There are some fucked-up people who are plotting, as we speak, to cause horrors on our soil. Who wants to look back, after the fact, and have to admit that "being nice" caused the "most good" only for the ones reveling in sending us back to the Dark Ages?

15 minutes of instilling fear and non-lethal pain in a handful of people intent on killing, versus the deaths of thousands of innocent people (American or otherwise) doesn't seem like much of a choice. What would you do if you caught the person who kidnapped a loved one. What would you do if you needed to find out where they were? Personally, I think I'd do whatever I had to do to extract that information. I'm sorry, but life isn't all about rating good movies and bad movies, to Twitter or not to Twitter. At that level, there are no threats.

Most Americans value a single human life. Most Americans live in a world where their comforts and security aren't threatened on a moment-by-moment basis. We live good lives. But, this is not how much of the world lives. Not knowing this is what makes us naive and vulnerable. Obviously, we have been close to disaster on more occasions than we will ever be told about. Why? Because there are people out there...people who understand the consequences of doing nothing...people we will never see on the news or read about...people who will fade into history with no one being able to thank them for our safety and comfort. The fact that we have only absorbed minor incidents since 9/11 isn't because "they" have decided to back off. If a threat of torture, or torture, itself, is required, then so be it. Personally, I don't place much, if any, value in the life of anyone who's sole purpose is to kill innocent people. And I question anyone who's priorities are so warped that they give more compassion to a terrorist than to his/her victims, or potential victims.

Never? No...not never...

If you cannot torture your own people under your constitution or rules or you adhere to NATO and the UN; then you should not do it at all. You cannot make rules up for your own people and then torture those who are your enemies! You become a hypocrite to your own rules!!!! Just because your enemy does it, does not give you the right to do it to others!!! It’s called human respect. I’m ex-forces and completely disagree with torture no matter how hard it might be because you want or need information. Hurting someone mentally or physically for your own means is inhumane !

First off I resent that the author of this quiz included that famous pic from the Abu Ghraib prison scandal as the profile pic for this quiz, insinuating that stuff like that happens at all U.S. prison camps. It doesn't.

I believe only non extreme methods should be used. The prisoners that were captured at GITMO and other prison camps, were tried for terrorism against the U.S. and are considered extremists. They live every day of their lives to plan out attacks and killings against any other groups of people/countries that do not share they're extreme religious views. Granted it was wrong, Agu Ghraib was still small grapes compared to what some other countries do to their captured inamates (beating, refusing food, avoiding the Geneva Convention ect). I dont consider "water boarding" an abusive form of torture either. Their have never been any casualties from using it. If their were, you would have heard about it from the media any way. Interrogating I believe is sometimes necessary. This whole torture issue only came in the spot light since Dems have gained more control of the House and Senate. Its a whole new ball game with them. Tranfering Al Quidea prison inmates to the U.S., and debating on weather to give these terrorists a fair trial are other examples of they're sympathy for inmates. Its pretty sickening. Even in the Clinton and Carter days, discussing interrogation tactics and trying to create new rules on whats considered torture and what isnt was never discussed until now. Again most of this is thanks to Pelosi and yes she was aware about the CIA using "water boarding" on some high level inmates.

It depends on the severity.

Research study after research study comes to the same conclusion, torture doesn't produce reliable information.  The person being tortured will simply tell the torturer whatever they want to hear in order to make the torture stop. 

Why is it that when we see an captured American soldier, aid worker or diplomat appear on video tape denouncing their own country we all KNOW that the person was simply caving in to torture.  But when we torture an enemy, what we get is genuine valuable intellegence?  that proves one of two things, we are rather naive, or we are way better torturers than our enemies.

Now, thanks to my time with the Marines a few years back I can imagine the tactical situations where beating somebody's ass might provide intel that could save my life and that of Marines under my command, but I still can't support using torture under any circumstances. Other reviewers have said you can't get reliable intel through torture and its true. How do I know? I know because I would try to give bad intel to an enemy if those bastards tortured me or my Marines. They tell us to say nothing because in three days all our operational knowledge is stale anyways, but I like to screw with people, personally, so giving out a little bad info that gets my captors buddies shot up sounds like a good idea. If it sounds good to me I can imagine it sounds good to our enemies. I'm also a bit too much of a people person to torture people and my extensive history of insubordination tells me I would have NO PROBLEM not following such nasty orders if they were given to me.

I would never have thought that in the USA that this would become in item of discussion, but here it is. This should not be allowed.

I understand in that twilight world of spy and counterspy, it is a dog eat dog world and different rules apply. I have also done oral histories from World War II vets, and especially in the Pacific Theater, different rules sometimes floated to the surface. I suppose the same is true in insurgency vs. counter insurgency warfare. Exigency often trumps formal policy. That is the way it has been and probably always will be. You do what has to be done to save a life or achieve some immediately pressing need.

That being said, it should never be official policy for regular uniformed troops or for regular law enforcement personel. If possible, the officer or official should immediately resign. If resignation is not possible, then resistance and subversion are wholly justified.

What is UP with this country? I thought that this country stoof for liberty and justice for all. I thought that we had the moral high-road over terrorists who would behead people. Apparently I was wrong. The United States tortures people. Have we gone so mad trying to capture the terrorists responsible for 9/11 that we would go back on our own American values? If that's the case, then the terrorists have won. If Osama and his cronies realize that they have so scared us to cause this country to circumvent its own Constitution and values, then they have achieved their goal of terrorism. I'm not saying that anger directed at the terrorists is unjustified. We definitely do need to stop these extremists from destroying this country and the ever-unstable Middle East. But torturing people, circumventing the rights established in the Constitution (Patriot Act), and claiming that ALL Muslims are fanatics is counterproductive. It could even ruin our chances of fighting the terrorists altogether. You can't seem to get a straight answer from this administration concerning our stance on torture. Bush and his people seem more interested in splitting hairs than answering definitively a simple question: "do we or do we not torture?" I said this to political cartoonist Chuck Asay, and I will repeat it here: it doesn't really matter if we aren't torturing people. The mere appearance that this country condones torture is enough to tarnish and perhaps even ruin forever the image of this country as a "good guy" in this war against terrorists. It doesn't help that our idiot of a President has vowed to veto a forthcoming anti-torture bill. The most ironic thing about this entire ordeal is the fact that the same people who think that we should use torture and the unConstitutional parts of the Patriot Act are the same people who whine about 'nanny government'! People in foreign countries and our very own citizens are probably wondering: what does this veto mean? Does Bush believe in torture? Why does torture tarnish our good image? Because the United States is supposed to be the "good guy" who stands for freedom and justice. Not torture. I think that contrary to what some people might say, those that are unhappy with the direction in which this country is moving are justified in their worries. I want the United States to win in this "war against terror". But at what cost - our Constitutional liberties? Our good name as a country? There are ways to win wars. This isn't one of them. The American people seem to know this, which is why Bush is finally coming out in favor of McCain's anti-torture bill. It's about time.

Torture is a term used frequently today to indicate extreme, sometimes delusional, often incoherent hatred for George W. Bush. Do you really believe that no prisoner in US hands, over the past (pick a number) 50 years has not been "tortured" for information? Nobody? Grow up. The current discussion is being conducted by partisans lashing out at the current (Bush) Administration. It's funny how quick they are to congratulate the training and preparedness of "Clinton's Army" for their accomplishments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice how singularly they attribute Abu Graib's prisoner humiliation and torture to Bush, but accord no blame whatsoever to Bush's predecessor. Like someone snapped their fingers and suddenly the Army is full of torturers. Right. The world changed on 9/11/01, my friends. We are engaged in a fight to the death with a new kind of enemy, and the rules of engagement need to be reviewed. Re-analyzed. Re-vamped. It is responsible to have the discussion out in the open, even though partisan cheap shot artists can refuse to show any restraint in criticizing their political opponents. It's easy to condemn "torture" (however YOU define it) when you're not on the same street as the suicide bomber. As long as your brother isn't the one who was kidnapped. Acquiring critical information from captured opponents is nothing new to America during wartime. The openness of the discussion is new but it is caused by the overwhelming hatred of our president, on the part of a small number of american citizens, who happen to be liberal democrats.

If someone had asked me a couple of years ago if we as a nation would be debating whether it's OK to torture people, I wouldn't have believed it. In my, perhaps naive, worldview, there could be nothing farther from our national ideals than the use of torture. And at a pragmatic level, I believe that torture doesn't work. Why? Because somebody who is being tortured will say whatever the torturer wants to here to get them to stop. And don't even get me started on how our use of torture reflects on our "spread liberty" message. And at a time when the country is crying out for leadership on this issue, all we get from the Bush administration is doublespeak and Clinton-esque word games. "We don't torture." (but we have our own definition of torture that permits simulated drownings, mock executions, and physical duress up to organ failure). "We will adhere to the laws of the United States." (But we have opened secret detention centers in scary parts of the world with different laws than ours.) When Congress passes the McCain bill 92-8 seeking to codify our treatment of prisoners to meet the standards layed out by the Military's own guidelines, the administration's response is to threaten a veto (its first veto btw), and to send Cheney around to browbeat and try and weasel a compromise. Isn't this one of those things that we shouldn't compromise on? Plenty more rants on the subject can be read (!Link Url="http://www.rateitall.com/i-408116-use-of-torture-in-interrogations-of-pows.aspx" Name="here."!)

I can see no honor in the use of torture. Even on the stance of basic human rights that it is an immoral act, it is also an act that is often futile and counterproductive. Not only is it a despicably inhuman act, it degrades and humiliates the one inflicting the torture as well as on the one who is receiving it. What are the guarantees that the person who is being tortured will have any information of value to give or for that matter the information is even to be trusted. Unfortunately we do live in a world where evil exists, this evil has a different face than before, zealots who even under the most extreme methods of torture usually ending in their death, still would refuse to give up any pertinent information, and have proven they are prepared to die to protect it. It is the lowest form of barbarism.~~~~~UPDATE: On a personal level when involving my child the desire to beat the tar out of someone who had harmed my little one, would have me blazing with white hot anger to masticate them and spit them out! Usually though, if someone is holding a child hostage, they are not without the child or there is a partner who is watching the child and it would probably cost the life of my child to do anything at that time. Anyway, I do see your point; life can have many variables if you look for them. However, I concluded that since the topic was under Politics with a subheading under Policies and after reading over the other reviewers comment that this list was pertaining to the torture of prisoners of war or detainees being interrogated concerning involvement in terrorism. On that basis I stand behind my words should never be used.

If our leaders are thinking this way I am afraid, plain and simple.

This is simply a foolish and dangerous position. We live in a world where evil exists, where others threaten us and our way of life. Essential to winning wars is the attainment of intelligence from those we capture. If denying them certain basic comforts leads to us gaining information that ends violence or threats more quickly it is certainly morally permissible. These scenarios are not as has been said by numerous people black and white and considering that the option to inflict certain discomforts or pain upon detainees needs to be reserved in accordance with their knowledge and the threat that could be averted. There is no moral inconsistency here. There are simply competing moral principles at hand. We should never directly kill innocent human life. Some have even gone to question my pro-life stances in the context of the torture discussion. But if hi-jackers once again got control of a 747 and were flying at the Empire State Building with an impact time of 2 minutes- would it be morally permissible to shoot down the jet and the 300 passengers on board? Of course. The action taken did directly kill innocent human life but it was a secondary action to avert the great disaster that would have occurred had we not. These moral questions are difficult and we can all disagree on what levels of action we would take but to simply dismiss any level of torture in my opinion is foolish. ****Update, Helmut I may have sighed but I don't think you've been reading George Soros... well okay maybe...LOL Actually, level headed people can disagree on the levels or torture- what can and can't be accomplished, what means we should take to accomplish our goals. My point was to discuss this topic by pointing out there are competing principles at hand. My point about the 747 was not to equate it to torture but to dismiss the notion that under all circumstances it is immoral to intentially kill innocent life. The distinction lies in the first effect of the act and second effect, dismissing your assertion that that the ends would therefore justify the means in some Machiavellian standard of ethics. I do not believe that is so. If my direct goal is to bring down the jetliner to save innocent lives then the act is moral and just even if the second effect is killing innocent human life. All the things you said are true to some degree, but they all have degrees- and that is the essence of this discussion.

That's right. Torture should never be used under any circumstances. It is wrong period. I don't think our enemies should suffer the same fate either. E.G: I don't think Saddam Hussein should be tortured because it's a violation of his human rights and it's simply not the right thing to do.

Although it does offer the same ends justifying the means situation, the 747 scenario is different from those involving torture in some very fundamental ways. Most of these involve the perception of threat. In the former case, we know the jet IS hijacked, and IS pointed at a building containing several thousand innocent citizens. The evidence of this threat is very concrete. As for the situation involving torture, how can we EVER be 100 percent sure that one person or any group of people can offer information that will (for absolute certain) save lives. This is where the moral dubiety rears its ugly head on both this issue and the issue of execution. I do not think it is possible for any human controlled organization to be absolutely certain about these matters and therefore I cannot justify giving them the powers of life and death over any individual. As for torture, I am not in the least against denying them basic comforts if the threat is clearly defined. However, as Lance states, we live in a world where evil exists. Unfortunately, the U.S. appears to be the only force that is willing (let alone able) to deal with some of the problems facing humanity and this scares folks. It scares the rest of the free world because they dont want to one day be on the receiving end of American misuse of that power. This presents us with a SECOND responsibility. Not only do we have to deal with the threats facing not just ourselves, but the rest of humanity, but we also have to be above reproach in doing so. Obviously it is impossible to make everyone happy and still protect national security and I am not suggesting that we pull out of Iraq to make Europe happy (Lance is probably sighing in relief at this point; he thought I'd been reading George Soros). What I am suggesting is that simply to make the fight easier for us we must appear in every way to be above the unconscionable enemy we are facing. If we can accomplish this, there will present themselves less obstacles not only because the others will be more likely to see us on the side of good, but because we have done what is right and (I believe) God will reward us for it.

Should never be used? Hate to say never. But if you use torture or look the other way to torture- you are no better than what you are fighting- period. If you can live with that, fine.