The U.S should only use torture if they are 100% sure that the person they are torturing is the person they want. My reasoning behind saying this is what if they get the wrong man who doesn't actually know anything. They would torture him and if he answers it would be false information and you just ruined a man's life because you cut off 3 of his fingers. It is not morally right however, it is wrong to harm another human being no matter how minimal. Even if it is to save lives you cant really justify the harm of another human being according to natural law.
The history of torture is a long and rather gruesome road was happening as early as 530AD, when the great Roman jurists espoused the virtues of torture as 'the highest form of truth' Greek legal orator Demosthenes believed that 'no statements made as a result of torture have ever been proved untrue'.
In the 12th Century, officials in Italy and France, to become a source of authority in civil law systems, revived Roman law. In criminal proceedings, the accusatorial process was replaced with a structure of prosecution, which required the testimony of two witnesses or the confession of the accused as 'proof' for a conviction. In this way interrogation and torture to extract such confessions became enshrined in the civil law system (the law of the United States incorporates civil procedure).
In the 18th Century, the Enlightenment and the relaxation of civil law rules of evidence led to the evaporation of torture provisions in European legal codes. In 1764, the work of Cesare Beccaria, author of On Crimes and Punishments, became so influential as to lead to the banning of judicial torture in criminal proceedings Europe. Beccaria saw torture as a...