A solider extracting information that will save lives? The answer is sometimes, yes
A police officer extracting a confession so he can claim to have solved the crime? The answer is still, sometimes, yes
A social worker ripping a child away from a family in order tom"protect" the child from possible abuse? The answer is still the same.
Funny how we hear so little complaints about that last example of torture, even though it happens so often.

You do so by making the price one terrorists, who are both illegal combatants and war criminals by definition, greater than they are willing to pay.

They should be givien two choices. Talk truth and die quickly, or die slow and hard and have your remains disposed of in a "culturally sensitive" way.
I view it more as punishment to make being legal comatants waging war against other combatants more than just a good idea, and more than just a survival imperative.

Anybody that knows jihadi psych, knows they will merrily blow themselves up or be shot, as long as they can take an enemy with them, but they will balk at a slow death and a desecrated body(interred in the septic tank of a hog farm, for example).
True "Cultural sensitivity," would hold their families responsible, and that would be even more effectiveagainst terrorism (the KGB in 80's Beruit, for how to get hezzbolla to leave your citizens alone), but that goes hard against my religious and cultural beliefs.

I think we can afford to be that much better than them, but out of respect for their civilian victims and all soldiers that to obey the laws of war, terrorists should be made examples of and given h*ll, whatever that is for them.

You left out the third choice.I.E. Who cares.

Torture frequently results in lies and even the "enhanced interrogation" has resulted in tons of problems in the War on Terror. When Osama bin Laden's limo driver cracked, he named dozens of people as members of AQ. They turned out be to be innocent. He was just giving names.

Torture's primary use has always been by despotic regimes such as the USSR to get confessions, not information. Professional interrogators never torture. I can't believe the poll has these results.

The victim will say/sign anything that will stop the agony. Only when the torturer already knows the truth, then only the truth will stop the agony.

What the left classifies as torture, meaning procedures that cause no permanent damage and are more psychological than physical can definitely be useful. The type of torture found in communist countries and dictatorships are severe enough to cause the recipient to say anything and everything in order to make it stop.

I think McCain is a patriot, great American and a true hero. I also know that he gave up the name of his ship, his MOS, his target, squadron number and sigend a document admitting to committing "war crimes".

I knwo that because he said it in his book.

Do we need two classifications for torture? One for self-incrimination and one for information?

I can't say I've given a lot of time to thinking about torture and when it might be acceptable. Growing up, I usually heard only about repressive governments torturing citizens who might be in a revolutionary group. Thus, they might be tortured to confess they belonged to a given group. In this case, a person tortured would likely confess to anything to stop the pain.

However, informational torture would be different. A group or government needs information and tortures for it. In this case, if the information isn't accurate and can't be verified elsewhere, only the truth will do.

If I had to guess, the first type of torture would not be effective but the second type might be.

Bush's biggest mistake in all of this was going to Congress and getting certain methods approved. Torture should always be something hidden, whether it's loud music, or fingernail removing. I have high hopes that this is what Obama hopes to accomplish; not really abolish torture, but rather convince the world that we have.