Based on what I've read about the CIA's torture programs, torture IS ineffective as a means of questioning. In other words, if you say "Tell me where bin Laden

Based on what I've read about the CIA's torture programs, torture IS ineffective as a means of questioning. In other words, if you say "Tell me where bin Laden is or I'll hurt you" while hurting them, then they will, sooner or later, tell you anything they think will get you to stop hurting them. False information included. That's not how the CIA uses torture though. The CIA uses it like an extreme version of good cop, bad cop - but where the bad cop beats you or waterboards you. For example, today you can sit and chat with our friendly investigators who will ask you questions, talk over your answers, work things through with you and try to find useful and verifiable information. If you're unwilling to cooperate with these guys, we can always chain you naked in a cold dark room for the next 16 hours. I'm sure there are situations where torture would be an effective means of getting information. For example, if you were a member of a terror cell that had kidnapped a journalist and you were planning on beheading that journalist, and we were reasonably sure your email would include correspondence to your cohorts that might reveal where the journalist was being held - I'd bet I could get you to give up your email password by saying "I'm going to try and guess your password. Every time I get it wrong, I will burn you with this hot iron." That technique would likely get your password in a few minutes, compared to the days or months that would be required to get your friendship and trust, if that would be possible at all. Remember, the techniques Scharff used were used against Allied airmen. In other words, professional soldiers. The people being "interrogated" in American torture cells likely have a religious motivation against cooperation in addition to a political one. Furthermore, Scharff also used the threat of violence - per wikipedia: >Scharff described various experiences with new POW's (prisoners of war), outlining the procedure most of his fellow interrogators were instructed to use. Initially, the POW's fear and sense of disorientation, combined with isolation while not in interrogation, were exploited to gain as much initial biographical information as possible. A prisoner was frequently warned that, unless he could produce information beyond name, rank, and serial number, such as the name of his unit and airbase, the Luftwaffe would have no choice but to assume he was a spy and turn him over to the Gestapo for questioning. For Scharff, this technique apparently worked quite well This is similar to the technique I described above. Torture, or the threat of it, is used as motivation to get people to cooperate - not to force them to reply to specific questions. I think it's too easy to say "Not only is torture immoral, it also doesn't work." Common sense alone would suggest that torture will work in at least some cases (e.g. my email example). The practice of torture has many documented cases of success. A much harder, and more significant, moral question is - given that torture can be effective in some cases, should we practice it? To me, it depends on the specific circumstances and the stakes involved. I tend to think our ongoing engagements in the Middle East are not justifiable or a good idea. I wouldn't use torture, not because it might not be effective, but because I believe we shouldn't be there doing anything in the first place.