"If you talk, the people interrogating you will find and kill your children"
You don't value the information that someone else is protecting as highly as they do, so you assume that some level of pain motivation is going to make them share it because it would make you share it. But almost anything will make an ordinary person share information they don't value, because they don't value it.
Torture is literally worse then nothing, because you've wiped away the ability to engage in meaningful interrogation in the time you have. It is inherently adversarial, and humans are really good at fighting back against perceived aggression: this is such a problem that interrogation specialists spend a lot of time educating police and military on what not to do. "Good cop, bad cop" is actually exactly the wrong thing to do because the "bad cop" undoes the entire repore you've built with the subject because they throw their mental defenses back up.
The CIA really wants it to work, to the point that they lied to the producers of Zero Dark Thirty about how they got the intelligence that led to finding Osama Bin Laden...but that's not how they got it. They absolutely tortured that guy, but he had already disclosed the intelligence they needed before they did any of it.[1]
Torture is literally worse then nothing, because you've wiped away the ability to engage in meaningful interrogation in the time you have
Then I'll add a further complication to the scenario: all of those avenues have been exhausted. E.g., the torturer is a low-level cop, hired for his loyalty, bravery, and modest IQ. He is not a "good cop" at all, so the only tool he has is the proverbial $5 wrench. An interesting question is, having used the tool, what should happen to the cop if it succeeds?
They absolutely tortured that guy, but he had already disclosed the intelligence they needed before they did any of it.
I think I was pretty clear that I was condemning that. Right there with you. But I don't agree that there are no conceivable circumstances in which torture or mass surveillance is appropriate. They just don't arise very often. I wouldn't be surprised if they never have, outside of a Batman movie or Tom Clancy novel.
As for torture always being ineffective, terrorists often fail to live up to their stated ideals. Someone who plants a bomb may see it as a painless, instantaneous ticket to Paradise, but the chair he's tied to doesn't look much like a holy stargate or whatever, and the upset cop standing there with a wrench doesn't look like a virgin. It's unrealistic to assume that the cop's chance of success is 0%.
You don't value the information that someone else is protecting as highly as they do, so you assume that some level of pain motivation is going to make them share it because it would make you share it. But almost anything will make an ordinary person share information they don't value, because they don't value it.
Torture is literally worse then nothing, because you've wiped away the ability to engage in meaningful interrogation in the time you have. It is inherently adversarial, and humans are really good at fighting back against perceived aggression: this is such a problem that interrogation specialists spend a lot of time educating police and military on what not to do. "Good cop, bad cop" is actually exactly the wrong thing to do because the "bad cop" undoes the entire repore you've built with the subject because they throw their mental defenses back up.
The CIA really wants it to work, to the point that they lied to the producers of Zero Dark Thirty about how they got the intelligence that led to finding Osama Bin Laden...but that's not how they got it. They absolutely tortured that guy, but he had already disclosed the intelligence they needed before they did any of it.[1]
[1] https://time.com/3627694/torture-report-zero-dark-thirty/