In the Battle of Algiers, hardened terrorists used quite a few naive souls who thought it was cool to carry bombs around. Those soft targets would break instantaneously under torture.

That doesn't mean that torture helped prevent any attacks:

Does torture work? - Salon.com

[...]What made the difference for the French in Algiers was not torture, but the accurate intelligence obtained through public cooperation and informants.

In fact, no rank-and-file soldier has related a tale of how he personally, through timely interrogation, produced decisive information that stopped a ticking bomb. "As the pain of interrogation began," observed torturer Jean-Pierre Vittori, "they talked abundantly, citing the names of the dead or militants on the run, indicating locations of old hiding places in which we didn't find anything but some documents without interest." Detainees also provided names of their enemies -- true information, but without utility to the French.

I also have problems with the following:

Patrice Ayme:

but the police, around 1300 CE, found that scientific torture, so to speak was extremely efficient). By 1600 CE, it had become too soft, though.

PA

"Scientific"? WTF? What does that mean? What sources are you quoting. "Police"? AFAIK "police" in the modern sense did not begin to emerge until the late 18th C.

Also, as to your larger argument: Are you saying that torture is sometimes morally justifiable, provided it is "scientific"? That would seem to run counter to the thrust of your diary.

The fact is that what we're experiencing right now is a top-down disaster. -Paul Krugman