Torture

In the recent past, there have of course been many accounts of wrongful torture that the US has performed. For example, the famous cases of Dilawar and Habibullah are, in my opinion, obviously unnecessary torture.
I think that torture is sometimes required. If important information is needed and only an enemy has it, chances are that they will not willingly give that information unless motivated through torture. Also, if one prisoner, say, is tortured in front of the other prisoners they will be more likely to cooperate. I’m not saying that I find torture to be a good thing or to always be necessary. I would definitely rather be killed than tortured or see my friends tortured. However, I believe that there are some cases where torture is right: the prisoners (assuming this in a war setting) would have to be warned first, given options, and have something that will help end the conflict faster and easier. That said, if the circumstance doesn’t at least fit those requirements, I would consider torture wrongful. If the US tortured people without first cautioning them (“If you don’t tell us A, then B will happen to you), then it is wrongful torture. If they didn’t give them options (“You can tell us A, give us B, or endure torture”), then it is wrongful torture. If they are torturing them for no reason or a reason other than advancing the position of the US, then it is wrongful torture. I understand that it leaves plenty of grey area to be debated over, but I think that, speaking in general terms, this is what I would consider the difference between reasonable and wrongful torture.