Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists

Do not misunderstand my argument, I completely understand that the topic is about suspected terrorists or I would not have accepted this debate. Lets also clarify what Con did not understand about my argument despite he thinks it is "clearly well thought out and reasonable." Con stated that my argument towards suspected terrorists in a New Zealand prison is that they should be tortured for a confession. I will point out that the given country has domestic laws that I would assume prevent government officials from torturing any and all subjects without any leeway. It does not take anymore than I would say grade school teaching to be able to differentiate between a war fought with soldiers (I will refer to terrorists that fight for their cause as soldiers) and intelligence officials and also counter terror operations conducted by police and the respective governments national police (In the United States case the FBI). Why should we make this distinction you ask? Because my argument that con read with much vigor never stated anything about domestic terror operations in fact the entirety of my argument was based solely on a "War on Terror" fought by a given governments respective military and intelligence services. How Con took my argument of our military and intelligence officials being allowed to torture in war times and inflated it to also include a respective governments national and local police forces ability to torture anyone is beyond me. Next it is wrong for Con to assert I said their is a 33% chance of extracting correct intelligence without providing proper context, this was said in reference to the study Con himself had presented. I am glad that though Con agrees with his own studies but lets look at how he frames it. "The truth is, yes, you can get 33% correct intelligence but you can't differentiate it from the 66% of false information." Con simply does not understand how military's and intelligence services work, does con for instance think in his example of three terror suspects being tortured that none of their information would be checked and deemed correct or incorrect information, why Con assumes that that a torturer would take information and just accept it as fact is illogical. Con also asserts that international laws should govern how countries defend and protect their respective citizens and interest, but Con uses the Geneva Convention and United Nations Convention against Torture, now either Con understands that these two examples are prudent too affect how a government acts against a given adversary during a war, and therefor should understand that his argument and mine have never included how a government in domestic instances should act, or Con was simply trying to lie about what I said and believe. Despite this I will accept the fact that as of now International law does in fact disallow torture even when a government has agreed to the Geneva Convention and the UN Assembly treaties and their adversary has not, but I will argue that this debate is not whether a government can torture terrorist suspect under given laws but if "Torture Should be Able to be Used on Suspected Terrorists" despite these laws and treaties. On to what my friend also stated, that freedom from torture is a human right. I completely disagree I will point to what I stated before that these specific people during this so called war on terror have lost all human rights during this time that they are captive to the given governments military or intelligence services even if they're an innocent. I say this because I do not value an individuals rights over the rights and well being of the country or the given governments interests. I also want to point out that apparently Con has not followed the news of the United States international relations because after the 2014 midterm elections, Senator Diane Fienstein of California released the senate intelligence committees report on the CIA's detention and interrogation program http://www.feinstein.senate.gov... which showed the extent at which the CIA had tortured individuals. Has the U.S. suffered a civil war? Has the U.S. suffered trade embargoes? Has the U.S. suffered astronomical "riots, internal discontent, and travel restrictions?" Or maybe based on what Con stated the U.S. has faced countless attacks by a plurality of the UN? No it has not and will continue to not suffer from the correct decisions of it's government because Con is on the wrong side of this argument. "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 dishonoring treaties." Sure if the world attacked the U.S. I would completely agree that a low scale terrorist attack would not do as much damage as the majority of countries attacking the U.S. but I have proven this is simply stupid, Con has made an assertion that the U.S. would face insurmountable aggression from "the world" maybe Con requires a history lesson on the role of the U.S. to the world because this would never happen. I will stand by all arguments I have made but I will not stand by and let my friend here distort my argument and put words into my mouth that I have not and would never stand by. I refer back to all my arguments I have made because Con has not rebutted my arguments. I hope though that Con has peace of mind and is not annoyed by my arguments again.