Since writing my last column about torture, I have seen various arguments in favor of the practice that I can't let go without comment.

All of these arguments are based on television-fueled myths about torture. Here's the thing. Torture would work if you know who to torture, you know precisely what information you want, and you know when the stop.

Guess what? This only happens in Hollywood. The problem with torture is that people will tell you what you want to know, not necessarily what they know. You can get an innocent person to admit to anything if you turn the screws on them enough. That means you are getting bad intel, and that is not only a waste of time, but can be dangerous.

Even if you know you have the right person, if you don't know exactly what info you are looking for, you aren't likely to get it. Torture depends on leading questions, otherwise the prisoner will just babble anything. But when you lead them with torture, they will go wherever you want them, not where the truth is.

And last, you have to know when to stop. You might get a suspect to come clean on one pending plot, but you might also torture them into fabricating imaginary plots. And you won't know these are false, or worse yet, you might find out they are imaginary and discount the one real plot.

Of course, the fact that torture doesn't work is of little consequence to many of those who advocate it, just like capital punishment. It is revenge they seek to assuage their fears.

Here is a good story on American's history of torture.