[hellgas00]

This is the case where there is without a doubt a definitive 'ticking time bomb'. Torture is usually used to illicit confessions, and in the case of the CIA they used it as a method to garner further information without knowing if the subject had more information to give. Say the guy in the article was just a suspect and didn't actually know where the person was, is it prudent to torture him because he might know something?

[maroonblazer]

Right, I wasn't arguing that torture was necessarily called for in situations where we don't know if someone has the desired information. I was more making the point that the idea that "torture never works" isn't borne out by the facts.

One could imagine a situation where, like this one, we DO know the person has the information. Add to that the 'ticking time-bomb' context and it's difficult to argue against torture.

Just to be clear, I think torture is horrendous and should be outlawed. But to say it should never be used is to fail to grapple more broadly with the complexities of collateral damage.

[hellgas00]

I see what you are saying, but I would have to guess that it's so very rare that the authorities know for sure that a suspect has information to give, that it is almost irrelevant to debate the scenario.

Not to mention, the use of the ticking-time bomb scenarios were used to justify use of torture by the CIA. Which entity determines if a suspect has usable information, to stave off 'improper' use of torture? If you can't trust the CIA to make a definitive call in that regards, why even consider torture as an option in any form?

[sitkack]

Turn it up to 11 and see if any more "information" comes out. Sounds legit.