John Oliver discusses torture

[Chuck Guiteau]

I would suggest rather:

1. Does torture provide a sufficiently more effective means of intelligence gather over more conventional means?​

It isn't enough that torture works or even that it works as well as conventional interrogation techniques. I'd argue that it isn't even enough if torture worked slightly more efficiently.

Most of us seem to agree that using torture is a bad thing, so torture would have to be significantly superior in gathering accurate intelligence in order to justify its use.

Torture works 101% of the time. This is what makes it a highly specialized tool in the intelligence community. It's also the problem with using it.
Used properly it can be very effective. Used improperly it seldom produces actionable intelligence and often does more harm than good.

Look back on Jimbob's post # 244, where he lists examples of torture that failed. Aside from the fact that torture was implemented at all, what do all the verifiable examples have in common?