If there ever really were a ticking time bomb scenario, torture would be inevitable and almost no one would feel very bad about it.

Maybe. You're assuming an awful lot here, aren't you? You're assuming that we know with certainty that there is a ticking time bomb. Really, how likely is that?

Don't forget we had those famous FBI memos that people made way too much a fuss about, where some agents thought that a plan was imminent but investigations were stalled because of civil liberties concerns, among other things. (Also the wall between FBI and other intelligence organizations, and other laws.) Some agents thought that an attack was imminent, but we chose to follow the law rather than act on that intelligence. Why? Because we weren't sure.

Isn't this a much more likely scenario than the classic movie "we know there's a ticking time bomb but we don't know where?" We think that there may be a ticking time bomb or an imminent attack, but we don't know for sure, but we do know that if anyone knows if there is such an attack and if so, what it is, it's this guy. Couldn't we face that plenty of times, with guys like Zarqawi and others?

Intelligence is not 100%. What if, arbitrarily, we have good reason to believe on the basis of solid intelligence that there's a 50% (or 25%, or 10%) chance of an imminent attack, but we're not sure, but we have in our custody a guy who would know. Do you and Kevin believe that torture is "inevitable" then, and almost no one would feel very bad about it, and pardons would just happen, especially if that intelligence turns out to be wrong? I don't think so. Are people going to risk their careers on a 50%, 25%, 10% chance? I don't believe so either. Especially not considering how unforgiving the public apparently is on acting on incomplete information (especially when the best guess turns out to be wrong), and on how the public tends to support the government more when attacks happen and less when they don't.

I agree that there's no need for torture or near-torture with the vast majority of terrorist prisoners who wouldn't have information about imminent attacks. The vast majority of prisoners (in Guatanamo or elsewhere) aren't being tortured or near-tortured, though. There are some prisoners who are in a position where they would know about imminent attacks, if one was to occur, but we don't know if there is an imminent attack.
 

I think any argument against torture that has as its centerpiece Zarqawi in the interrogation room is going to fail to sway. But a PR objection? Did Phil consider the possibility that the media would not be invited to Zarqawi's torture sessions?

The much stronger argument is the one you make--most people who would be tortured don't have anything to give up. Some of them are going to be entirely innocent. Is it really worth it to save "just one life" as Glenn Reynolds argues, when so many of the tortured will have nothing to give up under duress except lies? And how many torture victims die?
 

Captain Carter concludes that when word leaks to the "Arab street" that the U.S. has tortured al-Zarqawi, 1001 new al-Zarqawis will be created in the subsequent rage.

As an American, Captain Carter makes the typically American mistake of thinking that everyone else in the world thinks just like Americans do.

In reality, American security interests would best be served by remembering bin Laden's "strong horse, weak horse" line of reasoning. Strength, respect, and fear matter much more to those we seek to deter and dissuade, rather than American-style "feelings."

The struggle against Islamic fanaticism will wind down only after we convince the potential Islamic recruits that their efforts will be meaningless, futile, and painful. This is not an argument for torture, only an argument against self-delusion.

Westhawk
 

good sense .. also i admire this comment for John Thacker
أيفون