America had no business using torture as a way of getting information.

Prior to my responding to your newer arguments, it's necessary to point out that you simply ignored reasons in advocating of Torture, or at least why Torture is not wrong. These are huge in this debate. Primarily look to Nietzsche's views on the end of a divinely-imposed moral order, which will be brought up later on. This is huge, for it guts the predication for moral objections. Second, you ignore another huge point in that once an individual violates the laws of man, they lose their claim to said laws. So, let's now look to your new reasons against torture. [Point 1: A governmental official at Camp X-ray speaking in regards to human rights violations among detainees stated, "if you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you're probably aren't doing your job…." Unfortunately this is the current mentally of our government; whatever the means as long as it has the desired outcome. Apparently this is also the view point of the American public. About.com did an internet poll regarding the use of torture and the results were surprising. There was a 65% approval rate for the use of torture. 49% of those responding said that torture was acceptable under any condition, 7% said torture was acceptable to prevent acts of terror and 9% were in favor it help prevent an upcoming act of terror. It is the role of government to protect those who cannot reasonably protect themselves or for whatever reason, aren't given a sufficient voice even if the majority believes otherwise. Segregation and slavery are prime examples of the government having to make decisions for the sake of a minority that are against the expressed desires of the majority.] This comparing is flawed for several reasons, first, look back to the Nietzschean philosophical standpoint, in that for the absence of the moral order, we must create new morals, with utilitarianism being the most readily apparent system. The greatest good for the greatest number, furthermore, the thoughts of those like John Locke, in that one who violates a major law of man loses their claim to this law. This affects terrorists or Slaves opposed a corrupt law, and Blacks in the 1960s, save for the initial speeches of Malcolm X, were peaceful in their obtaining of rights. Any notion that these are peaceful individuals is ludicrous. The only individuals that will say that are those who are in opposition to the current administration. Actual examination reveals detained terrorists, those with connections to terrorists, etc. Not Joe Shmoe. (Or Mohammad Shmohammed, you get my drift). The media has an extraordinarily high propensity for opposing the political right in most endeavors. Of course they're going to make our operations at Gitmo sound as awful as possible. It's what they do. You're only going to get, at this juncture is that the statistics of the background information on detainees is at best, inconclusive. [Point 2: There isn't enough oversight to prevent abuses. In addressing the Ninth Circuit Court, the government stated that "the detainees have absolutely no legal right to question US actions on Guantanamo." They further argued that Federal Court should have no jurisdiction. This would mean that the government would be able to seize and torture at will without sufficient evidence this action would provide beneficial or that the individual has the knowledge the government seeks. There would be no courts for any prisoner to appeal to. This reduces the US to the same level as Stalin, Hitler, Saddam Hussein and other bloody dictatorships. How can this elevate the US in the eyes of international politics and within its own borders? I am all for patriotism, but being patriotic does not mean we forgo reason and compassion.] This clearly ties back to a prejudice media. Next, though, that the detained individuals don't have the right to question the actions of the US at Gitmo. And...? As those imprisoned are not civilians, and insurgents or terrorists, their claim to law doesn't exist. Keep in mind, this has been addressed. Furthermore, you compare the US to Stalin and Hitler. This is ridiculous. Hitler, of course, was responsible for World war II in Europe, better known as the deadliest conflict in history, at around seventy-two million deaths, and that isn't including the Holocaust, the US is not, and will never be like Nazi Germany. Unless we start bombing our own cities. And as for Stalin, certainly not. He ordered officer purges with body counts of higher than the holocaust, again, a terrible individual that can not at the present, and will never be comparable to the US actions for preventing terrorism. [Point 3: Inflicting random pain will not get you the results you desire. An effective torturer must be recruited, trained and properly equipped in order to get the desired effect. There would also need to be basic scientific research on the most effective means of torture. There also would need to be guidelines established to say when this form of interrogation is appropriate and when it is not. Also needed would be some form of checks and balances to ensure that it is only used within established guidelines. It needs to be shown that the financial cost of using torture more cost effective than other established means of gathering information. I could not find one cited instance where torture has used to obtain valuable and useful information in the War on Terror that could have been obtained through other means. All of this would be a great expenditure with questionable results. With the war costing billions per day and individuals in this country going hungry, medical care and without shelter, can we morally justify the expense?] ...So those that torture are trained. I don't see where you're going with this. As for the cost-effectiveness of torture, of course you won't be able to locate information on its success, though you can see that our information gathering techniques are working, as we have averted all on-our-soil terrorist attacks since 9/11. You neglect a couple of pieces of information at this point. First, of course, is our media obfuscating all facts of the successes of the endeavors of this ministry. You'll only see the good works of the administration in foreign news. Second, is that it is republicans that are carrying out this task of torture. Also known as fiscal conservatives. They will not use torture if it is not a cost-effective method at gaining knowledge. Plain and simple. [Point 4: One also must consider the psychological, emotional and spiritual cost to the person conducting the torture. We all know the damage the stress of combat can do to an individual in combat as well as the psychological impact of accidental collateral damage to the innocent...(Running out of room)] We are not seeing those that carry out the torture with any sort of detriment. For an obvious reason: No terrorist attacks. For all of their actions, be they volatile to those making said acts, they find justification in that they are gaining necessary information to stop the innocent from death and destruction. The societal utilization has been answered, Nietzsche's TSZ, morals don't exist as we seem them now. [Point 5: The use of torture is a slippery slope. Wire taping and other devices used in the War on Terror are slowly being used against the American people....] Tell me, please, when wire tapping and other devices used for information gathering have negatively affected YOU. Can't provide any? Not surprising. The state has an obligation of securitization of national stability. Without means that contribute to said stability, everything is permissible. Our liberties only exist so long as we have an institution which ensures the existence of these liberties. Terrorism would most assuredly destroy this country, so using whatever means possible to stop the collapse is justifiable in every instance.