This reply doesn't refute my argument. The general tenor of it is that as a whole, as a system, it is very unreliable. I said that. I cited Oliver's examples. Ditto the talk about the "more common and effective ways," which again doesn't refute my 'never works' concern. Simply talking to the choir here.
The mobster example "holds up." We can say that even a mobster might want to avoid torture though (as is likely a reason for the U.S.) the "value" there is in part simply to send a message of terror. The example is cited as a case where at times torture might work. This is something some are loathe to accept since it seems (wrongly) to give the other side too much ammo.
Examples can be shown, as I noted where information was shown to be correctly obtained (if you crush my fingers, I will not just indiscriminately talk -- in certain situations, I will tell certain specific things), where torture worked. This doesn't make it a good idea, both morally and because as a system it doesn't work. The idea police beating suspects never gets useful info is likewise wrong but that doesn't suddenly mean beating suspects should be allowed. One can go down to list -- corporal punishment is to me a bad idea, but "never works" (on a specific basis, such as not touching a hot stove) is an exaggeration. And so on.