Interrogation, effectiveness, and moral anthropology

According to this story, in today's New York Times, experts in interrogation methods are criticizing the aggressive interrogation methods which have been employed in recent years against terror-suspects as "outmoded, amateurish and unreliable."  However, "[t]he notion that turning up pressure and pain on a prisoner will produce valuable intelligence is a staple of popular culture from the television series '24' to the recent Republican presidential debate, where some candidates tried to outdo one another in vowing to get tough on captured terrorists."

Now, that they don't work would seem reason enough to abandon coercive interrogation tactics.  But, what if they did work?  I would think that, for us here at MOJ, the tactics' effectiveness -- while relevant -- would not justify their use.I'm reminded here of my own occasional frustration with the abolitionist argument that we should abandon the death penalty because it does not deter, or costs too much.  The question, in both contexts, it seems to me, has to be, "given what the human person is, may this be done to this person?"