But there is no evidence that British, German or French authorities have faced such a situation. Rather, the ticking bomb scenario serves as a distraction from what actually happens: the ongoing flow of information in the context of established relations with countries where torture is an organized practice. When they invoke the ticking bomb, European policymakers are sending a dangerous message that torture can help save lives and hence is morally defensible. “No questions asked” European intelligence services have argued that they do not know the methods employed to acquire information they receive through intelligence cooperation. They have argued further that intrusive inquiry into sources and methods with the sending state would endanger the relationship and the flow of information. As discussed in the country sections below, officials in the UK, Germany and France have all cited these reasons when defending the need to collaborate with the intelligence services in countries with poor human rights records. This “no questions asked” policy is at sharp odds with the responsibility of all states to work towards the eradication of torture. Failure to ascertain the circumstances under which information was obtained, where there are sufficient grounds for suspecting that abuses were committed, sends the message that torture and mistreatment in the name of fighting terrorism are legitimate. Authorities have not demonstrated that appropriate inquiries effectively jeopardize intelligence cooperation. Not only is this “no questions asked” policy morally and legally flawed, it is also an operational and strategic mistake. Information obtained under torture is notoriously unreliable, since individuals suffering extreme pain and anxiety will say anything to stop the abuse. A U.S. military agency that trains military personnel to resist abusive questioning warned in July 2002 against the use of extreme duress—even in situations involving an imminent threat—because the information obtained is likely to be unreliable: The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible—in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life—has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture. In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable 19 Human Rights Watch | June 2010