Most of us know about torture from exposure to dramatic depictions of physical abuse.

"24," the cliffhanger TV series with Kiefer Sutherland, "Casino Royale," with Daniel Craig, and dozens of films and TV shows exploit physical pain for entertainment.

I've found myself turning away from graphic torture sequences. Watching someone inflict or endure pain, often sadistically delivered, makes me queasy. It's entertaining only if you suppress empathy for the victim.

I expect I'm not alone. Most of us can't help but empathize with torture victims, since they're helpless to stop it, and we can imagine excruciating pain as being, well, excruciating.

Since our "war on terror" began, torture has become more than visceral entertainment. It's been part of our government's actual treatment of prisoners, now well documented. They have insisted that torture works, and it in fact does in some of those dramatic depictions. Beating, shocking, or waterboarding prisoners until they talk works fast when it's onscreen with actors.

Only one problem: it doesn't actually work that way.

The sordid history of actual torture, from the Inquisition to the Salem witch hysteria to the Holocaust, reveals that: (1) Torture with physical pain rarely yields accurate information; (2) It degrades and dehumanizes torturers as much as victims and (3) it creates enemies for life.

When the Bush administration ruled that harsh interrogation measures were within bounds, they justified it by insisting that terrorists would not yield to typical police-type interrogations. In pursuit of really bad guys, we had to become really bad ourselves.

As of last week, Bush administration lawyers who ruled that such methods are acceptable are being investigated. They could be prosecuted for rulings that led directly to illegal actions, according to an article in the Feb. 23 Newsweek. The moral high ground looms, and it's about time.

Now I know what hard-liners out there are thinking. Terrorists deserve no quarter and liberal bleeding hearts wusses will end up aiding and abetting their murderous ways. For the sake of some abstract principle we will lose the war on terror.

Some of our own military interrogators agree with that position, as did Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, and said so publicly. For one account of the sources of our government's support for torture, see the Oscar-winning 2007 documentary "Taxi to the Dark Side."

An important book published late last year deserves attention for what it shows about torture, as well as our own military's attitude toward it. "How to Break a Terrorist," by Matthew Alexander (a pen name) details his extensive experience as an interrogator. He personally conducted over 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised over a thousand. He's a serious, professional, successful interrogator.

His conclusions: Even for the most hardened anti-American terrorist, effective interrogations do not involve physical pain. Rather, smart questioners combine respect for the individual and the culture, knowledge of what certain prisoners will respond positively to, and a willingness to become an "actor" in a role that leads to trust and give-and-take communication.

Alexander tells the gripping true story (it reads like a spy/adventure

novel) of how his "gator" unit was able to gather information from a high-level Al-Queda captive that led to the demise of Al-Zarquawi, the most notorious terrorist leader in Iraq. It's a gut-wrenching story, since many in his interrogation unit preferred the old "fear and control" methods. Such methods weren't working, and never had.

Worse, many prisoners reported they were motivated to join Al-Queda because they had seen images of Americans abusing prisoners. Torture amounted to a powerful recruiting tool for Al-Queda in Iraq.

Matthew Alexander's wiser methods prevailed in this case by winning his prisoner's trust and exploiting the deep Sunni-Shia split in Iraq. Not only did Alexander not physically assail this prisoner, he actually changed his mind about Americans being the bad guys. It was completely win-win, and supports no-torture interrogations not just morally, but practically. They work.

We should all hope for fair and ongoing investigations those pro-torture lawyers, not to mention their bosses, Cheney and Rumsfeld. And the highest kudos to interrogators such as Matthew Alexander who weren't buying what they were selling.