Waterboarding and other torture methods are justified in the time of war

In terms of cases to prove my argument... Ali Soufan was a former interrogator, and according to the Telegraph newspaper, is quoted to have said 'Torture is not wrong, it just doesn't work.' We are also informed of how he believes that if he were able to 'interrogate another one or two of the most senior figures in al-Qaeda, he could have prevented 7/7, Madrid, and the Bali bombings.' Bear in mind that whilst sounding perhaps overconfident, this was a man, as the newspaper puts it, whose 'record of getting prisoners to talk when he left the bureau six years ago was enough to bring him into the notice of the director of the FBI, who labeled him the "future of the FBI."' In Soufan's opinion, somebody who knows the process of interrogation well, torture is not morally wrong, it just simply doesn't work. - So why would you chose to continue such brutality when doesn't even succeed in its aims? Utilitarianism, where the end justifies the means, falls apart if the means cannot even produce the end, i.e. information that may save lives. According to the New York Times, 'the C.I.A.'s lawyers wrote in a November 2001 memo that it would be easier to defend against torture allegations if the tactics saved lives'. Now these are individuals who's job is to constantly defend the Central Intelligence Agency no matter what, but even they believe that what it is doing is - never mind immoral - but not even successful. Again, there is no way to justify an act that not only does not work, but involves horrific mistreatment of many individuals as well. You say that the confessions required for Bin Laden's discovery did not actually come from Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who was tortured to the extent you mentioned, but rather someone whom we believe was not. I don't understand why you posted that because it benefits my argument: If somebody who has been water-boarded 183 times managed to endure suffering to such an extreme degree, over and over and over again when all they had to do was say a name, this almost proves that torture is not effective in the way that we would want to believe it is, and so it cannot be justified. Also, Shaker Aamer is an inmate of Guantanamo Bay and has been so for over twelve years. We are aware of some of the torture methods used in Guantanamo Bay and their horrific nature. We are also aware that Aamer has been held in the prison camp and tortured without conviction and without trial. This violates basic legal standards which many in the western world would probably take for granted: the right to a fair trial (Aamer didn't even get an 'unfair' one), and the principle stating that somebody is 'Innocent until proven guilty.' Both these standards exist for a reason, yet the mistreatment of many others like Shaker Aamer is an example of how they fall apart in these cases, and everyone seems to think its justified, because 'torture's necessary'. If Shaker Aamer had given a confession wouldn't he be released and charged? Wouldn't the U.S. want the world to realize that they were not in fact caging an innocent civilian, and so publish the fact that he was convicted? If this is the case, why is he still there today? Finally, coming back to morals, there is a good chance Aamer is not a criminal, has no associations with terrorism and is being tortured for crimes that he did not commit - to obtain information he doesn't posses. Torture is unjust for three reasons: It applies brutal treatment, it could target incorrectly, i.e. be used to extract confessions from the wrong individual, and it is very ineffective and so cannot be justified.