Are there situations when tortures are justifiable?

[Martinus]

Article 1 of Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment*:

1. For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

*Ratified by the US, Canada and all EU member states.

[The Brain]

Yes.

[Slargos]

Well that is a stupid question [and not only because of the spelling]. Yes, obviously.

[Viking]

Is this a question of morality or law?

[Martinus]

Is this a question of morality or law?

Morality, of course. If it was a question of law, why would I make a poll?

[Slargos]

And whoever voted no, what kind of murderous cretins are you?

Probably the same kind of idiots who think that "violence is never justified".

[The Brain]

"violence is never justified".

I wonder what the city fathers of Detroit would say about that.

[Zanza]

No, it's never justified. States and public officials should operate under deontological ethics, not utilitarian considerations.

[Berkut]

"any" and "never". It is a bit trivial to refute an absolute.

[Monoriu]

Depends on how torture is defined.  The definition in the opening post is not specific enough to make this judgement. 

[Valmy]

Depends on how torture is defined.  The definition in the opening post is not specific enough to make this judgement. 

Forcing somebody to read one of those 40 page threads where somebody argues with grumbler.

[mongers]

Well someone has to read my posts.   

[Razgovory]

"any" and "never". It is a bit trivial to refute an absolute.

Yeah.  I don't care for torture, but I can see times when it's justified.  For instance, if the prisoner is Marty.

[Neil]

Absolutely.

[Berkut]

Depends on how torture is defined.  The definition in the opening post is not specific enough to make this judgement. 

Doesn't matter how you define it, I can come up with a theoretical scenario where it is morally justified as long as you couch the discussion in terms like "is it EVER...".

Person A has a knowledge of a device that when detonated is going to crack the crust of the earth wiping out all life. It is going to go off in 1 hour. I have a remote control for said device that can shut it off, but I need the access code. My remote lets me know if the device has been successfully de-activated or not.

I have the person here in the room with me, with a variety of torture devices, however you want to define torture. The person will not tell me the code, because he wants to destroy all life on the earth due to being a little deranged, but we know he doesn't handle pain well.

So...the options in my hypothetical are

1. Do not torture them, resulting in the deaths of all life on Earth, including the person in question, or
2. Torture him, in which case we know he will break and tell us how to turn it off, saving everyone's life on earth, including his own.

The issue of torture is not interesting when you speak of "ever" "any" or "never". The issue of torture, "enhanced interrogation techniques", etc., etc., is interesting when you have to consider question like the spectrum of interrogation, when does pressure become torture, and under what circumstances is driving up the pressure justified?