Torture/Interrogation

[emphasis added]

First of all, you're narrowing the solutions of protecting your country. Who's to say there are other methods of protecting one's country... i.e. Stop invading other countries, help in lessening poverty, stop destroying democracies, stop getting involved on other country's affairs, or listen to what the potential 'terrorists' has to say...

If you want the country to be protected, you should learn what makes your country an enemy of an individual or a collective. And judging from everyone's conversation, they are probably talking about terrorists, and terrorist actions that could lead to massive loss of life.

Are terrorist goals just to take out as many lives as possible? Or are they doing it as a means to an end... like say... political ends. Terrorists didn't just target the pentagon (military power) and the WTC (western economy power) because it was easy to spot. They targeted them because they are symbols and tools. Terrorists often target symbols often associated as THEIR enemy... other than political ends, terrorists use terrorism to provoke fear, and make the target of the population irrational. It works.

More often, than naught, terrorism has been used as a last resort. If however, we have a medium for them to use, like say: the media... or a free media, then terrorist acts wouldn't be needed, and would likely be unsuccessful because they would alienate sympathizers who see that their voice could be heard. Attacking terrorists by using terrorist means (i.e. torture) would not only stop terrorism but enhance it. It would enhance it by creating sympathizers of terrorist cause.

On the other hand, could torture be justified, and SHOULD be used? I have to say yes, they could be justified, and in dire situations SHOULD BE USED! But only in SUPREME EMERGENCIES can we use such methods (whether or not it is helpful)... But dire, or SUPREME EMERGENCIES, rarely happen. Often times, terrorist plots are predictable (9/11 wasn't the first time WTC was attacked), so I don't see terrorist schemes as SUPREME...

Now, back to my point: is that the only way one can have one's country protected? Again, we have to look deeper. Terrorist use terrorism because they are THE WEAK, and are unable to lash out with awesome force, like say: coordinated JET bombardment. The only way you could reduce terrorist population is by reducing them of their sympathizers (their potential recruits), and that's by giving everyone a voice, and the opportunity to participate in civil life.

[emphasis added]

Let's say, slavery is an effective way to raise a business. Should we allow it?
Let's say, child pornography is an effective way to pump up an economy that had just a recession. Should we allow it?
Let's say, that hitting a child in the head when he's not listening as an effective way to teach discipline. Should we allow it?
Let's say, that the best way to raise a moral person is to tell him hell exists, and if he doesn't do anything good, he gets his ass rapped over 9000 times. Should we allow it?

A certain torture, in a certain event, in a certain circumstance can be justified. Nothing more. There is no moral value in torture in itself.

The logic of using torture in order to save thousands of lives, makes sense on its own, but if you apply it to the real world, you do not get a single consequence of "saved thousands of lives." You could get dozens of consequences. Like the consequence of "Suicide bombings increased as an attack against state-terror," or "abuse of torture and rape rampant on suspects, society decays" or "citizens throw sympathizes with torture victims and rebel cause." ..

now, does torture solve the problem of terrorism? (which I believe everyone is talking about.) No it doesn't. It only enhances it.

Torture reflects power. It's never about saving lives. Because if power was serious about saving lives, then they'd get to the root cause of anti-government sentiments. Instead they'd just up the ante by creating more hatred, and creating more terrorists.