torture?

in this article in the post today, scott adams says he's "tortured by doubt" as to the effectiveness of torture.

"If torture doesn't work better than the alternatives, not ever, then you don't need to discuss morality or world opinion because torture doesn't even pass the first filter. I'm not saying that morality and world opinion aren't important -- you just don't need to worry about them unless torture at least produces good results."

much of the article seems almost tongue in cheek, but i don't know mr. adams, and i don't know what his attitude toward torture really is or has been in the past. but something really bugs me about morality coming second to effectiveness.
i agree when he says that if torture does work sometimes in some occasions, it's going to be used. that doesn't mean it should be used. if something is inherently wrong (a moral issue), it's going to be wrong in any circumstances.

so if i could save my child's life by torturing someone, would i?

what a stupid question. not rhetorical. just stupid.