AFAICT, there’s no limitation that we discuss made up situations.
Do you agree with Torture of suspected terrorists whilst in the custody of an allied nation?
…is it ok to torture them for information? How about mild torture like sleep deprovation? Is that ok?
What do you think of torture and the treatment of military combatants?
However, most interrogations do not involve a ticking bomb scenario.
Of course it’s reliable - it has 5 significant digits!! 
From the cite below
The devaluation of rapport — that is, building an operational accord with
a source — as an effective means of gaining compliance from a resistant source
is in large measure the product of the misguided public debate over the role of
interrogation in the Global War on Terror, one that seems invariably to focus
on the “ticking bomb” scenario. The point can be safely made that for every
instance where a source might have information about an imminent, catastrophic
terrorist event, there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of interrogations where
the information requirements are far less urgent and the opportunity exists for a
thoughtful, systematic approach. In the case of the latter, the interrogator might be well served in designing an effective approach regime by asking himself/
herself, as recommended in the KUBARK manual, “‘How can I make him want
to tell me what he knows?’38 rather than ‘How can I trap him into disclosing
what he knows?’” 39 Operational accord seeks to effectively, albeit subtly, gain
the source’s cooperation and maintain that productive relationship for as long as
possible without betraying indicators of manipulation or exploitation on the part
of the interrogator.
Educing Information
http://www.dia.mil/college/3866.pdf
KUBARK Counterintelligence Interrogation
Review: Observations of an Interrogator
A major stumbling block to the study of interrogation,
and especially to the conduct of interrogation in fi eld operations,
has been the all-too-common misunderstanding of the nature and scope of
the discipline. Most observers, even those within professional circles, have
unfortunately been infl uenced by the media’s colorful (and artifi cial) view
of interrogation as almost always involving hostility and the employment of
force – be it physical or psychological – by the interrogator against the hapless,
often slow-witted subject. This false assumption is belied by historic
trends that show the majority of sources (some estimates range as high as
90 percent) have provided meaningful answers to pertinent questions in response
to direct questioning (i.e., questions posed in an essentially administrative
manner rather than in concert with an orchestrated approach designed
to weaken the source’s resistance).
Operating with a dearth of research in support of offensive interrogation
methodology, the writers of the KUBARK manual appear to have found
themselves in a situation not unlike that experienced by interrogation personnel
today. In essence, KUBARK’s coercive methods refl ected concepts derived from
research into hostile methods — government research carried out specifi cally
to help identify effective countermeasures — and then “reverse engineered”
selected principles to meet operational requirements.
In large measure, the abuses — alleged or actual — perpetrated by U.S.
interrogation personnel since the advent of the war on terror can be explained
(albeit not defended) by the very same dynamic. With interrogation doctrine
refl ecting little change from the 1960s and producing few substantial successes
in the current battlespace, commanders, operators, and intelligence offi cers have
sought an alternative. In considering options, it became readily apparent that the
experts in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) were the “only other
game in town.”
While offensive and defensive interrogation operations have much in common,
there are intractable differences. Defensive interrogation training is designed to
help U.S. personnel withstand the unique stresses of all manner of exploitation
— including the employment of coercive methods — to protect information and
avoid becoming pawns in an adversary’s attempt to generate useful propaganda.
To prepare personnel for this substantial challenge, resistance training seeks
to create a systematic threat environment to achieve “stress inoculation.” This
includes exposing trainees to intensive role-played interrogation scenarios. In
the course of many years of experience in such practical exercises, many of the
resistance instructors have become accomplished role-play interrogators.
However, there are three fundamental reasons why experience as a resistance
instructor does not necessarily prepare someone for service as an intelligence
interrogator. First, resistance instructors — portraying interrogators from potential
adversarial nations that have shown disregard for international convention on the
treatment of prisoners — routinely employ a wide range of coercive methods
that often fall well outside Geneva Convention guidelines. Second, although
questioning is an important element of the role-play exercise, this activity does
not reach the depth required in an intelligence interrogation. Third, resistance
instructors, though talented professionals, lack the training, linguistic skills,
and subject matter expertise required of interrogation personnel. In sum, the
employment of resistance instructors in interrogation — whether as consultants
or as practitioners — is an example of the proverbial attempt to place the square
peg in the round hole.
Despite the impressive success achieved by interrogators who have mastered
the skill of effectively establishing rapport with a source — **the celebrated
Luftwaffe interrogator Hanns Scharff**37 providing but one well-known example
— methods for rapport-building continue to receive relatively little attention in
current interrogation training programs. There seems to be an unfounded yet
widespread presumption that all persons inherently possess the skills necessary
for building rapport and therefore do not require any supplemental training to
hone this ability. While the KUBARK manual has gained a degree of infamy
through its association with coercive means, it also, in an interesting stroke of
irony, consistently emphasizes the value of rapport-building as an essential tool
for the interrogator.