Doesn't that put the US invasion of Iraq into a different light?
Then I should've been more clear: I took the question to mean "state sanctioned" torture. I disagree with state sanctioned abuse. No nation should allow torture and should have laws that specifically prohibit it. As you agree, we simply cannot make a law that says: "If A and B, then C only if D happens before E, pursuant to F, G, H, and I."

If I caught one of the kidnappers you can bet that I would torture him until I got the information I was looking for. That's me personally and I would fully expect to go to jail if I were caught.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

I knew this was coming...

No, in my opinion it doesn't change anything.

First of all I don't believe Bush was actually too afraid of Saddam's "mighty wmd arsenal", and I don't either believe that the wmd were the main reason for the attack.

And on the contrary to your example almost none of the world leaders except for Blair shared Bush's faith.

Besides, torturing one man is not quite the same as invading a country.

But I don't want to get into another "what were the real reasons for operation Iraqi Freedom" -argument so enough of that.


Agreed, it would be an impossible task. And it is also almost certain that if a law sanctioning torture would be made, it would be seriously abused. Therefore it's also my opinion that torture shouldn't be lawful. There may be situations where torture could be used, but if it was lawful it would be used in situations that wouldn't require it.

And I would bet that everyone here, even the ones totally condemning torture, would use it in a such situation. So as was mentioned before, this is a complicated issue and it's difficult to take absolute positions with it.

__________________

But it shows, as I think you'll agree, that an action either predicated or couched as predicated on belief, rather than absolute certainty, is a dangerous game to play. Then we must question, as you have, whether the risk of being wrong and committing the act outweighs the risk of being right and doing nothing.
Like you, I don't want to get into this again, but I think it important to dispel this myth. As David Kay has said, "France, Germany, Britain and Russia all agreed on one central fact – Saddam Hussein had sought weapons of mass destruction and was believed to have maintained stockpiles of these WMDs." Even Iraqi generals believed it.
There may be situations where it would be desireable for the state to use torture, but IMO there is no situation where it should.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

Like I said, a difficult issue that greatly depends on the circumstances.

But I for sure wouldn't have attacked Iraq with the certainty that existed at the time.

Ok

I don't totally agree here. With a "24" type situation, or worse, I wouldn't be the one to say it is absolutely out of the question to use torture.

__________________

If we're still talking about strapping people to a chair and beating them half to death, that goes without saying. No state would sanction that. Still, Washington have considered implementing some kind of law similar to the Israeli model. They have a law sanctioning limited physical pressure, if it could prevent terror- bombings. But this would be problematic for the US, I think, because as far as I know the constitution demands that noone should be subject to "cruel or unusual punishment". So instead of openly sanctioning torture or allowing prisoners to be held without charges, Washington seems content ratifying international conventions, as long as there is no demand for inspecting the prison conditions. The latest example of that is the optional protocol adopted by the UN, allowing regular inspections by international experts, where four countries voted against it - Nigeria, Palau, the Marshall Islands, and the USA. The ratification of the US in the end, due to the protocol's optional nature, contain so many reservations that it could hardly be considered a ratification.
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/ca...ion-reserv.htm

So, the US clearly do not sanction torture, at least as far as the text in the constitution would demand, but the US do not want to be subject to regular inspections. At the same time, we know torture is used in US- controlled operations, but the state fails to put down any clear guidelines for it's use, or a definite condemnation. Perhaps the incident at abu- Ghraib will change that? Or perhaps this is a discussion they do not particularly care to have in Washington?

This also seems to be proven wrong, acording to the latest news.
It seems Rummsfeld signed a secret order, allowing the inteligence agencies both civilian and military, to use thougher methods of interrogation.
There´s a lot of sources claiming this, sources with high credibility and reputation. But the Bush administration isn´t having any.
If it turns out to be confirmed that Rummsfeld DID infact sign that paper, then he have proof that the use of torture is a State sponsored affair. At least under Bush´s rule.

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

I think torture is unavoidable. I very much doubt there ever was or ever will be a war where captured enemy officers, or personnel, are not "debriefed".
Say you're a unit commander tasked to assault an enemy position. One of your patrols just happens to have captured an enemy sentry who may very well know the strength and position of their defenses. Are you going to waste your mens lives or are you gonna ask the guy ?
War and torture go hand in hand, and that's it.

Maybe so.
But that means the Geneva conventions were a waste of time, doesn´t it?
If torture is an accepted fact, and practiced by every country, then there is no single nation with moral grounds to accuse others!
If everybody does it, then we can´t point finger to others because we are guilty of the same practice, right?
So, does that mean Saddam had the "right" to torture his enemies? Does this mean Saddam had a reasonable justification to conduct his torture sessions?
There aren´t diferent kinds of torture. There isn´t a "good" kind of torture, versus a "bad" kind of torture. There is no ambiguity in the act of torturing. It´s simple, clear cutted.
Just because torture is widespread and exists everywhere, it doesnýt mean we should stop trying to get it banned from our reality. It would be like excusing crime! Crime exists everywhere aswell, so, should we just forget about it and let it run its course unchecked?
Torture is a social deviation, and it no longer has a place in a civilized society. If it exists still, it means we as an advanced society have to try even harder to get rid of it.
As someone once said, "All that needs done for evil to succeed, is for good men to do nothing". Or something in those lines...

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

@Swamp-Thing

Well I agree with you, but a battlefield is not society. For that matter, I'm quite sure the military code of the US forbids the use of torture, and if it happens that US soldiers received orders to torture, they were quite wrong in following these orders. That's dereliction of duty, I think, since soldiers have the duty to disobey illegal orders.

Any torturer using the defense of the universal democratic rights and values as a moral endorsement is doing right. That kind of torturer exhibits a high intelligence and shows be socially favoured and promoted.

Other kinds of torturers indulging themselves in a lesser productive and efficient moral explanation are proven themselves complete idiots by not seeing that a superior way of getting away with anything exists.

Torture on the behalf of democracy must be favoured. Establishment of democracy can be made at all costs.
Any other kind of torture must be violently forbidden. The enforcement of that statement can include the torture of the infringeors.