And what about the people who admit to things they haven't done under torture just to make it stop?

If enemies of ours believe they are going to be tortured when captured it is only going to make them fight harder.

another very valid point I wish I had thought of

A very simple question to the liberal softies on here. Like Guess W ho I believe that by any means possible terrorist attacks must be stopped in war and this is a war sadly but true innocents get caught up in it, this is not justifying it but stating a fact. The main reason for the war on terror was the 9\11 unprovoked attack by muslims hence the invasron of Afghanistan. If the terrorists think they may get tortured whether or not it happens the message must be clear anyone that thinks we should be analysing them are in my mind somewhat deluded if they think it makes us safer.

you started off by saying a simple question, but I can't see a question in there.

Re torture..

I once saw a television programme called "Karachi Cops". It was a fly-on-the-wall documentary following the Pakistani Police.

They had a suspected car thief in custody who wouldn't confess. So they made him stand with his arms outstretched and every time he lowered them he was struck with a riding crop type instrument.

Eventually he confessed and the "interrogating" officer looked at the camera with a wry smile and declared, "see, I told you he was guilty".

I nearly cried with embarrasment.

I agree with your summary but I don't think interrogators of terrorists are after that type of answer. I would assume that they want more detailed information that can be cross referenced and corroborated. The dangers are:
1) They try to force the answer that they seek.
2) The terrorists have pre prepared and deeply engrained fall back stories.

Interrogation is a science of techniques from the brutal and physical to the sophisticated psychological and "chemical". Interrogators have to be highly skilled to get true answers.

What you saw in "Karachi Kops" clearly fell under 1)

I think you've been reading the Daily Mail to much

AJ seeing as you asked what my question was which I appear to not have posted, quite simply in order to avoid a potential terrorist attack do you agree that all means possible should be used to get information if there is a suspicion that someone knows the information or to wait until an attack is done then criticise the security services for not acting on it in the first place.

I cannot believe the amount of folk that are way to lenient on terrorism its not a game folk get killed by the hundreds in attacks.

By the way I read the mirror it gives me something to reflect on

No.

Society has to have boundaries.

If you give people carte blanche to do as they like, then they end up becoming extremists themselves.

Torture does not work, it's counter productive.

So AJ you are prepared to have innocent folk killed because we should be nice to terrorists, no wonder we are seen as a soft touch, I agree to a point re boundaries but terrorists have no boundaries and should be treated with all tools available.

I have no qualms about someone suffering if it means for an example avoiding a repeat of London, Madrid bombings.

We might as well all just bend over to let the terrorists and followers well and truly shaft folk.

How do you know they are guilty?

How do you know they are a terrorist?

Cracking misquote by the way.

I suppose I also said we should give them sweeties?