...then do you also support moderate and controlled torture of suspects of crimes such a being in a child sex ring, human trafficking, murder, rape, and so on?

There are many more instances of those types of crimes when compared to terrorist acts, and their impact can be just as devastating, in it's own way.

So, one would assume that if you endorse the use of moderate torture to question suspects of terrorism, then you would extend that to the other sort of crimes I mentioned, right?

We can pass over the moral debate completely, however, and just address the usefulness of torture. Why torture someone when it doesn't work?
The thing about torture is that people lie, it doesn't convince them to tell the truth. Someone under extreme torture will admit to doing whatever you accuse them of doing.
The most successful technique for extracting information is to befriend the person, it takes longer than torture but it actually works instead of wasting time getting fed false information. You convince them you are looking out for their best interests and you butter them up by giving them bits of freedom and promising them absolute freedom, money, etc. but mostly you just get people to do it who have a gentle demeanor, absolutely non-threatening but still have a manly presence, someone who exhibits a warm humility. A lot of police officers are like that, and anti-terrorism sections are trained to be like that when they need to be.
The US actually recognizes that torture doesn't work, but only applies that to its own people, not foreigners. It recognizes it (along with many other countries) with laws that prevent admissions of guilt from being used in court if they were "forced", so that whenever a police officer uses any form of torture or even just discomfort and obtains a result it just doesn't count.

Here's a quote from Maj. Gen. Geoffrey D. Miller, the American commander in charge of detentions and interrogations:

And the Washington Post:

Finally, here's a PDF document written by the Intelligence Science Board which explores the practicality of torture (or the lack thereof).

People often argue about whether it's morally right to torture people, but in order for that debate to matter it needs to be ascertained that torture would be effective even if 100% of people agreed it was morally right. People often claim torture is effective because they base it on their common-sense, which all evidence so far has shown is wrong.

a very interesting angle i've never seen previously.

but is it true? torture seems to be effective for jack bauer on '24'

can't you get a better set of smilies with this program or do i have to rely more on my bottomless pit of sick humor?

There's a suggestions category

there's some food for thought.

how much of the discussion in legislature addresses cost/benefit?

is there any or do they just argue the morality?

I'm not exactly sure, though one must assume that considering there has never been any conclusive evidence that torture produces reliable results that the answer is no, it's not considered in legislature.
The problem is that people use their common-sense to deduce that torture works, they think "if I was being tortured I'd tell them everything!" and maybe those people would, but they're not the people who are tortured, they have different mindframes. If you torture a random person on the street maybe you'll see good results, but if you torture someone who has devoted their entire life to destroying your oppressive and unholy culture (in their view) it just affirms their beliefs, makes them even less likely to tell you useful information. If you put in the effort to befriend the person, use good psychology to gain their trust, tell them everything they want to hear, make them love your culture and you, then they start opening up with truth.

your logic seems sound. i'm just not sure if you are saying that they are discussing the efficacy of torture or just the moral issues in legislature. please clarify.

if they decide that torture is ok, go ahead do it, at some point that cost/benefit question has to arise because they have to allocate funds to buy the tools.

personally, i'd start singing before they tortured me. i'd lie like crazy to protect whoever they were wanting me to squeal about though.

hope this little flurry has been helpful. gotta go blow my flute so i can have more than a pack of noodles for dinner. will check back later

This is the government we're talking about. You know, the large, over-inflated, incompetent thing I wouldn't rely on questions like that arising, especially not when people's common-sense is already validating it without evidence.

believe it or not they really do discuss that kind of stuff at least a little before they approve a multimillion dollar expenditures for a shipment of toilet seats at $35K/unit.

i haven't gone any deeper than skimming the press on this issue, so i can only speculate. i'm not intrigued enough by the question yet to take the tine and dig out the committee reports on my own, but if you send me links, i'll see what jumps out on the subject.

i do like to harass my congress people's aides though and i think i'll make a round of calls tomorrow and see what they say.