Not my method. Sherwood Moran's method. It doesn't work if the interrogator doesn't mean it, or so I've read.
Then if someone who really believed that Moran's method tried it, and it failed, and the person was captured while armed and engaged against our military, and was a definitely terrorist captive, and had knowledge of enemy personnel and operations and locations of ammunition and equipment and bases of operation, etc, and Moran's technique failed, but it was certain beyond a reasonable doubt that the terrorist had the information, would you then agree that the techniques I lined out would be acceptable? For example if a Marine was being held captive, and zarkoui said he would behead him in 24 hours if a ransom was not paid, and the military captured a terrorist in the vicinity of the Marine's capture and they knew where he was because he had been seen associating with the people who took the Marine hostage. If Moran's technique failed, and it was performed by someone who believed it the best way of extracting information, but it failed, would you then agree that it was prudent to use more aggressive means, like I detailed, to get the information? Worst case, you make the terrorist's life unpleasant for a day, best case, you save a Marine's life and the terrorist is still alive, and has suffered no permanent harm, and will be sent to a detention facility where he'll be better off than those in America living in poverty. Surely you would say that is reasonable.