Because torture is illegal under international laws and is a serious violation of the human rights many people think everything about torture is horrible and evil which is true but would it ever be acceptable if torture was brought on to one or a small group of people in trying to save the lives of thousands of people? Would people be able to accept it times like those or would they still follow their beliefs on that torture is never acceptable at any time under any sort of circumstances.
Most of the torturing used today are by governments and organisations to gain information and intelligence on their opposing government or rival organisation. For example the United States allowed the use of torture as a way to gain intelligence after the 9/11 event knowing very well that torture is illegal and violates human rights. But they went on torturing the prisoners knowing very well what the consequences were. Dick Cheney Vice President of the United States at the time admits authorizing the use of dogs, removal of clothing, hooding, stress positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, waterboarding, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, use of physical coercion, and sexual humiliation as ways to gain intelligence. He readily admits using these techniques in interviews and knowing full well that the use of torture violates the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention on Torture both which the United States is a party to which President Ronald Reagan signed in 1988. One of the articles in the Convention read "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency may be invoked as a justification of torture. Torture is viewed as so evil under international law that it is granted universal jurisdiction which means any country can bring a case against a person who has committed torture regardless of where the torture occurred or the nationality of the person committing the torture. In every war information is a very important weapon but who would've thought that 10 years after the United States signed the Convention Against Torture they gave in to 'the dark side' as they said they would which was a terrible mistake because torture is never worth the cost.
I also believe that torture should be acceptable at time depending on the situation and the circumstances. For example, information has leaked that terrorist have planted a bomb in central New York which will go off in about one hour killing hundreds and thousands of people and the person who planted the bomb or one of his group members has be arrested and is currently held under U.S custody. As the government, would you just leave this prisoner alone safely behind bars while knowing that somewhere in New York a bomb is going to explode very soon but you can do nothing because there isn't any useful information to locate the bomb or evacuate the place because there won't be enough time to evacuate the whole city of New York. Or you could use whatever time you have left to try to get some useful information out of the captured prisoner like the location of the bomb, who was behind everything and maybe even how to defuse the bomb. By threatening or torturing one bad guy we can save thousands of innocent people, I really don't see how that is unacceptable in anyway. Yes torture is unacceptable if you use it as a response to things but putting one person in pain to save thousands, and even if that one person was torture it would be all his own fault anyway because there would be no need to torture him if he hadn't planted a bomb in the first place.
In conclusion i think that torture is unacceptable 99% of the times because it is a serious violation of human rights and every human being has their own rights but when it comes to things like saving thousands or even more lives by torturing a individual it should be accepted and appreciated by the general public because by torturing that one guy we might have just saved your life.
