I saw a poster, today, that asked the question, "When is torture justified?" The poster was clearly designed to imply that the question was rhetorical; that torture could not be justified under any circumstance. Somehow, intuitively, I felt that torture had to be justified under certain circumstances...or was it? Then it came to me: Torture would certainly be justified if one of my daughters had been buried alive by kidnappers and they wouldn't tell me where she was. I don't care how humanitarian you are, you could never convince me that I would not be completely justified in whatever I needed to do to save my daughter's life. To be honest, I don't think I would even lose sleep over it, afterward.
So, if it's justified in at least one case, is there a more general theory under which torture could be justified? I think the answer is, "Yes." Torture, as a means to gain information, is justified if there is no reasonable doubt that a person possesses, and is purposely withholding, information that could mitigate or eliminate imminent danger to one or more innocent people.
I realize that this is an incredibly slippery slope. That is why I chose my words carefully. I used "no reasonable doubt" to impose the same standard we use to determine if someone is guilty of a crime. If there was "reasonable doubt" as to the person's knowledge of the danger or how to mitigate it, then torture would not be justified. Also, if the danger were not "imminent," meaning "looming in the immediate future," then torture would not be justified. In other words, if a danger exists, but no one will be in harm's way for a month or two, then other means of protecting those people should be employed before torture is brought to bear. Finally, only "innocent" people could be protected using torture. People in the military, sign up to fight and die for a cause. Therefore, being in harm's way for that cause is what they expect. They are, by definition, not innocent.