I'm not sure how you're able to define who deserves what. Most people assume some sort of normative ethical reality which we must follow. Can torture be reduced to a statement or two about ethics, or is it really that situational? If it is situation, then I think my objection still applies - how do you determine what to do in each situation? Also, how do you define torture?
well for informational purposes you could probably resort to some other solution, truth serum, intimidation to outsmart said person, an attempt to but not actually torturing someone. if all els fails then perhaps the ends justify the means. otherwise totally ridiculous and inhumane method of any reason excluding the info.
If you had thew opportunity tho save the lives of thousands of people and you needed to torture to get the information, do it, when to get the information you save thousands, but doesw saving thousands make what you did right, no it doesn't. Not just because of the law but because the rights that we have as humans.
Torture is the most useless system of intelligence gatehring ever. Any information gathered through torture probably isn't worth listening too, let alone acting on, because all it ever amounts to is the victim answering the affermative to the questions asked by the torturer. It's not the truth, it's whatever they can say to stop it. Which is so horribly unreliable.
Torture is also the laziest way of going about it. If you are an interrogater and have to resort to torture to get any answers, you fail at your job and should consider a career change ASAP.
