As Posner and others have tartly pointed out, if torture and coercion are both as useless as critics pretend, why are they used so much? While some abuse and outright torture can be attributed to individual sadism, poor supervision and so on, it must be the case that other acts of torture occur because interrogators believe, in good faith, that torture is the only way to extract information in a timely fashion. It must also be the case that if experienced interrogators come to this conclusion, they do so on the basis of experience. The argument that torture and coercion do not work is contradicted by the dire frequency with which both practices occur.can be refuted by a few easy searches. This seems to reflect a willingness to accept conventional wisdoms upon which can form the basis of travesties. This, as I will dicsuu in a review of Ignatieff's support for the Iraq invasion, is a troubling tendency of Ignatieff.
An outright ban on torture and coercive interrogation leave a conscientious security officer with little choice but to disobey the ban. In this event, as the Israeli supreme court has said, even a conscientious agent acting in good faith to save lives should be charged with a criminal offence and be required to stand trial. At trial, a defence of necessity could be entered in mitigation of sentence, but not to absolve or acquit.Again a little research and thought on the results would have found the fallacy of this approach. From By Anthony A. D'Amato:
Under international customary law, a plea that the defendant was merely carrying out the orders of a military superior has rarely if ever been allowed as a defense to the commision of an international crime. At the same time, it has almost always been allowed in the mitigation of punishment.