# Torture is Most Likely Very Effective **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 23, 2009, 2:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098 "2009-04-23T14:22:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/181 "2009-04-28T15:20:11Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > How do you know what “the majority” hold? I would presume that if the majority of interrogators in the US felt that torture was effective the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency would not report as follows (below) to the Senate Armed Services Committee. (bolding mine) > [@](#): > > **OPERATIONAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO THE USE OF PHYSICAL/PSYCHOLIGCAL COERCION IN INTERROGATION** > > This discussion is not intended to address the myriad legal, ethical, or moral implications of torture; rather, this document will seeks to describe the key operational considerations relative to the use of physical and psychological pressures. > > \ > > Conceptually, proponents envision the application of torture as a means to expedite the exploitation process. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time consuming conventional interrogation process. **The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate intelligence. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.** (NOTE: The application of physical and or psychological duress will likely result in physical compliance. Additionally, prisoners may answer and/or comply as a result of threats of torture. However, the reliability and accuracy information must be questioned.) > > \ > > As noted previously, **upwards of 90 percent of interrogations have been successful through the exclusive use of a direct approach** , where a degree of rapport is established with the prisoner. Once any means of duress has been purposefully applied to the prisoner, the formerly cooperative relationship can not be reestablished. In addition, the **prisoner’s level of resolve to resist cooperating with the interrogator will likely be increased as a result of harsh or brutal treatment.** > > \ > > The key operational deficits related to the use of torture is its impact on the reliability and accuracy of the information provided. If an interrogator produces information that resulted from the application of physical and psychological duress, the reliability and accuracy of this information is in doubt. **In other words, a subject in extreme pain may provide an answer, any answer, or many answers in order to get the pain to stop.** > > \ > > CONCLUSION: **The application of extreme physical and/or psychological duress (torture) has some serious operational deficits, most notably, the potential to result in unreliable information.** This is not to say that the manipulation of the subject’s environment in an effort to dislocate their expectations and induce emotional responses is not effective. On the contrary, systematic manipulation of the subject’s environment is likely to result in a subject that can be exploited for intelligence information and other national strategic concerns. > > SOURCE: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/JPRA-Memo\_042409.pdf](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/pdf/JPRA-Memo_042409.pdf) (PDF) But hey…since the people who wrote this probably never attached electrodes to some guy’s nutsack what would they know? They simply must just be making all this up and handing it to the Senate. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/182 "2009-04-28T15:20:37Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > How do you know what “the majority” hold? My irony meter is now broken. I will be sending you a bill for its replacement. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/183 "2009-04-28T15:38:40Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > What makes you so confident that the experts that you cite who talk about “torture guarantees people will talk” actually tortured correctly, per your definition that torture done correctly makes people give accurate information? A good number of those who you are citing worked for regimes that were notorious for plain and simple abuse of political enemies. That’s true. There’s no guarantees of everything. But as I’ve noted before you can play that game both ways. A good number of those cited as disputing the effectiveness live in societies in which torture is widely regarded as abhorrent. > [@](#): > > Also, still waiting for an answer to my question about whether the John McCain confession of being an air pirate is an example of a successful interrogation. Reread the thread. Start with the OP. > [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I would presume that if the majority of interrogators in the US felt that torture was effective the Joint Personnel Recovery Agency would not report as follows (below) to the Senate Armed Services Committee. It’s frequently the case that an agency’s policy and views, as expressed in memos, reflect the judgment of the senior leadership rather than that of the majority of members in the field. In fact a lot of people on your side of the argument seem to be saying this is exactly the case in this instance, WRT the CIA’s position. In this case, the ones who disagreed with the memo were “military psychologists in the SERE program”, who sound like guys with both expertise and (most likely) hands on experience. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/184 "2009-04-28T16:13:48Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > It’s frequently the case that an agency’s policy and views, as expressed in memos, reflect the judgment of the senior leadership rather than that of the majority of members in the field. In fact a lot of people on your side of the argument seem to be saying this is exactly the case in this instance, WRT the CIA’s position. Really? Hmm…here is the assessment of torture as handed out in the CIA’s KUBARK Manual from your PDF link in the OP (p. 133) > [@](#): > > The KUBARK manual offers unique and exceptional insights into the complex challenges of educing information from a resistant source through noncoercive means. While it addresses the use of coercive methods, it also describes how those methods may prove ultimately counterproductive. Although criticized for its discussion of coercion, the KUBARK manual does not portray coercive methods as a necessary — or even viable — means of effectively educing information. > > SOURCE: [http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf](http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf) (PDF) > [@](#): > > In this case, the ones who disagreed with the memo were “military psychologists in the SERE program”, who sound like guys with both expertise and (most likely) hands on experience. And you’d be wrong on that count. > [@](#): > > Two psychologists in particular played a central role: James Elmer Mitchell, who was attached to the C.I.A. team that eventually arrived in Thailand, and his colleague Bruce Jessen. Neither served on the task force or are A.P.A. members. Both worked in a classified military training program known as sere—for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape—which trains soldiers to endure captivity in enemy hands. > > \ > > The agency had famously little experience in conducting interrogations or in eliciting “ticking time bomb” information from detainees. Yet, remarkably, it turned to Mitchell and Jessen, who were equally inexperienced and had no proof of their tactics’ effectiveness, say several of their former colleagues. Steve Kleinman, an Air Force Reserve colonel and expert in human-intelligence operations, says he finds it astonishing that the C.I.A. “chose two clinical psychologists who had no intelligence background whatsoever, who had never conducted an interrogation … to do something that had never been proven in the real world.” > > The tactics were a “voodoo science,” says Michael Rolince, former section chief of the F.B.I.'s International Terrorism Operations. > > SOURCE: [Rorschach and Awe | Vanity Fair](http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/185 "2009-04-28T16:53:50Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Reread the thread. Start with the OP. Look, you didn’t f-ing address John McCain in the OP. You made vague allusions to torture not resulting in truthful answers being torture misapplied. I’m asking a specific question. One would think you could debate in good faith, hold your own views, and respond in a coherent manner. Is John McCain signing a confession of being an air pirate an instance of an effective torture? ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/186 "2009-04-28T17:10:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Hmm…here is the assessment of torture as handed out in the CIA’s KUBARK Manual from your PDF link in the OP (p. 133) I don’t understand what your point was with this. Please clarify. > [@](#): > > And you’d be wrong on that count. I don’t think that necessarily follows from your quote. The whole SERE program was not about conducting interrogations. It was about training soldiers to withstand interrogations. I don’t know if anyone in the SERE program had expertise conducting interrogations, since that was not the function of that branch of the military. The point of that quote, and one of the primary points of the entire article, was to dispute the appropriateness of the application of SERE tactics to terrorist interrogations. If you want to say that the SERE program shouldn’t have been brought up to begin with, your argument is not with me, because I’m not the guy who brought it up. Kobal2 brought up a memo from the SERE people and said that even the SERE people agreed that it’s ineffective. So I responded that the military psychologists in the SERE program disagreed with this. In sum, these two people had relevant experience in the context of the SERE program. If you think SERE experience is irrelevant, then you need to accept that WRT the memo itself, unless you have other evidence as to what type of study and experience formed the basis of its conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/187 "2009-04-28T17:28:36Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The old “attack the motivations” gambit. OK, well for my part, I would suggest that you yourself want to base your conclusions on these “experts” because they _just happen_ to favor your position. You are the one who chose to exclude any information that did not come from sources of which you approved, (chosen for their agreement with your position). If you do not like that, next time, don’t start a thread in which you attempt to set rules that are designed to favor only your outcome. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Your source does not support your claim, which now appears to have been made with no basis. My source provides a significant amount more information than does your abstract. That would such statements as > [@](#): > > Consider the case in York, England, as described by Keith Thomas (Religion and the Decline of Magic). At the height of the Great Hunt (1567-1640) one half of all witchcraft cases brought before church courts were dismissed for lack of evidence. No torture was used, and the accused could clear himself by providing four to eight “compurgators”, people who were willing to swear that he wasn’t a witch. > [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > Nor does it support your new and bizarre claim that torture was not being used in seventeenth century witch trials. A claim, of course, that I have never made. What I pointed out was that your little abstract, (cited to show that some people actually believed themselves to be witches), referred only to discussions, held near the end of the period of witchhunts between accused witches and prosecutors, in which the witches were portrayed as willingly participating in the discussion–not the act of a tortured person. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/188 "2009-04-28T17:39:18Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > [However](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/24/AR2009042403171_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2009042403231)So the position you cite was not anything like a concensus of the SERE people. Actually, we do not even know what the position of the SERE psycholgists might have been. The story notes only that the “logic” (of a long and many-faceted paper), was disputed by some (undefined) number of SERE people, without identifying which arguments were actually in dispute. So, when vague references are made to undetermined disagreements with unidentified numbers of people, you dismiss the official statements as lacking in substance and when statements are published for which we have no evidence of disagreement, you dismiss them as the whims of “senior leadership.” _How conveeenient._ ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/189 "2009-04-28T17:59:17Z")
> [@tomndebb](#): > > You are the one who chose to exclude any information that did not come from sources of which you approved, (chosen for their agreement with your position). If you do not like that, next time, don’t start a thread in which you attempt to set rules that are designed to favor only your outcome. The fact that rational and logical rules favor my conclusion adds to the strength of my position, and does not detract from it. > [@](#): > > My source provides a significant amount more information than does your abstract. That would such statements as That’s a misleading use of the quote. That quote was contrasting treatment of accused witches in church courts with treatment of witches in secular courts **during that same time period** - they say that there was little torture in the former but a lot in the latter. That you attempt to pretend that it supports your claim that there was little torture at all during that time period is highly misleading, but not surprising, in light of: > [@](#): > > A claim, of course, that I have never made. This is a false statement. > [@](#): > > What I pointed out was that your little abstract, (cited to show that some people actually believed themselves to be witches), referred only to discussions, held near the end of the period of witchhunts between accused witches and prosecutors, in which the witches were portrayed as willingly participating in the discussion–not the act of a tortured person. Actually that’s not what you said (although I can understand you wanting to back away from it now). Regardless, your new version is also untrue, at least as regards this abstract, which says: > [@](#): > > While some women were forced to make confessions, others seem to have done so voluntarily and in almost all cases there was some degree of collaboration between interrogators and those accused. So it’s pretty clear that both were taking place at the same time. > [@tomndebb](#): > > Actually, we do not even know what the position of the SERE psycholgists might have been. The story notes only that the “logic” (of a long and many-faceted paper), was disputed by some (undefined) number of SERE people, without identifying which arguments were actually in dispute. I don’t know if you’ve been following this thread, but in subsequent posts it was noted from other sources that these two guys are thought to be the main designers of the interrogation techniques actually used, so your speculation - highly dubious and a stretch in context already - turns out to have been incorrect. > [@](#): > > you dismiss them as the whims of “senior leadership.” This is also a false statement. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/190 "2009-04-28T18:03:21Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I don’t understand what your point was with this. Please clarify. I am saying we do not even have to look at who in the CIA thought torture was a good idea. Their own interrogation manual calls into question its effectiveness. > [@](#): > > The point of that quote, and one of the primary points of the entire article, was to dispute the appropriateness of the application of SERE tactics to terrorist interrogations. > > If you want to say that the SERE program shouldn’t have been brought up to begin with, your argument is not with me, because I’m not the guy who brought it up. Kobal2 brought up a memo from the SERE people and said that even the SERE people agreed that it’s ineffective. So I responded that the military psychologists in the SERE program disagreed with this. > > In sum, these two people had relevant experience in the context of the SERE program. If you think SERE experience is irrelevant, then you need to accept that WRT the memo itself, unless you have other evidence as to what type of study and experience formed the basis of its conclusion. You tried to use the military psychologists in the SERE program as expert sources with hands on experience who disagreed with the memo. Those psychologists are experts in running the SERE program. They are NOT experts, not even remotely, in interrogation and what works and what doesn’t in order to obtain useful intelligence. So, holding those guys out as support for the effectiveness of torture in gaining information is a non-starter. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/191 "2009-04-28T18:12:06Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I am saying we do not even have to look at who in the CIA thought torture was a good idea. Their own interrogation manual calls into question its effectiveness. OK. But the point I made and to which you responded was that sometimes policy gets set at a senior level and does not reflect the views of the majority of the hands-on practitioners with expertise. Based on your CIA example, I assume that you agree with this. > [@](#): > > Those psychologists are experts in running the SERE program. They are NOT experts, not even remotely, in interrogation and what works and what doesn’t in order to obtain useful intelligence. But the same goes for the SERE people as a whole. You can’t discount these guys based on your logic and then accept the SERE memo as proof that people with expertise say it doesn’t work. Either SERE esperience is applicable or it’s not. I’m OK either way. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/192 "2009-04-28T18:29:06Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > The fact that rational and logical rules favor my conclusion adds to the strength of my position, and does not detract from it. Is avoiding simple questions part of rationality? I suppose if answering various questions and acknowledging the expertise of those who disagree with you would lead to a discussion that concludes in your case being undercut, then yes, you appear to have rationality on your side. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/193 "2009-04-28T18:35:13Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > OK. But the point I made and to which you responded was that sometimes policy gets set at a senior level and does not reflect the views of the majority of the hands-on practitioners with expertise. Based on your CIA example, I assume that you agree with this. Of course lots of policy decisions are made without regard to the “best” way to do something. Politics, pre-conceived biases, other considerations and so on can change things. Happens all the time, particularly in the government and its agencies. It is pretty clear Bush & Co. wanted this so made their wants known and down the chain it went. Those who were resistant were sidestepped or replaced till they found the yes-men they needed (there are always some out there). > [@](#): > > But the same goes for the SERE people as a whole. > > You can’t discount these guys based on your logic and then accept the SERE memo as proof that people with expertise say it doesn’t work. Either SERE esperience is applicable or it’s not. I’m OK either way. SERE experience is applicable in that they are experts in torture without actually physically damaging people. What SERE instructors totally lack is actual interrogation experience. So far I see no case made that SERE people had reason to believe their torture methods would be an effective intelligence gathering tool. Maybe some of them _thought_ it would but they had no expertise to base that opinion on. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/194 "2009-04-28T19:41:01Z")
**Fotheringay-Phipps** , you will refrain from labeling every point of disagreement as a “false statement.” I disagree with what I consider your misreading of what I have posted, but I do not claim that your “interpretations” are lies. You will adhere to the same standard. ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 7:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/195 "2009-04-28T19:44:50Z")
I stand by my previous characterizations. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/196 "2009-04-28T19:47:30Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I addressed this at length in the OP. > > (In addition, I imagine a lot of the confessed witches were in fact witches. I believe you’ve confused your own disbelief in the power of witchcraft with the beliefs of the accused witches themselves.) You can tell, by the carrot on their noses, and they weigh less than a duck. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/197 "2009-04-28T20:06:19Z")
Exactly! And if you waterboard someone dozens of times, so that they ACTUALLY BELIEVE that they are really a terrorist, and give you all sorts of information then the torturing was effective. It does not matter if their information was made up, it is the fact that the BELIEVE the information was true that counts. Same as with the witches - it does not matter if witchcraft does not exist, and that Mary Smith did not really cause the neighbors chickens to die with a spell… If she BELIEVES she’s a witch, then she was one, and the torturing worked. That’s the kind of tortured (sic) logic that Mr. **Fotheringay-Phipps** is working with here. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 8:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/198 "2009-04-28T20:10:39Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > I stand by my previous characterizations. So you’re defying a mod (who, to be fair, has not put on his mod boots), and revealing that you clearly didn’t read the rules for GD. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2009, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/199 "2009-04-28T20:21:19Z")
> [@Fotheringay-Phipps](#): > > People have been claiming (at least by implication) that in this case the experts agree. > > You acknowledge that there are expert opinions on both sides, then we’ve made some progress already. Sweetie, some “experts” disagree the Earth is round. Are you, in fact, arguing that we can’t know anything and reality is entirely subjective ? > [@](#): > > How do you know what “the majority” hold? I would think that if a study concludes that the methods are not useful information gathering tools, the majority of the people conducting that study believe it is not a useful information gathering tool. That seems straightforward and logical. > [@](#): > > The old “attack the motivations” gambit. OK, well for my part, I would suggest that you yourself want to base your conclusions on these “experts” because they _just happen_ to favor your position. Cute. Especially when you still have to present cites of your experts, or even a simple example of torture used “correctly”. But hey, feel free to base your conclusions on your own predicates. > [@](#): > > Your source does not support your claim, which now appears to have been made with no basis. Sweet mother of God, my irony detector just blew up in my face ! ---
**Author:** ![tim314](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tim314/32/3468_2.png) [@tim314](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tim314)\ **Post date:** [April 29, 2009, 10:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098/200 "2009-04-29T10:58:14Z")
It’s sad that anyone even cares if it’s effective. Torture is evil. If we had a means to catch all the terrorists, eliminate our dependence on foreign oil, and balance the budget, and all it cost was that we dismember a dozen babies, would you do it? I hope the answer is “Screw that, let’s settle for the most effective _non-evil_ approach.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/torture-is-most-likely-very-effective/494098.md?page=11)