Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

Thank you for presenting a clearly well thought out and reasonable debate. Thanks for also avoid major rebuttals, that small one I will ignore because I expected something like that and had prepare my own rebuttal. I also want to apologise for leaving this quite late. My main counter-argument to Pro is the fact that she or he (please tell me so I don't have to do this every time) has forgotten that these are only suspected terrorists. In the country that I live in, New Zealand, there are 24 suspected terrorists as released by the government as of 2014, two of which are under 24/7 surveillance (www.stuff.co.nz). Now if these 24 were confirmed terrorists, they would be behind bars for life without chance of parole (NZ doesn't have the death penalty) but instead, the Pro argument is that we can torture these 24, (possibly innocent) people for a confession. This leads on nicely to my next rebuttal. In the last point, my opponent says and I quote " 33% of extracting correct intelligence". Yes, that's all well and good but let's put this in perspective if Suspects A, B and C all say they are guilty, two of which are innocent but want to escape the torture and one is truly guilty, if this technique worked you should be able to tell me the two innocents and the guilty, but you can't and if you can, lucky guess. The truth is, yes, you can get 33% correct intelligence but you can't differentiate it from the 66% of false information. My opponent constantly referred to Hobbes stating that human nature is evil, and to that I agree, humans by our nature are selfish, sadistic, greedy bastards (excuse my French). That doesn't by any means permit breaking international laws designed to make our lives as good as possible. And my final rebuttal is less dramatic, just something that annoyed me when I read you debate. Pro stated "bomb or a bullet is going to cause significant amount of pain and trauma in some cases much worse than the pain that would be endured in a typical torture session". A bullet, assuming through the hand, the most painful place to get shot (www.quora.com), the pain is heavily suppressed by adrenaline until you can receive medical attention/ pain killers. A bomb is a different although similar story, assume you had a leg blown off, you'd know without a doubt you leg was missing but again the adrenaline kicks in and supresses the pain. Like I said, not dramatic, just annoyed me. Now onto my substantial argument: Terrorism, as we (should) know is not the way to go, killing civilians, destroying world heritage sites like Islamic State, and general terror tactics are all outlawed by international law. This debate, if boiled down to the roots, could be defined as "do two wrongs make a right?" as torture, regardless of the subject is outlawed internationally. I believe that torture is simply not the way to go, we are dropping our standards, morals and tactics to terrorism levels, and although we could be the five year olds and say "they started it", we should be the bigger man, take the higher moral ground and thus get the support of the general public on side with us against this war on terror. Furthermore, you mentioned the USA in your first paragraph so for the purposes of this argument I will use it, assuming you live in the US, you may have an advantage over me being a foreigner. Anyway, the US has signed and ratified the "United Nations Convention against Torture" (www.wikipedia.com + general knowledge) which means that they must turn their backs on this treaty which clearly stated in the article of "Ban on Torture"."No exceptional circumstances whatsoever may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. In other words, torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies". Not only that, but as I've stated before, is a breach of the human right "Freedom from torture". Meaning not only with the US be turning it's back on the "United Nations Convention against Torture" and the "Geneva Conventions of 1949", but also Basic Human Rights! Can you imagine the backlash by other nations as well as protests and riots from in the US. Trade embargos, travel restrictions, internal discontent, and those are some of the more peaceful outcomes, civil war or even a coalition of countries may attack the US. If you think this is a justifiable and solid solution to the war on terror, you must be mad, terror attacks would do less damage than letting the world attack you over dishonouring treaties. Looking forward to your rebuttals and main arguments. Your intro was very well worded and reasoned.