No, no, no! Torturing anyone is simply not a viable option. To be perfectly honest, I'm disturbed by how many people have no problem with this.
First of all, let's just pretend that torture isn't horrible and completely immoral. We'll consider this a non-factor for this point. America isn't the moral authority in the world, and neither is any other single sovereignty. You can't just decide who's "good" and who's "unworthy" - who gets treated fairly and who is treated as an inferior being. Being an enemy does not equate with being evil, and I worry that American society seems to completely disregard this basic truth.
Now, even if America (or anyone else, for that matter) was the moral authority, what kind of "morality" would we be showing in torture? What kind of "morality" would we be showing in prejudice and treating other humans as inferior? Even if we assume that all of our enemies are evil, we would be complete hypocrites (and thus, not a moral authority) to treat them as being inferior.
Secondly, you're all forgetting what breeds terrorism in the first place. Poverty and radicalism play a major role, but hatred is the largest factor in its existence. Do you think treating their people as inferior and evil is going to cure any of these factors? You don't cure hatred with more hatred. Believe it or not, "fighting fire with fire" isn't the most sound strategy (ask a local fireman).
Furthermore, torture won't even work. Even if you manage to capture a knowledgeable person alive and manage to extract them from their protectorates, and even if you, by some miracle, manage to torture anything of worth out of them, what good is this against a mobile and (largely) unorganized force? Even if they do tell the truth (and, be honest, how likely is that?), that was the truth days, weeks or months ago - and it will only apply to a very select minority of the terrorists out there. What can we even use this information for? The detractions greatly outweigh the benefits (which are unlikely to begin with).
Many people say, "Well, it's worth it because we will protect/save more lives than we destroy," but is this true? We need to protect/save these lives in the first place because we have enemies, and using these methods will only create more enemies (which, continuing this vicious circle, will mean we need to protect/save more lives). Yes, you may actually manage to save a few lives in the present, but you're dooming or endangering so many more in the future by giving them more problems and enemies.
You know what saves lives? Peace. If you really hope only to save the lives of Americans, the best policy you can support is that which boosts strong international relationships - not international prejudice, hypocrisy and a superiority complex. Disarming or disabling an enemy may inhibit their ability to harm you in the present, but removing any desire to harm you at all will inhibit their will to harm you forever.
Now, to merge the concept of safety and "moral authority". There is yet another reason not to endorse torture. You see, the whole reason torture is banned to begin with is the result of the Geneva Convention. Many things were decided during this convention, not the least of which was the international illegalization of the use of torture (enter "cruel and unsual punishment" wording). We Americans also agreed to this doctrine in its conception, so I'll take this opportunity to emphasize the "hypocrisy" factor again.
However, I bring this up for a much more important reason. You see, our friends and enemies are supposed to obey the same doctrine that we do. Now, what motivation will they have to uphold these laws if we begin torturing POWs? Not only will torturing POWs turn the entire world against us, it will open up our soldiers (whom I think many agree are heroes) and even our civilians to the possibility of being tortured. Is this really "protecting" anyone, or is it just creating more problems without even solving the intended ones?
Honestly, this shouldn't even be a debate. Logic so thoroughly leans to one side, I can't even believe that there is actually even remote acceptance otherwise. I think neocons are largely to blame for this.
And, for those who don't know who neocons are, they primarily believe in isolating ourselves from the rest of the world, distrusting most of the rest of the world, and typically tend to treat the rest of the world as being inferior.
