<i>I haven&#x27;t seen the movie and I don&#x27;t know what&#x27;s depicted in it, but I&#x27;m pretty sure torture can be morally justified in some cases.</i><p>It can be, as long as the perpetrator of the torture is willing to be held accountable for it.  In the stereotypical &#x27;24&#x27; scenario, what happens if you torture somebody and <i>don&#x27;t</i> find out where the bomb that&#x27;s about to destroy the city is hidden?<p>In a just world, if you save the city, the governor or the President will likely pardon your crime, so it&#x27;s all good.  If you don&#x27;t, you should go to prison for a very long time.  But it never seems to work out that way, does it?  It&#x27;s all upside for the torturer, no downside.  That&#x27;s about as close to the definition of &quot;evil&quot; as you can get in my book.<p>We see it in action every time we read about police who step over the line (as in your anecdote) or a berserk prosecutor who seems bent on setting an example or furthering his own career rather than seeking justice.  When it comes to violating peoples&#x27; rights in the name of Truth, Justice, and the American Way, there are almost never any consequences for failure.