Suppose that a person with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack, that will kill many people...

>Suppose that a person with knowledge of an imminent terrorist attack, that will kill many people, is in the hands of the authorities and that he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured. Should he be tortured?

the person in this hypotethical scenario should kill themselves because they're in the insane world of a bad tv show.

Absolutely.

always are, always will be

>Has knowledge of a terrorist attack
Prove it
>only if he is tortured
Prove it

Torture is largely inefficient at getting useful information.

No, because the interrogators have no way of knowing if he will produce reliable information when tortured.

No

>Terrorists plan to attack location A
>Capture a terrorist
>"Where are you gonna attack?"
>"Nuh uh not telling"
>Torture terrorist
>"Where are you gonna attack?"
>"Ok, I'll tell you, it's location B! There's a bomb at location B, just stop torturing me!"
>"Ok"
>Bomb squad go to location B
>Location A explodes
>laughingterrorist.jpg

>Torture is largely inefficient at getting useful information.

>this is what normies actually believe

You start by asking the person questions that you already know the answer to. If they lie they get waterboarded. Eventually they get that the only way to avoid being waterboarded is to tell the truth.

t. Veeky Forums torture sexpert CIA working pussy pounder

That's why you capture their wives and children and rape them in front of the terrorist

That's what the US actually did you goon

Yes, but that scenario would never occur in real life because torture is in effective

This is going to make them talk why? If they're planning on attacking you, it's on the basis that they hate you. Doing things that make them hate you more isn't going to magically make them cooperate, just more ingrain the belief that what they're doing is justified and this not want to cooperate.

That's not even getting into the fact that what you're saying is highly illegal

...because that's going to make him less likely to just tell you what he thinks you want to hear. Sure.

If anything it'll make him hate you so much that he'll do anything he can to ensure the terrorist attack succeeds.

So in the end, you've still suffered a terrorist attack and now some of your agents are kiddyfuckers, and unless you're actively hiring pedos that's gonna seriously traumatise them. Great.

What if he doesn't have any?

And numerous reports and statements by people involved have said it was ineffective at generated reliable intelligence

castrate him so he can't go to heaven

And literally the people who did it said it was ineffective and other methods proved more efficient at getting information.

You don't understand how this works, you only stop torturing him if his information gets verified.

They'll talk because they care about their people not themselves, no point in being a martyr if the innocents you're trying to fight for are punished too

Citation needed

it's called logic you mong

But Muslims hate women and are pedos just like Muhammad so they won't care, right brother? :^)

That doesn't change anything he said. So, he tells them the bomb is in a wrong location, so they keep torturing him. But if the attack is imminent, it's not like he has to hold out for long.

No it's called talking out of your ass actually. You have nothing to back up your assertions while the actual US intelligence community has provided multiple reports that say the exact opposite of you.

So either link a study or report to back up your claim or fuck off.

It's not logical at all

What makes us better then them?

White makes right

>prisoner tells you what they think you want to hear so you stop torturing them
>the info was false

>some of your soldiers get captured by the comrades of the person you tortured
>they brutally torture your soldiers out of spite

>word spreads that you torture your prisoners
>neutral parties who might have supported you now want nothing to do with a brutal tyrant

>word spreads that you torture your prisoners
>many people become increasingly radicalized against you as a result of you being cartoonishly evil.

no, he should not be tortured

Being white. I'm dead serious.

>he will disclose the information needed to prevent the attack only if he is tortured.
In that case, yes. But in real life, torture almost never reveals any reliable information.

Bob pushes old ladies into the path of oncoming buses.
Bill pushes old ladies out of the path of oncoming buses.
What makes Bill better than Bob? They're both pushing old ladies around.