Torture is the future for investigation

Con mentions that pro lack examples of efficiency of torture. Therefore I will bring forward a statement, that the ACLU"s (American Civil Liberties Union) Jameel Jaffer, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union and director of the ACLU's Center for Democracy, stated: "When they use rendition and torture as a threat, it"s undeniable that they benefit, in some sense, from the fact that people know that intelligence agents are willing to act unlawfully. They benefit from the fact that people understand the threat and believe it to be credible" Another example shown is Nazih Hassan, who is president of the Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor, Michigan states that his members fear doing or saying anything that could get their name on the lists. One member testified that he has "stopped speaking out political and social issues" because he do not want to draw attention to himself, which clearly shows that torture is effective in just the thought of going through it yourself. This is tortures true purpose, to terrorize. Not only the people in Guant"n"m"s cages and Syria"s isolation cells but also the broader community that hears about these abuses. Torture is a tool designed to break inmates will to resist- every individual prisoner"s will. Lynndie England, who is the fall girl for Abu Ghraib, was asked during her failed trial why she and her colleagues had forced naked prisoners into a human pyramid. She replied with "As a way to control them" and it worked. Yet another example is shown in a film about FLN (National Liberation Front). The film opens with the image of a beaten Algerian beggar sitting in a tiled room. Fresh from an "enhanced interrogation," as some may call it. He has revealed the location of the remaining leader of the FLN. The French Colonel asks the man to take him there. When the beggar's will wavers for a split moment, the Colonel asks him simply, "Do you want the torture to continue?" The man obeys and leads them to the rebel leader. The point shown here is very simple. Torture will force men to do things they do not want to do and reveal things that they do not want to share. I stated before that "Someone who is willing to blow himself up and kill 100"s of people is not going to talk unless you force them to. The only way you can make them talk, is by torture." It is believed that some terrorist kill themselves because of two different reasons, their belief and their fear of being physically and mentally tortured, which leads to them killing themselves to avoid such situations. Other proponents argue that saving lives has a higher value than avoiding infliction of pain, especially where the lives are innocent and where the pain would be inflicted on guilty terrorists only. Jeremy Bentham states as support of this statement "if a gang of tortures who, if they remained at liberty, would torture 100 innocent victims, would it be accepted to torture one guilty member of the gang "to make known the place" where the other tortures could be found, and save these 100 innocent lives. Yes it can be accepted based on the greatest good for the greatest number" My last example will be president Bill Clinton who states that "Every one of us can imagine the following scenario. We get lucky and we get the number three guy in Al Qaeda, and we knew there"s a big bomb going off in America in three days and this guy knows where it is. Don"t we have the right and the responsibility to beat it out of him?" But as a factual matter, I think every president would at least consider the option of torture if confronted with an actual ticking bomb.