Sometimes the simple fact of whether torture is an effective investigation tool is even debated. Critics often point out it isn't. It isn't effected, there are better methods and the person in the end only ends up telling the torturer what he wants to hear. The first two of those statements, bullcrap and bullcrap. And the victim only tells the torturer what he wants to hear? You mean like in the Medieval witchhunts? Well, yeah. The witches told their torturers what they wanted to hear because they were trying to force false confessions out of them. Torture is sometimes used to extract false confessions. Is that what you mean? No. Torture is a very effective way of gaining information. Take waterboarding. Whether waterboarding should be classified as a method of torture was hotly debated worldwide when in 2004 it was revealed that the CIA had used the technique against suspected detained terrorists to get vital information. And they said, well yes. But it saved lives. Of course it saved lives. That's not the point. Torture is always wrong and it is never justified, no matter what the circumstances are. And for a while some people argued waterboarding wasn't even really torture. It was harmless, putting a handkerchief over your nose and dripping a couple of drops of water, they said. But journalist Christopher Hitchens submitted to the procedure in 2008. And he famously jumped up from the table almost immediately screaming "It's torture! It's torture!" Which is the other problem. Sometimes methods of torture are made to look harmless. Because unlike the Middle Ages, torturers know exactly what they are doing now.
