The definition of torture is: "Any act that causes severe pain or suffering upon a person intentionally, either physically or mentally, for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or another person may have committed. When such pain or suffering is inflicted by police or public official or other person acting in an official capacity." I believe torture is never justified. If you employ torture, the person being tortured will say whatever they think you want to hear in order to stop the torture, whether or not it has anything of the truth in it. The purpose of torture is terror, not information the torture is supposedly trying to gain. It debases those that use it. Especially if they are a supposedly freedom-loving, democratic, "righteous" nations. Torture of any kind is a barbarity best left to the dark ages. It does not work either, since eventually those who are tortured will say exactly what the torturers wish to hear just to stop it continuing. Although, the above has been my position for a while, after watching a few innocent people being be-headed by the ISIS terrorist in Syria and Iraq. I see torture the only weapon peaceful societies have to use against savages called ISIS. A case for torture? (My response to the case for torture) The Case for Torture article by Michael Levin published in Newsweek in 1982; it has started a firestorm of controversy between people who are for and against torture in many societies. However, I recommend that people read Levin's piece and give it some thought prior to reading my modest critique. Let me explain why in some cases some form of torture might be the only way to save many innocent lives. Example: A suicide bomber attacks an airport and one of his accomplices is captured. If he does not give information on a pending 2nd attack or any other information our government feels the need to know, torture is a liable option.