Since I haven't picked any up myself, or know anyone personally that has, or seen the accompanying evidence, it would be improper for me to comment. That would be conjecture on my part and I don't regard such things so cavalierly. If you are privy to that information, then I guess you know better. IMO though, you seem more prone to give the suspects the benefit of doubt than the agencies that captured them. Motive? Or lack of trust in the authorities? Interesting. The prisons would be near empty if we just asked the inmates if they were guilty or not. Could their be abuses? Possibly. Do western government agencies hold a monopoly on ethics in capturing suspects and handling evidence? Doubtful. If an agency turns over a suspect, with it's evidence to the US should we say "no thanks your probably lying"? We all know about the number of poor innocents that were released only to return to combat. If Pakistan really wanted to "punish" someone, would they really turn them over, knowingly, for a relatively comfortable stay in beautiful Gitmo? Of course you are free to present evidence.

I would like to say something...

CONFESSIONS aquired under torture ARE unrealiable... because the person being tortured will just confess to whatever the torturer demands of him just to make the pain stop. So anyone can be made to confess to being a terrorist via torture.

INTELLIGENCE (which can be used to prove that a person is really a criminal) aquired under torture is extremely reliable for the same exact reason. The person being tortured will tell you whatever you want just to make it stop. That means you can squeeze any INFO he is hiding.

What is the difference between the two? The difference is "after much torture that person admitted to casting witchy spells and as such we can execute him" vs "after much torture this person told us WHERE he hid the corpse, when we looked there we found the corpse, the murder weapon, and a video he made showing him murdering the victim, those are evidence A, B and C."

Lets put it in a more "modern" application:

EX 1 (improper use of torture): Under torture this person admitted to being a memeber of al quaida. - this is bad, because the person will eventually admit it to stop the torture.

EX 2 (improper use): Under torture this person named a few random people, we didn't investigate them, we just arrested them all and tortured a confession out of them

EX 3 (proper use): Under torture this person gave us the exact location of a hideout containing weapons and plans, he named some names. We carefully followed the persons he named, some have done nothing are still being followed, we suspect he just added names to the list of people he didn't like; also his claim that bin laden is hiding in X did not pan out. However some of the people he has named have been observed to go in and out of a warehouse, our operatives snuck in and found bombs and detailed plans of using them and those people have been arrested.

Well put.

Fine - but who gets to decide if they did the crime that they are accused of?  After a trial is one thing - before a very different.

Just because they are picked up doesn't mean they are guilty - even if they walk like a duck.

Note the large numbers of people released from the bay who don't face any charges at all and walk free in what ever country they now live in.

In dubio pro reo. Do you know what that means Nitro? Our legal philosophy is centered around the fact that you have to prove in court that someone is guilty and if you can't, that someone can not be punished. It goes all the way back to ancient rome. Do you really want to live in a world where people are tortured on the suspicion that they might be terrorist and without the prisoners having any legal rights granted to them? Due process is not just some liberal fighting slogan that one is best to ignore.

The inmates in prison had their day in court and were convicted by a jury of their peers after a trial, that is completely different than from locking someone up without a trial.

Torture violates everything, every single value the United States used to stand for. Freedom, Justice, Equality. Saying that those who comitted the crimes weren't falling into the category of humans that deserve to be treated according to those values puts you in the same category with Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and every other dictator that ordered millions to be killed. There is no proper use of torture.

I realize that the need to save lives can clash with nice sounding moral values that do not help you in the real world - but how far are you willing to go to preserve your ideals? The end does not always justify the means.

This is just a ploy on emotion and just because everyone says is right/wrong doesn't mean its right/wrong.

Everyone that's against torture here's a country you can go and protest in: Saudi Arabia. Why don't you all go and protest about torturing there.

While you're at it why don't you demand equal rights for homosexuals there.  Make sure if you are from the States or the U.K to tell all the 'nice' officals there that you are from the States or the U.K.

I'm sure you'll get the full service from them.

Everyone says it is wrong because it IS wrong. It has not that much to do with a ploy on human emotion but rather the fact that a person has moral value and can never be treated disregarding that value, like a thing. That is how human dignity is philosophically constructed and how it is interpreted in democratic western constitutions. Torture is not allowed in the US legal system for that very reason. If that weren't true, the US would be no better than Saudi.

Everybody knows that Saudi Arabia is not a country that respects human rights, but they sit on oil and thus everybody turns a blind eye. It shows the limit of praising the virtue of human rights when it is confronted by the harsh reality of national security and economic needs. But that does not mean what I said earlier should be mocked or that I was wrong. 

You words are confusing. If we apply your statement above there will never be another trial. There has to be a reasonable amount of evidence to have a trial, same thing in a war where the enemy doesn't wear a uniform.

This article is "what do US soldiers think of waterboarding terrorists". The pro-coddle prisoner advocates want to get into the semantics of law and what torture is comprised of. This is not my concern, as I don't view the methods used by the US as unreasonable, others are much better suited to answer those questions. But I'll play along for a little while.

What causes them to be picked up...bordom? Do you really believe the US says "we'll take him and him, but not him"? There has to be a credible reason. If it is later determined the prisoner is of no interest, so be it.

If you came home one night and found an unknown man in your house. Would you call the police? I'd hope so. How would you feel if the police just let him go after he said he had the wrong house? Wouldn't you want them to hold the man and check him out? Or would you just let him go. That would be the wrong time to find out some of your daughters underwear are missing. How would you feel now? Yeah, different story with terrorists, but the principle is the same with any suspect. Some ducks take a while to quack.

Your point? Roman Polanski is a convicted child rapist in the US, he fled before sentencing, and yet he walked free in France.

You appear to assume that as soon as a suspect walks into the prison at Gitmo, a water hose is waiting for him. That's not how it works. The prisoner is asked a series of questions which are verified. Witness and prisoner statements are reviewed (not much different from a fancy in court trial). Don't believe all the liberal propaganda you hear about Gitmo. If I were a prisoner, and had a choice, that is the prison I would want to go to.

Different prisoners respond to different techniques. Some will talk when treated friendly, some will throw excrement at guards no matter what. You are turning this OP into what you believe construes torture. I do not consider this torture, you apparently do. I would consider smashing fingers or toes, burning, electrical shock, etc. as forms of torture. Is water boarding, sleep deprivation, and rock music (I'd be saying turn it up) unpleasant? Sure, because that is what some prisoners respond to. If you want serious"torture" stories, talk to some US vets that experienced it first hand as prisoners. From what I've heard, 4 prisoners were water-boarded, out of over 400 prisoners. That's less than 1%. Sounds like our guys are using this method sparingly.

You know, I wonder what folks with views such as yours would do under certain circumstances. Imagine if you will - A group has taken a family member and video taped them blindfolded, with a knife at their throat, threatening to kill if their demands aren't met. In custody, standing right before you, is a person in custody with high probability of knowing this family members location. You ask him nicely and his only response is "That pig will be dead soon" with a big grin. But he has rights, better to let your family member die, than show the world how mean we are, even though we use the same techniques to train our troops. How would that make you feel? It's easy to be morally righteous when it's someone else's family isn't it? Need a real world example, ask David Pearl's father how he feels. The "man" that gave the order to kill his son is getting the show trial he wants in New York.

Observation -Funny how the left is the protector of a few hundred well treated prisoners in Gitmo, yet not a peep about Hugo Chavez locking up hundreds for disagreeing with his policies, and shutting down opposition media outlets. I wonder how comfy those Venezuelan prisons are? I guess those aren't on the tour route for visiting left-wing actors.

Do you think that waterboarding and other stress techiques should be applied when the US domestic police pick people up for crimes?

It has been argued that they are sub-human because they kill people therefore it is ok to waterboard them.  My point is that the waterboarding happens before they are found to be guilty of it. 

Principles that are the foundation of consitutional state law seem callous in the face of a personal tragedy like your example describes. But those principles are what make the US for example a free nation and still a beacon of hope and freedom for millions around the world. Unfortunately for this debate, the US is used as an example because of that and the apparent dichotomy of institutions like Gitmo that appear to violate all those principles. Creating the status of noncombatants to avoid calling them POW's exploited a loophole in existing law - it's sleazy.

Honestly, everybody would do whatever it takes to save family and loved ones - but that does not mean it is right or justified. The principles of a constitutional free democratic nation can not be bent for personal reasons or you'll have a state without principles and I doubt that you want that.

Chavez is a dictator that should be taken out - he is just bad for the people and did not learn the lessons of history about socialism and dictatorship.

Does it matter what I think? US citizens have rights and plenty to scream on their behalf if they feel they aren't getting them. What do you think of the man in Florida that raped and killed that little girl? How about the one in South Carolina? You better believe in my eye's they are sub-human. In every one of the pictures they flash of those little girls on TV, I see my young nieces faces and I have little regard for someone who would do such a thing. You don't have to like my definition of these creeps, I'm not bothered. I'd feel the same if you were the sobbing parent on TV mourning the loss of a child, my sympathy is not conditional upon it involving my own family or friends.

Information from water boarding, or any interrogation for that matter, must be verified. It amazes me to no end that people think they ask questions like "Are you a terrorist". Information obtained is cross referenced with other sources. If the story doesn't match, there is a problem. You can arm chair quarterback this topic as much as you like, but without knowing what information is being extracted or how, your point is moot.

But what about his rights? Wouldn't that be sleazy? The rules never seemed to be applied equally, do they?

The double standard I wrote makes me look like a hypocrite, doesn't it. But apparently the powers that be decided to adhere to said principles as Chavez is still around and spouting his nonsense and disappearing opposition politicians and troublesome journalists.

That wasn't my intent. Everyone up holds a double standard of some sort, IMO it's human nature, just like fear, vengeance, loathing and a whole host of emotions than can't be legislated out of the human condition.

Off topic- What does the US is "still a beacon of hope and freedom for millions around the world" crowd think about Obama saying basically that we are going to give these prisoners a trail before we execute them? Just curious. LINK and here  and again.