All through the classical period, all through the middle ages & the renaissance torture was used to gain information. It was finally abandoned because basicly if someone is torturing you then you'll say anything, admit to anything, to make them stop. So the worth of any information gained is zero. Need proof? Here's a quote from the Archbishop of paris at the time of the inquisition.
"...and the type of questioning that is used would make Saint Peter himself admit to whatever the questioner chooses. Then having gained such a confession the torturers feel justified in torturing their prisoner even further in order for him to name his accomplaces. They are then brought in & the whole perfidious procedure begins again. Can we not see that such "questioning" produces only false confessions from the accused to escape pain & damnation for those who inflict such suffering upon others?"
What a terrific thing it is to become so civilised that we would consider going back to the days when certain humans had no rights.
But what if people's lives hang in the balance you ask? I answer that 1) there are other methods beside torture [sodium pentathol springs to mind] 2) we see ourselves as justified in overthrowing sadam's reign because he tortured people. How then are we different if we do the same?

To suggest that torture is permissable to save innocent lives would suggest that in time of war it is permissable to torture Australian prisoners of war who may have information of pending bombing air raids. The enemy whoever it may be could torture aussie prisoners of war to save their innocent civilians from the pending air raid.

Quite clearly we do not want to expose our soldiers to the risk terrible pain and lifelong scarring and hence should prosecute all those that commit war crimes. The tragedy is that to fight for freedom and democracy it appears that we are willing to remove the very individual rights and liberties we hold dear. If we go down that path then the terrorists have won, because we have become them.

I supported the first Iraqi war but vehemently oppose the second. All that will be achieved is create a link between Al Qaeda and dissident Iraqis that never existed and would never have existed.

Furthermore all that will be achieved will be a shiite regime working closely with Iran. We will see a significant balance of power shift in the middle east that is hostile to the west. Whereas before they were divided and fighting each other both Iraq and Iran will become closer.

I think that terrorizing terrorists by torturing them sounds like poetic justice to me.

The main arguments against torture appear to be based upon the moral and the practical.

Some people say that torture is uncivilized. But I say that warfare is fundamentally uncivilized behaviour anyway. If if it is OK for us to slaughter hundreds of thousands of men with napalm and white phosphorous like civilized human beings, how is it not OK to torture a few Al Qaida low lifes to save a school full of our children from being raped and murdered?

Then there is the usual “human rights” argument which can easily be countered. It is a fundamental human right for ordinary human beings to go about their business without being blown to pieces by some religious fanatic who hates anybody that does not bow down to his God. The rights to life and liberty of men women and children, trumps the rights of terrorists to be treated with kid gloves when they are caught.

On a practical level, some say that torture does not work. But if it has always been a failure, then it would have been discarded long ago as an effective interrogation method. Obviously, it does have some merit.

I think that those who oppose the use of torture in The War on Terror are making two fundamental mistakes which have led to military catastrophe before. The first is “The Pearl Harbour Sydrome” whereby they simply can not imagine that a lethal and devastating attack upon their nation that could involve their own family will ever eventuate. It is easy to affect a morally superior posture when you think that the issue will never affect you personally.

The second is that they are unable to comprehend that this is a different kind of war where the enemy has the initiative and he is making the rules himself. If acting “civilized” is the only imperative, then we are courting disaster. The Lusitania was sunk because it’s captain insisted that no warship from a civilized country would fire upon an unarmed civilian passenger liner.

RedNeck
I am not fooled by the jargon that the Americans are using to describe the war in Iraq and the response from Fundamentalist Muslims.

To describe the military opposition in Iraq as 'insurgents' does not recognise that most of the opposition is a home grown Guerilla movement. The use of suicide bombers is an extension of the Guerilla tactics that displays the extent of their beliefs which is no different to Christians thrown to the lions, going to their deaths singing praise to their God.
And the killing of innocent people in 'Terrorist attacks'is perhaps no different to the Americans using white phosphorous in Fallujah killing innocent women , children and other non-combatants.
Do you really believe the Bush Administration is in Iraq to bring Freedom and Democracy ? Has George Bush been reading Mao's little Red Book ? Does he now believe that Democracy springs from the barrel of a Gun ?
The Americans have secret torture prisons all over the world in countries where Torture is practiced .
This quotation from Robert Parry, an investigative journalist and Author pretty much sums up the American way............

" ... the United States, for generations, has sustained two parallel but opposed states of mind about military atrocities and human rights: one of U.S. benevolence, generally held by the public, and the other of
ends-justify-the-means brutality sponsored by counterinsurgency specialists...... "

In a civilized society, Torture is not on.

There is a general view that 'suspected terrorists" are really bad people who, of course, are terrorists.
What if a suspect just happened to have the wrong look on his face, does he deserve to be tortured 'just in case'? This is what has happened in GT, Iraq, Afghanistan and many other places. The people taken away from New York were finally returned after being tortured or deported, even though they had no contact with any terrorist group, and purely did not fit the right image of pst 9/11 New York.
Villiagers in Iraq and Afghanistan have had horrendous things done to them, their families, and were forced to watch horrors being acted upon those they love, just to extract information. Many of these people knew nothing, and yet were guilty in the eyes of the Military, purely for living there. Of course, they will give names, anything to get out of the situation,. The names given were then the next lot to be tortured...... and the cycle continues. There are tried and tested ways of gaining information, and torture has proven itself to be a weak process.
One main reason that GWB gave for going into Iraq was the torture chambers of Saddam, these have only been replaced with USA run chambers.

As I said earlier, I would own up to anything if it meant I would be free of the pain of torture,. Not many are that brave, and I am no hero.

On the separate subject of Iraq, I believe that President Bush sincerely wishes to the Muslim world into the 20th century by grabbing a Muslim nation run by the usual murderous dictator and forcibly making them adopt democracy. Hopefully, this might finally get the democratic ball rolling in all Muslim nations. However much I salute President Bush for his initiative, I am personally opposed to the War in Iraq. I regard all Muslims as my enemies and I personally hope that their societies remain the stuffed up sheet fights they are. There is no profit in bringing successful civilisation to barbarians who do not want it anyway. And nobody has ever thanked the Americans for saving them. The French least of all.

Quite frankly, Muslims are not worth saving.

The fact that Americans are torturing Muslim terrorists is a good thing. The usual yardstick in the treatment of prisoners is a quid pro quo. That is, if you treat our captives OK then we will do the same with your boys when we catch them. But when dealing with men who invade schools and rape little girls, or who unashamedly declare that they regard all civilians are legitimate military targets, and even saw the living heads off journalists, then ferk ‘em. Get out the oxy acetylene bottles, boys.

According to one newspaper article which I read, beating the crap out of these lowlifes has already prevented a “second wave” of 9/11 attacks on the USA. If this report was true, then it is an endorsement of torture as far as I am concerned.

I hate to sound like a bad loser, but personally, if some Muslim terrorist succeeds in blowing me through the roof of my train carriage this morning, then as far as I am concerned, the US can torture the slime bag who did it to death with my blessings.