I did not have a specific ‘torture’ in mind but I suppose most are talking about waterboarding. Because of this, I have to agree with BFD. If the USG is flaunting it, then it is of little consequence in the scheme of things. I suppose I meant more like “do unto others as you would have others do unto you”, pretty simple really. But there needs to be a standard and that was the Geneva Conventions. Throughout history, torture has often been used as a method of political re-education, interrogation, punishment, coercion and much is state-sponsored. We are on a slippery slope here and need to think this out rationally is all.

I guess torture is ok then as long as there is what ... justification for it? I expected a lot more here too!

I think what people do is simply reclassify certain things and then they feel it is justified. What our government did was reclassify certain detainees as "unlawful combatants". The Military Commissions Act of 2006 exempts "unlawful combatants" from the Geneva conventions. Then of course there is the CIA and their so called "black sites". 

Then you have others who change the definition of torture to suit their needs. It doesn't kill so its not torture? Since when is killing someone "torture" and not murder (or maybe manslaughter,etc.) and maiming not maiming? These things are forbidden in the Geneva Conventions as well, but done so separately from where they forbid torture. 

As far as waterboarding goes it can cause lung damage, brain damage, and in extreme cases death. So it can maim and even kill.

If you were drowning and thought you were going die would that not be psychologically painful? That is what waterboarding is. It is an act used to make you think you are being drown.

I question whether torture is even effective. Beating people is all about fear and submission. Some people will say anything truthful or not. Maybe it works for some people but when you are promised your pick of virgins in the afterlife I tend to think lying, deception, trickery and other such mind games might be much more effective on people who seem to be inherently vulnerable to these things to start with.

There are several books on the market written by people who were involved in some of the more recent terrorist related interrogations. They talk about the psychological methods they use to get information out of some well known cases. Ali Soufan is probably the most widely known but I would suggest reading several sources.  Seems to me the "enhanced interrogation methods" as we have come to know them were proposed by politicians and private contractors not career FBI and CIA interrogators. Go figure.

I assume you are thinking about revenge not the collection of intelligence? Things like revenge and fear are very good motivational tools often used to rally the masses but the ultimate goal of the situation we face is not to seek revenge. I think you already realize that, so don't take that as me thinking otherwise.

I certainly want the gathering of intelligence to be effective at stopping future acts of terrorism, however I believe violence often does nothing more than just breed more of the same, and I certainly do not want an endless cycle of violence. I can find examples where certain people claim water-boarding for example was effective. Are they saying that to protect themselves for the decisions they made or because it is true? Was it to confirm already acquired information or not, as others claim? Why did certain government officials and agencies destroy documents regarding the matter if they are so convinced that what they did was right and justifiable? As one document destroyer stated....because the consequences of making this information public were far worse than the debate about just water-boarding. I believe that is very likely the case and don't wish to rehash old debate to point fingers but rather decide the best course going forward. What we did was an experiment and I suspect many things were learned from it. I do not expect the politicians or ideologues to admit where they were  wrong, I expect them to cover their own butts and egos so I tend to give more weight to information from others and sometimes just look at the politically motivated for instances where they inadvertently contradict themselves. What are the consequences of those actions? Was it necessary, and are there better techniques to achieve the desired goal which is not just preventing any single act of violence but to prevent the maximum amount of violence looking forward. If we want to teach people that something is not good for them or society, it is sometimes best to not do the very same thing you are advocating against.

That is a great guideline. Much better than "an eye for an eye". Some live by an "eye for an eye" and then end up with no eyes.

Boobz:  Black Ops are named that for a reason.  It is like sausage, we enjoy the final product but shouldn't watch how it is made.

Their moral compass is akin to this.....I deserve these rights but you don't. Governments and those who control them use their power to dominate and control others. These things are done in sanctuary countries because the governments and laws of those countries allow for such things. It is the big stick philosophy but which utopian government rules with a philosophy of national moral righteousness? Many of the people who actually control our government hate our laws and hate our freedoms. They like to have those rights and freedoms for themselves but many obviously think others do not deserve them as well. They like the laws that protect themselves but obviously do not like the laws that protect everyone else.