First things first: according to virtually every real expert you can find on the subject, torture does not work. That’s according to CIA veterans, retired military intelligence officers, and even the U.S. intelligence people privy to the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.

The US Army Intelligence Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation has made this clear for years, incidentally:

[T]he use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear.

This is not secret. This is not difficult to find out. It is extremely public and extremely clear: torture does not work.

It is also counterproductive in terribly obvious ways. False information will be produced, wasting vast amounts of time and resources. Torture also radicalizes people, creating even more enemies. It will unavoidably be used against people with no information (remember, most prisoners in Iraq were found to have been arrested by mistake); and the use of torture obliterates any future claim to moral credibility.

Not to pretend that moral arguments ever work, but also: torturing another human being is wrong. Period. If you’re a Christian, as the saying goes: what would Jesus do? I’m no expert, but my guess he probably would not hold a blowtorch to anyone’s genitals, no matter how many episodes of 24 you’ve seen. Either you believe your damn religion or you don’t.

I bring up the torture thing today because of this new BBC survey on attitudes toward torture in 25 countries around the world. About 27,000 people were asked if they (a) opposed all use of torture, (b) would consent to the use of torture “if it may gain information that saves innocent lives,” or (c) had no clue.

Given the vividly public position of experts in the field and the absolute unambiguity of every major religion on the topic, the question really amounts to little more than asking if you’re (a) well-informed, decent, and sane, (b) willing to compromise your morals on a false premise, or (c) unable to distinguish between the two.

I won’t flood TMW with page-filling graphics, but over at BobHarris.com, I’ve posted the results by country, rearranging the BBC post to show the results in both descending order of basic goddam human decency, using the “against all torture” position as the index, and in descending order of moral and pragmatic incompetence, using the “I’m frightened, amoral, and woefully uninformed” position as the index.

There’s actually a great deal of good news. For one, in not one country on earth was acceptance of torture is the majority position. Even people in active war zones don’t seem to lose their bearings that badly. And here in the U.S., even after 9/11 and the steady drumbeat of pro-torture crap from the lunatic right, Americans still oppose torture by a wide margin, roughly near the global average.

So human beings really don’t like to cause deep psychological wounds to themselves and others. Say. These days, that’s encouraging.