It's been a couple of days since the Senate released the torture report. The discussion in the press seems to concern (a) whether it really might be effective, (b) whether that doesn't miss the point, that it's wrong and that we should take the stance "we don't do that"; (c) whether the partisan bickering about the report--is it accurate? will it hurt us internationally?--will undermine any broader significance it might have; and (d) how other countries might respond to it--with violence, prosecution, admiration, etc.
A few days back I posted on my Facebook page a link to a piece in The New Republic entitled "We Will Never Know Whether Torture Works. That Shouldn't Matter." A friend then asked me if it was really true that its effectiveness doesn't matter. As he put it: "[T]he use of a flamethrower on [a] bunker is to protect the lives of one's own soldiers [and citizens], while in the classic "ticking bomb" scenario the use of torture is to protect civilian lives. So maybe there's more symmetry between the two cases than I've usually thought. But the difference remains that flamethrowers are effective in clearing bunkers, while torture is of questionable effectiveness at best. Would we consider flamethrowers acceptable were they ineffective, though still horrifying brutal, weapons? I think not. And would we consider torture permissible were it foolproof? Perhaps. So I'm not sure I agree with the article's conclusion that the question of effectiveness is irrelevant."