Should the military be allowed to use enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding, to gain information from suspected terrorists?

Yes this is protected by the fifth amendment as the right to life, liberty, and property without due process

Enhanced interrogation should be allowed as well as psychological interrogation. These terrorists perform extreme atrocities on anyone, including innocent civilians. Our enhanced interrogation is child's play compared to what they do. This question should really be answered by someone under the threat of terrorism, or who has family of friends in captivity or otherwise affected by a terrorist act. You can pretty much guess what the answer will be 99.9% of the time.

We are the only country in the world that worries about being politically correct. If you go to any other country illegally and get caught, you will see horrible conditions, and not get any fair treatment. If you are believed to be a terrorist or spy in another country water boarding would be at the bottom of their lists. Other countries do much more horrible things like electrocution tactics, etc.. Yes torture is cruel, but how cruel is the planning of mass murder in the name of a religion. When you deal with animals that think a man, woman or child don't have the right to live because they don't believe in their ideology, well in my opinion the gloves need to come off.

no, this violates the 8th amendment

No, and prosecute those that authorized the uses of torture (waterboarding is torture according to the Geneva convention) including George W bush and **** Cheney

No. There should be a "bright line" between allowed interrogations techniques and anything that amounts to a war crime or crime against humanity. However, there may be discrete circumstances where there is a critical need to obtain life-saving intelligence, in which instance it is the theater commander and his/her staff's call if there is a need for crueler interrogation practices. If such actions are subsequently authorized, then the burden of accountability must fall on those who authorized such "extra-judicial" actions. If the solution saves lives and/or ends a threat, the issue of accountability may be rendered moot; if it fails OR it is learned subsequently that the threat, and thereby the enhanced interrogation measure was overstated, those involved must stand to answer for their crime.

I'm with Sam Harris. Torture should be strictly banned. In world-ending-nuclear-threat situations where torture seems the only path, the ethics of preventing mass death should outweigh the immorality of breaking the law and an individual's human rights. So... it should basically never be allowed.