To What Extent (if at all) Can We Torture for Information?

Extreme torture should not be used, because the information isn't always true, many people are actually innocent, and it is against the United States' principals. It is said that "90% of the prisoners at Abu Grahib were not guilty of anything" (Sullivan, 2005). When prisoners are asked questions that they don't know; the military can assume that they know, but will not believe that the detainees don't know. Then, the detainee is subjected to torture, which may be physical or mental, and left to think over having the "right" answer to give to the interviewers. In order to escape torture for themselves and their family, they will lie to get the questioners "off of their backs". What happens when they get a false lead that they think is true? What will they do to the informant when they find they were lying? What if they took valuable time interviewing someone and getting these fabricated stories when they should have been looking for those who committed the crimes? The United States stands for freedom and equality. We signed the Geneva Convention saying we wouldn't engage in "torture", but yet plenty of revisions have been made to change our involvement to be more "proactive" with suspected terrorists. If the United States stands for equality and freedom, let's try giving it to more than ourselves.