I call it "discomfort" because the "torture" that the United States is using is simply that--discomfort and inconvenience. Sleep deprivation? Dealt with it. It sucks. Monotonous audio? Ditto. It sucks too. Humiliation? Same thing. Everything the U.S. puts its terrorist suspects through, MANY more people have been through it, and most likely to a larger extent--it's called military combat training. You take somebody that's just been through the last two weeks of U.S. Army Ranger School and make them a prisoner in Gitmo, and it'll be a walk in the park.

There is no proof at all that tortured prisoners will say "anything" to make the torture stop--history has shown that if the guy doesn't know anything, that might be the case, but if he does, torture will get it out of him. And again, we're not just talking about grabbing somebody up off the street, this is for people who we know are involved, and we've already gotten legal permission to "interrogate" him.

You still haven't answered my question. Here, I'll just repost it word-for-word.

"Cloud 9, you would rather the "rights" of a known terrorist be protected, against torture, discomfort, even humiliation (which you so wrongly think is a breach of human rights), than thousands of innocent civilian lives be saved by the information that the terrorist or terrorist suspect has?"
(In other words, which is more important, a terrorist not being tortured, or thousands of lives being saved? It's a yes-or-no question.)