Torture should never be used for the purpose of extracting information.

I think that some confusion has arisen regarding the point I am trying to make about why this resolution cannot be affirmed. As of late, torture has been an overall ineffective method to extract information, regardless, a complete condemnation of torture for info. in every circumstance, as this resolution mandates, has the potential to allow for catastrophe to happen. It is not impossible to extract valuable information from torture, it just doesn't happen much, as far as we know. And if a situation arose where a person was known to have valuable information that could save lives, and this person was generally non compliant to less aggressive means of getting information, it is my opinion that it would be the duty of those who have the person in custody to torture the person, to give the governing organization a greater chance to save the lives of those who they govern over. Some quick responses: A. My point isn't that a government should torture ANYONE for information, but that a government or organization should not refuse to torture SOMEONE who has information that could lead to the protection of the masses the organization is entrusted to protect. I'm not saying that torture should be resorted to first, but in dire situations, it shouldn't be off the table. B. My point is that not everyone that works for an organization may hold the same opinions about their target as others. Likewise, all people have different limits to the amount of pain and suffering that can be endured, making torture an effective means to push people beyond their pain threshold, and get potentially useful intelligence. C. Not necessarily, the fight against terrorism takes place on a global battlefield, one suspect wouldn't be enough to crack the case. To counter terror plots, it takes a significant amount of resources and time. D. Ah yes, you used the "could" word. There is also a chance that the first person will yield real intelligence, and that potential cannot be ignored when the stakes are very high. I make no suggestion that a government ought to be torturing its own subjects, any organization that tortures people en masse probably won't yield as good results as an organization that is more sure of the people brought in for aggressive interrogation. The US Constitution applies only to those who live in the United States, so if the US government were to find a person whose information could lead to the protection of US citizens and interests, then torture should not be off the table, if less coercive methods don't work. Again, I don't believe that the government should have a Gestapo that works against its own citizens, or even one that regularly goes after people of other nations. But I do believe that torture cannot be ruled out as an option in a case where someone could provide an organization with seriously helpful information in protecting the organization's subjects. If torture is dismissed for all time, then the potential for life saving information to be gained in a last resort scenario is lost forever. Its not something that should be done every day, nay every year, but it cannot simply be thrown out for good, giving enemies of an organization an easier time in completing their goals. I present to you a hypothetical that I believe justifies the existence of torture for information in a situation that is somewhat unlikely, but not at all impossible from happening. Say the government of the People's Republic of China comes accross a Chinese citizen who works as a liaison between China and the US at our embassy in Beijing. His apartment is searched, and in it is found a camera that holds photographs of schematics for Chinese missile silos. The question that the Chinese government now needs to know is, "Who gave this diplomat strategic military information?" Wouldn't it be justified for the government to use every possible resource to find out where the leak is coming from? If the answer is yes, then obviously torture cannot be ruled out for all time, and if the answer is no, then the person answering the question obviously doesn't understand the security needed to run a rising global power in the 21st century.