Again, that might be true for recent events, but it’s not true for, say, the use of torture by the Spanish Inquisition, or in Elizabethan England, or in the old Soviet Union, etc. Not having a security clearance might keep one from knowing what has happened in the last few years, but it doesn’t make much difference when it comes to events that happened decades or even centuries ago (there are many things, for example, in the history of U.S. foreign policy, the CIA, etc., which were highly classified at the time but are common knowledge now).

To amplify on my point: I have the sense that torture is most likely to come to light when 1) an innocent guy is tortured and eventually let go, whereupon he himself tells the press; or 2) somebody is tortured but the information he gives is wrong, and someone within the intelligence apparatus feels guilty and spills the beans. I also have the sense that torture would be less likely to come to light if the CIA found a really bad guy, got some really useful information out of him, and then kept him locked up. (In other words, I bet that people wouldn’t be as likely to have guilty consciences and let it leak to the press.)

Let me put it this way: You don’t have a top security clearance, right? And neither do I. So in theory there could be all sorts of things going on behind the scenes that we just don’t know about. That’s why I’m hesitant about assertions about what methods do or don’t “work.”

That which is hypothetical may or may not exist. That which exists, even if rare, exists and therefore is not hypothetical. As you admit, the cases I provide fulfill the criteria for the ticking bomb scenario set out by BA. Thus they exist and are not hypothetical. The wording BA uses is hypothetical. It would help his argument to change it as this is not so.
Slippery slope arguments invite prudence, but again don’t necessarily argue against doing something. As for the slippery slope being the case in America in the present, see below.

BA,

As I point out, a slippery slope argument may or may not be fallacious as you note. However I don’t think you’ve proven adequately that it will happen in the US. You point out the Israeli example but don’t show it as so in the US. The best example we have in the US of potential torture is waterboarding. But the govt. notes that only three people have been waterboarded and none since 2003. If your argument for a slippery slope were correct it would have been happening with routine. Not the case, therefore it is open to being fallacious.
And of course people may not (or may) lie about their work. But the point is that small amounts of accurate information may be helpful. I offer the opinion of experts from my days in the military. You offer your opinion under a different expertise.

Your objection, as I understand it, is that if torture did produce reliable information, we wouldn’t know it, because people would keep quiet about it. The problem with this objection is that torture is not some new thing that has only ever been tried since 9/11. Torture has been around for thousands of years, has been utilized by a wide variety of regimes, and we therefore have quite a bit of information about its relative (in)effectiveness. If what you’re after is a confession, then torture works great. If, on the other hand, what you’re after is reliable intelligence, then the record of torture is pretty poor.

I didn’t deny that ticking bomb scenarios have ever occurred (in fact in you read my post you’ll see that I mention some cases, such as the Millennium bombing plot, where they have occurred). I only noted that you argument (there are ticking bombs, therefore there are ticking bomb scenarios) was lacking.

“I remember in my days in the Navy working at a base where a fair amount of new air systems were tested. During base indoc., security officers advised us to not give any information about our work to non-Navy personel even in casual conversations. They even advised not giving the base newspaper out. This being that in their experience, even ‘tiny’ bits of information could be used by foreing intelligence to get a more thorough picture of what was going on.”

Well, sure. But then most people don’t spend most of their time spreading false information about their work. If they did, and even there was no easy way to separate wheat from chaff, then it would be a somewhat different situation.

“One last bit, your slippery slope argument typically tends to be considered fallacious. Thus it doesn’t help your argument.”

What matters is not whether an argument is considered fallacious, but whether it actually is so. Some forms of slippery slope arguments are fallacious. Others are not. Mine is of the later type.

You ignore my point. In the cases I provide, I do not do so to prove that torture worked. Only that the ticking bomb scenario is not a hypothetical situation as you note. Two real and one probable situations were found after a five minute search on Google.
Also you note that torture may produce “tiny” amounts of information that will not be useful. I remember in my days in the Navy working at a base where a fair amount of new air systems were tested. During base indoc., security officers advised us to not give any information about our work to non-Navy personel even in casual conversations. They even advised not giving the base newspaper out. This being that in their experience, even “tiny” bits of information could be used by foreing intelligence to get a more thorough picture of what was going on. I offer their opinion only in contrast to yours.
You were searching for constructive criticism. This so

I’m, with BA,

Please note my comment to BA.

Bottom line, I’m wary of resting a moral issue on purporting to have shown a universal negative.