Wrong. A broke clock is ineffective. It's correct twice a day, but it is ineffective at keeping time. You seem to not understand what is being said or what the word ineffective means. I'm also still convinced you haven't really read what is posted.
No, a broken clock is effective twice a day. Where is Henry David to call out your semantic sophistry. You only have three options. I laid them out to you. Since you admit that torture sometimes works, you agree that it's sometimes effective. You just don't want to admit it, probably for political reasons.
What you seem to be missing in the "you'll say anything to stop the torture" bit is that the
first things you'll say to stop the torture are going to be truthful things, if you know them. Why would you even skip over that? Why would you pretend that, in the rush to blurt out anything you think the torturer wants to hear, you'd skip over the actual critical pieces of information that you have?
Again: it's weird. And these things you quoted? They don't contradict what I'm saying:
A former FBI man who interrogated an al Qaeda leader said Wednesday extreme techniques used by the Bush administration were "ineffective, slow and unreliable" and caused the prisoner to stop talking.
Ex-FBI Interrogator: Torture "Ineffective" - CBS News
Moreover, Zimbardo told LiveScience that torture is not an effective way to gather intelligence. Compared with police settings, in which detectives build social rapport and often get confessions without physical force, secret interrogation squads can alienate prisoners and elicit unreliable information, he said.
(For example, a Libyan detainee linked to al-Qaida falsely revealed under torture that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq — a key reason for the U.S. invasion of Iraq, Allen said.)
I already told you that building rapport was a much better option. That's what Zimbardo is saying. That doesn't mean that it's 100% effective, though, and when it's not, other options can be effective.
Study: U.S. Torture Techniques Unethical, Ineffective | LiveScience
But it's also true that "realists," whether liberal or conservative, have a tendency to accept, all too eagerly, fictitious accounts of effective torture carried out by someone else.
By contrast, it is easy to find experienced U.S. officers who argue precisely the opposite. Meet, for example, retired Air Force Col. John Rothrock, who, as a young captain, headed a combat interrogation team in Vietnam. More than once he was faced with a ticking time-bomb scenario: a captured Vietcong guerrilla who knew of plans to kill Americans. What was done in such cases was "not nice," he says. "But we did not physically abuse them."
All he's saying is he didn't use it. Okay, thanks. Neither did I. What does that have to do with anything, though?
Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
So 9 out of 10. Okay. So there's 1 out of ten. Or 4, based upon his later number. So them? They'll tell you anything. Including the truth. That's kinda the first thing, because they don't need to make it up: it's right there for them to blurt out.
The Torture Myth (washingtonpost.com)
After a contentious closed-door vote, theSenate intelligence committee approved a long-awaitedreportThursday concluding that harsh interrogation measures used by theCIA did not produce significant intelligence breakthroughs, officials said.
The 6,000-page document, which was not released to the public, was adopted by Democrats over the objections of most of the committee’s Republicans. The outcome reflects the level of partisan friction that continues to surround theCIA’s use of waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques four years after they were banned.
It might not have. Most interrogations don't. And then when you consider that a fraction of a percent of interrogations used advanced techniques, it's not really surprising, is it? But that doesn't mean it's not effective at the right time and place.
Report finds harsh CIA interrogations ineffective - Washington Post
Like I said, there are better sources in your library. Torture isn't new and has been well studied.
Of course there are better sources in my library, I have access to SIPR and JWICS. Torture isn't new. And it's been well-studied. That's why we know it's useful and effective in certain situations.
With your present views, it would be fascinating to know how you might have turned out if you HAD been watching all those years ago, listening to the sophistry and lies of Powell, Rummy, Dick & Dubya.