This point seems to rest on the assumption that harsh interrogation techniques being used or considered by the U.S. as ethical tools in their kit are to be aplied unilaterally, i.e., without consideration of the Alpha and Beta points made above, and without a willingness to reciprocate cooperative/compliant subject behavior with moderated, if not rewarding interrogation technique.

In short: I'm not talkin' about Abu Ghraib, or any other situation in which irrational, idiots, motivated by a cruel drive to inflict harm and 'take' a sense of power. I'm talking about cool-headed, well-orchestrated, highly-organized, systematically controlled through checks and balances (assessments by multiple parties, clearance by higher ranks, and/or civilian legal authorities, etc.)

Anything less is subject to abuse. But to flatly define any act of unpleasant interrogation as "torture" is also absolutist and suffers the risk of erring on the side of the individual detainee and harming the many.

In the sort of controlled, highly-regulated use of unpleasant interrogation about which I am playing Devil's Advocate, a subject always has the option to "sing," meaning: you don't like the experience, start divulging EVERYTHING, as accurately and in as detailed fashion as possible. In the system I'm proposing, THIS action of total compliance and cooperation on the part of the subject MUST cause the interrogators to desist with their harshness, and indeed reward the subject with gentleness, and increased care.

In short: use the harsh techniques only on those who are being uncooperative, if they are cooperative then not only stop the harsh techniques but reward them, maybe even with reduced penalties for whatever infraction it was for which they are being detained.

In this context of highly constrained, highly rule-bound, and highly controlled interrogation--THE ONLY context of harsh interrogation for which I mean to be arguing--the Lincoln slavery quote does not apply. If someone does not like it (being interrogated) they ALWAYS have the option to make it stop by becoming a transparent fountain of information, WHATEVER information they have to offer, and ALL information they have to offer. In the system I envision, if they start providing ALL information, even if it is not exactly what the interrogators were asking about, the harshness stops. If they provide false information, that with a bit of time and effort can be corroborated of falsified, and then back to the harshness.

Like what?

I don't see how the Orwell quote makes this point at all. To me, the Orwell quote is saying: "You and I "normal everyday people, living normal everyday lives" enjoy lives of peace, compassion, cooperation, reason, and relatively-low risk. No implication whatsoever that we are "cowards" by virtue of living such lives. In such a situation, it is easy for us to forget, overlook, or remain ignorant of the fact, that _somewhere_ (be it cryptic elements "within" our socieites, or not so cryptic elements without our socieities) there are people and groups if not societies which would like to visit harm upon us, our people, and our way of life. Rough men, which I do not take as being equivalent to "heroes" but simply as "rough men," whose existence we may not be eager to acknowledge, let alone applaud, stand ready to, and often engaged in obstructing/preventing those malicious elements from visiting harm upon us and our society. In short, even the most peaceful societies must have mechanisms to address violent threats against them.

NO! I did NOT claim that "there is no evidence!!" *ANGER* WHY is it necessary to misread what I am saying here guys!? Have any of you guys even READ what I wrote, or is this simply a waste of my time??

First of all, let's ditch this word "torture." I am NOT playing Devil's Advocate for "torture" although you fellas seem intent either subconsciously or consciously in twisting my words so that that is what I am condoning. We must make a distinction between "harsh interrogation" and "torture." The details I outlined above constitute harsh interrogation. "Torture" applies to all the rest: unbound, not constrained by rules, not "shut-offable" through subject compliance, etc. The most basic distinction is: torture is simply a desire to hurt in as diabolical a way as possible. Harsh interrogation is a scientifically and strategically guided system for getting "vital information" in as timely a fashion possible so as to prevent and/or mitigate harm to the innocent.

Now, as to why you must "prove" that harsh interrogation is ineffective: please address my supposition that the two most important questions are Alpha and Beta above.

No argument. Torture is wrong. However, what distinguishes torture from harsh interrogation as I outline it above is a matter of debate.

No arguments here. We must be clear about what it is we are condoning. I hope, in the event that I was not clear earlier, that it is becoming more clear. Moreover, I believe I am largely reitering the stance that is being bandied by some of the U.S. SC Justices at this stage.

I think here you are not accepting the division I am proposing between torture and HI. Perhaps that is because such a distinction did not occur to you, or perhaps it is because you actively reject such a distinction.

I agree, in most cases in human history where "torture" has been employed, it has been primarily for the purposes you outline: symbol and collective psychology.

Drawing and quartering in the town square for regicide is not meant to actually extract information from the victim based on a careful calculation of the relative costs and benefits which I already outlined in the Alpha-Beta points. It is simply a way to show to the people what happens when you question or rebel against the authority in the society.

I would NEVER condone such barbarity.

Abu Ghraib is similar in being the acting out of the individual perpetrators ill-will and psychosis in an effort to take power and/or vindication by causing harm. I would also NEVER condone such barbarity.

"Waterboarding" does not intrinsically constitute "torture" in the same sense as these two scenarios. Perhaps it does intrinsically constitute torture for some reason, but if you are not proposing it simply as a means of social intimidation or as a means of psychotic acting out, then it does not constitute torture on those grounds.

Have any of you guys actually sought to respond to my opening question in the thread yet?

ADDIT: 

Hi Roadkills, sorry buddy. Two anecdotes by two individuals speaking their opinion does not constitute the sort of empirical proof I was hoping for. Neither does the claim that

Constitute proof that harsh interrogation does NOT save lives.

I do not doubt that, in "most cases" little to no coercion yields fine data. I'm not arguing for AUTOMATICALLY jumping to the most harsh possible interrogation techniques with each and every subject right off the bat . . . again, I get the distinct impression that you have not even bothered to read what I wrote about Alpha and Beta *sigh*

**double sigh** Okay, let me state it as simply as possible so that perhaps your vision does not cloud over and you skip it: I am arguing that harsh interrogation, not torture, should remain on the table as an OPTION, in those cases where a careful consideration of Alpha and Beta, and a careful execution of the procedures outlined in this post to prevent abuse have been followed. No point in getting harsh with some pawn who probably does not know anything of value. No point getting harsh with some high-value subject whose knowledge probably has little value in terms of saving lives relative to the harm you would have to inflict on him/her in order to extract the information. Absolutely no point in torturing, and absolutely no point in having a flat policy of "any and all detainees of X-source, or Y-identity" will autotmatically be subjected to this or that HI, let alone torture technique as a means to shake them up, and distribute social intimidation into their group.

The rest of your post was mostly garbled by hyperbole, but let me know if there are any other points in there that you'd really like me to address.