Al-Zarqawi's dead, and it's great news, but it started me thinking how great it would have been to take him alive.
The things we could have learned from him about his organization! Of course, he wouldn't have volunteered the information, it would have taken some persuading.

As distasteful as I'm sure we all find torture, certainly in some cases, like with this man, it would have been surely justified. I know if someone I had captured in battle had access to information which could save the lives of thousands, including many of his own followers, I would certainly be tempted to do whatever it took to get that information out of him. Al-Zarqawi certainly used the same techniques himself. I know there are many good reasons to reject such a policy. It loses us friends and allies, creates new enemies, and hardens our foe to refuse to surrender, even when overwhelmed. It invites the enemy to do it to our prisoners, and the information gained with such methods is suspect and cannot be trusted. It degrades and dehumanizes us, and it invariably is unwittingly used against those who know nothing and who may not even be our enemies; although they will certainly become enemies if they are ever released or escape. It is doubly hard when one considers that in a conflict of this type, where both sides have very different strategies, tactics and goals, the fact that one side rejects torture does not automatically mean the other will do so in return. One side may feel they can absorb it better than the other can, and will profit more by it than the other will.

I don't think the question as posed so far has a simple answer, yes or no, but the questions don't stop here. Sure, torturing this man would certainly have had enormous benefits, but where do we stop? Do we just torture enemy leaders? suspected enemy leaders? all enemy fighters? suspected enemy fighters? where does it end? If we commit to a policy of torture, we will need torturers, torture policies and rules, places to train our torturers, and places to do it, an entire infrastructure of torture. And we will need an organization to collect and distribute the information, and follow up by ordering more torture. It is inevitable that this type of work will attract the wrong kind of people, and no matter how hard we tried to avoid picking sadists, it's hard to see how anyone who didn't actually enjoy inflicting pain would want anything to do with this job. I really don't think Abu Ghraib was set up as a torture prison, but it wound up that way. Once torture becomes an accepted (yet unofficial) part of the program, there will be a strong motivation to cover up abuses, even when the authorities are convinced those abuses are counterproductive and hurting our war effort.

By the nineteenth century, European armies had tacitly agreed to a policy rejecting torture against men in uniform. They handled the problem of "enemy combatants" not in uniform by simply declaring them spies or bandits, and shooting them on the spot. But if we read between the lines, we know abuses occurred; think of Andersonville, and the Yankees had their camps too.

If I had to answer this question, I'd say no to torture. Under any circumstances. But I'm not really sure that is the right anwer, the silent voices of Al-Zarqawi's victims might not agree, and might point at me from their graves, and whisper..."coward".