No one really, I mean really, thinks that torture cannot help one obtain credible information – or at least I hope not. We use it all the time. When we obtain testimony via a plea agreement – testimony used in a court of law – we acquire it using force or the threat of force – in other words, torture. We either threaten them with prison, and all the pain and suffering associated with it, or we actually put them into prison until they decide to become more helpful. So if it’s always good enough for a judge with all his rules of evidence, how is it never good enough for an intelligence operative who is trying to keep us safe?

Now, of course, this should not lead one to condone torture or even coerced interrogation (i.e. water-boarding) at every possible chance. We must still use it rarely because of a zealous officer's inevitable abuse. Yet, little integrity attaches to  the odd claim that threatening or using force cannot, at times, acquire valuable information that polite cajoling will not. Sure, there will be times when force gets us information of little use. But surely no one can seriously argue that civilly asking a murderer questions will not leave us with information that is of no use as well. Therefore, for all those with even a shred of intellectual honesty, let’s get rid of this odd and utterly untrue talking point that force does not obtain credible information – it can, and clearly, it does.