on torture

Any psychological effects are unfortunate but every measure should be taken to reduce the chance of long term psychological trauma and to make sure that there is good reason to believe the person has the information in the first place.

Every country has examples of innocent people going to jail for crimes they didn't commit (A-Team lolol) and I'm sure those people had lasting psychological effects but we don't stop sending people to jail because we might be wrong.

Just to be clear I'm completely against rounding up people arbitrarily based on anything than convincing evidence that they are connected to an attack in some way, I would not tolerate torturing people because they are a certain race or because they happen to go to the same mosque as a known terrorist or whatever the case may be. Investigating, gathering evidence and implementing the interrogation techniques we classify as torture should be a science and approached impartially by competent individuals.

[ And what if the average percentage of people who commit suicide is put to that '100' people. So we now have (iirc it is around 2.8 percent) so 3 people killing themselves cause of that 'torture'? Was that one life still worth it? ]

Again this is something that I feel is more about careful application of the various techniques used and the proper steps that should be taken afterwards.

Innocent or not I don't want to see people killing themselves after torture so I would want a careful investigation into what techniques used are causing it and adjust practices accordingly to bring that number as low as possible, also I would want some sort of "after care" to make sure a person subjected to torture is mentally stable and is not likely to commit suicide.

[ So how many innocent have to suffer torture or you to NOT think it is all right? 2? 8? 1000? ]

I wouldn't really use a flat number to decide nor would my decision be to decide that its not "all right".

If it was turning out that a very high number of people were being subjected to torture that had no involvement then I would be calling for stricter evidence that indicated a suspect could provide information.

If you are asking how many peoples temporary suffering I think a life is worth though, it would be very high, certainly well over 100.

[ "The U.S. Constitution Amendment VIII:

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Yeah, those guys in the 18th century *shakes head* I wish they hadn't been so doggone sqiwmish. They could have thrown in an exception for "unless we really, really, really, need to torture someone" couldn't they? ]

I'm not American so not sure why your quoting the US constitution to me, I actually live in a true democracy.

As for suggesting that jail and torture have anything in common. I'd like to remind that people who go to jail get a trial. People who are tortured do not. People who go to jail can appeal the decision. People who are tortured can not. ]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that any measures that are currently taken or even ones I'd like to see in regards to torture would be as thorough as a trial I'm merely pointing out that we already subject people that could be innocent to long sentences that in my opinion are worse than torture and that the risk of incarcerating an individual who is innocent whether it be a jail sentence or torture is not reason enough to avoid the practice altogether

[ So, hypothetically of course, If I find out who you really are and call the Dept. of Homeland Security to let them know I think you may be aware of an impending terrorist use of nuclear weapons on U.S. soil you'd be cool with being picked up, waterboarded, beaten, sleep deprived, or worse (all without the benefit of counsel or trial) despite the fact they are operating on nothing but the hearsay warning? After all it's only temporary pain weighed against a possible nuclear explosion in a major U.S. city, right? ]

If the bolded part is the extent of your evidence then no I would not be happy just as I would if anyone was arrested/charged/convicted of a crime with the justification that "you think". As for the techniques you cited, yes I am fine with all of those if there is a real expectation that information gained can save lives.

False confessions can happen in any investigation and there are rules and procedures in place to identify them, I'm no expert in torture but I assume they work just as dillligently to weed out false confessions.