How do they define “torture”?
Using harsh language or merely asking questions shouldn’t qualify.
I would not trust the results of torture, the natural inclination of suspects would be to say anything plausible to get the torture to stop, but probably not the truth, so how can you rely on what you “learn” if it is more often false than true?
There must be more sophisticated means of getting the reluctant to talk. For example, you could provide internet access and monitor what the suspect was looking at; he might realize what the motive was, but not be smart enough to hide all of his thought processes. I’m not talking about granting communication privileges although under the right supervision that could be productive too. This of course would apply more to special situations and not general inmate situations which would be constitutionally bound.
The larger question is how to stop terrorism. It may sound trite but not enough emphasis has been placed on the question of motivation. How can we reduce the motivation to commit terrorist acts? I am not talking about going soft and squishy on foreign policy, I am talking about real-world solutions here, what would reduce the motivation of a potential terrorist to act? I leave this as an open question. Clearly, we have not hit upon any meaningful disincentives as of yet.