Pro's & Con's of Using Extreme Interrogation Techniques?

The previous thoughts were quite right in suggesting that
political beliefs have much to do with this.  Some argue that extreme interrogation can
be a very precise manner of gaining intelligence and information.  This is the
fundamental position of the pro side.  It continues to extrapolate that if one knew that
a suspect had information that could stop an attack of some kind and time was of the
essence, extreme or "enhanced" interrogation techniques could be used to procure such
vital information, helping to save many lives.  On the other hand, there is little to
indicate that the more a person is beaten, the more valuable the information results. 
There is little to indicate that this is a direct correlation:  The greater a degree
that suspect is beaten, the greater of value information is revealed.  On many levels,
the suspect might simply be giving information that is useless in order to stop the
beating.  Additionally, some would argue that, especially in the American legal setting,
the 8th Amendment to the Constitution does forbid "cruel and unusual" punishment and
such techniques move law enforcement close to a precarious Constitutional line that
really should not be broached.  At the same time, there is a level of losing moral and
political stature when the nation that has long stood for humane treatment of even its
worst embraces techniques that go against such a principle.