The question the pseudo-practicalists ask is always the wrong one. They ask, “Does torture work?” and are able to show that sometimes it does.

The better question is “does it work better than non-torture interrogation?” The answer there is resoundingly no. Sympathetic interrogation is always at least as accurate and as fast. More importantly, the asset is usable later while an individual broken by torture can no longer be trusted in any fashion.

Then there’s the strategic issue. Being known as torturers gives your opponents morale. It gives them a reason to resist. It makes opponents less willing to surrender, for surrender leads to a fate worse than death. Those who might have been ambivalent now fail to support you, and sometimes even move against you. Bluntly, it increases our casualties while making our effort more difficult.

I would hope the moral position would need no defense.

On tactical practical, strategic, and moral grounds torture is the worse choice. It aids our enemy and weakens our own resolve where it does not make us what we profess not to be.

We’re f’in Americans, we don’t f’in torture.