There is still much debate about whether torture has been effective in eliciting information - the assumption being, apparently, that if it is effective, then it may be justified.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
There's been a lot of experience with torture in history. It doesn't work.
Torture produces unreliable evidence and therefore doesn't achieve and protect anybody. Torture corrupts those who are doing the torturing.
If torture is going to be administered as a last resort in the ticking-bomb case, to save enormous numbers of lives, it ought to be done openly, with accountability, with approval by the president of the United States or by a Supreme Court justice.
President Obama was right to ban torture, but the public must understand that this decision carries a potential cost in lost information. That's what makes it a moral choice.
Torture is illegal, both in the U.S. and abroad. So - and that is true for the Bush administration and for any other administration.
Even if torture works, what is the point of 'defending' America using a tactic that is a fundamental violation of what America ought to mean?
I strongly disapprove of torture and have never and would never provide assistance in its process.
Torture fails to make us safe, but it certainly makes us less free.
While the notion that torture works has been glorified in television shows and movies, the simple truth is this: torture has never been an effective interrogation method.
The purpose of torture is not getting information. It's spreading fear.