Two reasons why NO is the only answer to torture 1) The official purpose (unless we have since moved on to pure sadism) is to extract information. If you need to extract information, it means you do note have it. If you do not have the information, then you cannot even know that there is information. Hence allowing torture means, by definition, that you allow "unnecessary" torture. 2) Those who defend torture, or even worse who claim that torture isn't actually torture ("Heck sleep deprivation isn't that bad, I myself woke up this morning at 5 a.m. after going to bed at 1 a.m.") would not accept it to be done to themselves. Just to test this : suppose one of you travel to country X for tourism, wander too close to a military base (despite warning signs in country X's language), and get arrested - would you be ok with being sleep-deprived "for a few days", drowned "but just to pretend", beaten "mildly" and threatened, just to see if you are not an ennemy spy ?