I have a challenge for you.
Here is my logic, and if you disagree, then openly debate me on this. Just add details to your question.
What you consider "torture" is light treatment compared to the hell hole conditions these people would receive in their own countries. We have engaged in water boarding, but this leaves no lasting damage. Some of what has been referred to as "torture" is no different than a frat house hazing (I know, I've been there). We are treating these prisoners as one must necessarily treat terrorists. If they don't fight on behalf of a recognizable government, they should not qualify for Geneva Convention protection.
In stark contrast, our soldiers are fighting as if they had one hand tied behind their backs. Terrorists can kill at will. Soldiers are often instructed not to fire at all. They are like sitting ducks. Soldiers can't bomb an apartment building in the hopes of killing a few people they want to target on the third floor. Our soldiers are fighting honorably, taking great personal risk to avoid injuring civilians. The insurgents and the terrorists feel no compulsion to protect the non-combatents. Women, children, the elderly, the wounded... they're all fair targets for the insurgents. Hence, they do not deserve the rights a regular soldier would receive, who was fighting on behalf of his country.
Some people claim torture does not work. Well, as a matter of fact, it does.
However, we don't "torture" in the violent way the armpit countries do. We sometimes use methods of extreme discomfort, such as not allowing them to sleep, or forcing them to stand in the same position hour after hour. Anyone who has rushed a fraternity in college has gone through something just as bad.
We don't beat people and break their bones like Saddam did. We don't rape their women in front of the suspect like in the armpit countries. We use intelligent methods proven to elicit results.
The best of these by far is waterboarding. It cannot harm the subject. He has the sensation of drowning but in fact cannot drown. Since there is no permanent damage (other than having scared the beJesus out of him... or should I say, scared the beAllah out of him), he does not have to go through life with some nagging disability. Unlike the third world cultures, we did not yank his shoulders out of their sockets, beat his feet with until they are flat, or senselessly inflict pain.
Waterboarding is great because the subject does not have to be worried about reprisals from his people for having divulged information. People subjected to waterboarding WILL talk. They say even the toughest guy won't last 30 seconds. It is truly a frightening sensation to feel like you are drowning.
Afterwards, they are very compliant.
Since everyone quickly accedes, the terrorist does not have to be worried that his people will kill him for having given up vital information. They know full well that resistance is futile. Hence, it is really a kindness to the terrorist. He can speak with a clear conscience and not worry about future consequences back home. He leaves the interrogation a man with no physical damage and no prospect of reprisals from his comrades.
Sounds like a great deal to me.
Last word on this: a lot of people claim that torture encourages people to just say anything to stop the torture. However, when intelligent methods of extracting information are used, the information given can be quickly compared with what other terrorists have said. If the suspect starts giving false information, the threat of undergoing another session of waterboarding is so psychologically terrifying that the suspect may burst into tears, lose all inhibitions, and start "singing like a bird". He will tell the interrogators what they want to know.
And the best part is, he is not worse off afterwards, and many lives can be saved.
.
.
.
.
EDIT: So far, you haven't refuted one thing I've said. Perhaps you can not.
Think about this, and be serious: imagine you are responsible for keeping the U.S. safe from attack and espionage. But every single...EVERY SINGLE step you take is blocked by "do gooder" Libbys. You try to intercept messages and someone says you can't. You strive to have all the intelligence agencies pool information and someone uses legal trickery to say that is somehow not permissible. No matter what you do, someone has an objection to it.
How would you possibly prevail? Easy answer: you couldn't. Every potential avenue of success is blocked. You would fail, and possibly millions would die.
Once again, I CHALLENGE you to debate me on this.... unless you're scared, in which case you could just delete this question.