In cases like this, there is clearly a time limit, a very short time limit, where any information thus retrieved would be useful, and life saving. It is the officers&#x27; duty to use whatever means, within limits, to get the information out of the suspect. Also the evidence on scene is very strong, the suspect is in fact the perpetrator of said crime.<p>In case of terror suspects, quite a few have emerged innocent which is quite embarrassing in the first place, but understandable. Also, one should question the relevance of any information retrieved after long sustained periods of torture when surely facts on the ground have probably changed significantly.<p>Moreover this person, in the stanford thing, is a petty thief who is quite likely to fold under pressure since the crime has manageable consequences for him, and he doesn&#x27;t possess training and motivation to withhold info at all costs. This trait wouldn&#x27;t be present in case of some death cult, military, or even a serious gang member.<p>The point is, it isn&#x27;t correct to make blanket statements like torture wouldn&#x27;t work, ever. But the prevalence of incidences where some force might work shouldn&#x27;t be used to justify comic levels torture demonstrated in the recent cases.<p>And finally, One might however see value in the dampening effect torture has on enemy morale. However, you can&#x27;t play both sides, pretend to be a great champion of human rights and values and continue to come up with hilariously OTT torture routines. That is the problem US &amp; Allies face regarding this whole torture debate&#x2F;narrative. You have to own up to the uh assholery.