Torture in Interrogations.

Firstly, i would like to be clear about the terms you are using; How one can name/define somebody as a terrorist, when informations are yet not available about him/her, or i am taking it too simply? If i am taking it simply and it is clear/evident that somebody is a terrorist, then it implies that information rather evidences are already available against him/her, so what's the need of torture to prove already proven matter? Do you believe that there would be no moral and legal implications, like violation of geneva convention and/or prisoners/detainees rights? While waiting for the answers, i think that US has capabilities and resources in place to avoid it. advanced information technology, specialized and skilled psychologists, intelligence network and processing, spies on ground, you name it, what US doesn't have to acquire information about someone. there is another problem, US has a leading role in the world and i think, the implications of some actions by US crosses the boundaries and effects the global political, economic and social scenario, what do you think? Psychologically, for many people, when the torture go pass the threshold edurance limit of somebody, one tends to accept even the crimes he/she hasn't committed just to avoid the torture, which is itself detrimental to judicial proceedings as, later, these confessions hinders the smooth processing of judicial system and work load increases.

i am sure they are doing it either way, legal or not, no one knows. but unless we know for real the person is a terrorists, other wise it just harming good people.