Johnny One Note (Prince): you'll never approach certainty in the real world -- has yet to disprove the efficacy of debating the absolutist position and, if that is decided for preemption, then how you go about titrating the circumstances under which torture not only would be allowed but required. I again recommend my recent questions as very helpful in clearing emotional if not mental baggage: Is torture qualitatively different from the horrors war imposes in normal course? If so, why? Please elaborate.
Certainly you, of all people Domer, can see the qualitative difference in bringing harm (whether psychological or not) to someone who has been detained, disarmed, and removed from any contact with his/her people and those on a battlefield who are still armed and part of an organised resistence composing a legitimate threat (to self or others).
Note that I'm not a great fan of warfare either, but in this case if I apply your logic Domer, the situation would be akin to capturing a high ranking officer of the opposing military. He may or may not know further battle plans and other useful information, but as an individual he is no longer a threat.
And Prince is correct about your hypothetical scenario. Sure, you may torture the guy, or as you indicated - send someone else in to do your dirty work and leave you with a less stained conscience. Or, you could dehumanize him if that helps make you feel better. Regardless, you have no idea whether or not what he tells you (if he tells you anything) will be true or not. He may say something just to make the pain go away. And, if he tells the truth you have no idea whether or not his cohorts will still act upon it, knowing you have their ringmaster in captivity and the entire plot is compromised. The variables are many for even the most formulaic hypothetical scenario.
