Here's a good article on the subject: http://www.theguardian.com/science/the-lay-scientist/2010/no...
Then how do you explain this case in Germany where simply threatening torture resulted in the perpetrator divulging the location of his victim: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/10/world/kidnapping-has-germa...
In the case of Abu Zubaydah, in his first 2 months of capture he provided more information than at any other time. The "enhanced" torture techniques didn't start until about his 3rd month of detention.
In both cases, the threat of torture, among other future conditions that don't fall under the "enhanced" umbrella (simple solitary confinement, life in prison, unable to see family, etc) were enough to extract valuable information. Subjecting them to humiliating and physically brutal conditions did nothing. tl;dr: threatening torture can motivate people to divulge information, but performing it does nothing further.
simply threatening torture
The issue with the CIA torture scandal is that you have a bunch of guys who may or may not know anything. These guys are interrogated, and, probably, disclose everything they know. Then, the higher ups at the CIA, acting on the authority of Cheney[1] and Bush[2] required that the guys being held—who may or may not know anything more or at all—be tortured to extract more information.
At this point, the guys being held who may or may not know anything are going to start telling their 'enhanced' interrogators anything they can in order to stop what's happening to them. It doesn't matter if it's real or fake.
[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/sep/09/dick-cheney-def... (and it's important to note that the Senate report on this subject revealed that torture had nothing to do with the discovery of bin Laden's location.)
[2] http://www.businessinsider.com/afp-bush-knew-about-cia-tortu...
The Senate report has a revealing passage saying that
the statement of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed ("KSM")
"during his first day in CIA custody included an
accurate description of a Pakistani/British operative,
which was dismissed as having been provided during the
initial 'throwaway stage' of information collection
when the CIA believed detainees provided false or
worthless information". KSM was later water-boarded
(simulated drowning) 183 times, leading him to make
frequent confessions that later turned out to be false.
Another section of the report says that "KSM fabrications
led the CIA to capture and detain suspected terrorists
who were later found to be innocent".
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.
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?
The thing isn't that threatening torture occasionally works, it is that it generates false information just as readily. It is extremely unreliable and in the process it also turns you into something despicable. Nietzsche had it right when he said: Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
it is absolutely morally wrong, but it certainly can be effective and has been used throughout history. usually, things that don't work don't last anywhere near that long.
there are all sorts of reasons to oppose it, which of course I do, but saying it cannot be effective just isn't one of them.
Like the idea that people thought the world was flat:
When John McCain was tortured and was asked to give up the names of his squad mates, he gave the names of the front line of the green bay packers.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_life_and_military_career_...
Clearly torture is an effective way of getting useless information, you have no way to tell if the info is correct or not, and the prisoner has no incentive to give you the correct information.
People who were cooperating were still tortured, for no apparent reason!
(See the section on Rectal Feeding And Hydration:)
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-senate-is-about-to-releas...
So no, its just people being messed up. There is no logic. There is no reason.
The bottom line is if you have to resort to torture, too many systems have failed, and you have to seriously question the values you're trying to preserve.
(In the following, I'm trying to just discuss the technical aspects of this. When I ask if or suggest that something would be effective, it is not meant to imply that if torture can be made effective then it is OK to do it. The ineffectiveness of torture as currently practiced is just one argument against torture, and so if it can be made effective that still leaves the other anti-torture arguments intact).
Wouldn't this largely depend on what type of information you are trying to get and how much you already know? If you already have information that I know that you are not supposed to know, and I don't know you already have it, you can ask about that while interrogating me in addition to asking about whatever it is you are really trying to get. That should give you some feedback on whether or not I'm giving correct info.
Wouldn't it also depend on how many other people you are interrogating over the same subjects? If you are questioning me and several other people about a particular thing, and I make up something on the fly to get you to stop torturing me, my made up story might not be the same as the made up stories of other people, whereas the stories of the people who tell the truth will agree. Of course, we could all have been trained to expect to be interrogated over this, and all have consistent prepared lies to give. Your counter to that would be to try to capture and interrogate lower level people or people who were less directly involved so that they are less likely to have prepared stories to give.
I can believe that torture as currently practiced is almost always ineffective, but I suspect that this may be due to them relying on psychologists to figure out how to do it rather than bringing in engineers, scientists, and mathematicians and treating it as some kind of noisy and unreliable channel problem.