Back in January, a Washington Post/ABC News Poll asked the following question: "Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism suspects?"

A majority of respondents, 58%, supported the stance, and agreed that torture should never be used, no matter the circumstances. 40% did not agree. So while this poll was heralded as a demonstration that America does not support torture, a full two out of every five Americans supports torture. But not just any torture.

A 2008 global poll (PDF) found that 53% of Americans were against torture and 13% were "for" it. America gets a gold star for a populace that opposes torture in larger numbers that Turkey, South Korea and... Iran. We're only behind Egypt and China. More importantly, 31% of Americans "accepted limited torture" if it would immediately save lives.

Back in 2005, a Gallup poll showed nearly 3/4s of Americans believed that the U.S. has tortured people in Iraq-but as of this spring, only just half thought our torturing should be investigated.

These numbers show that we are confused. Torture has become a concept with acceptable aspects and unacceptable aspects. Bad torture and good torture-the latter of which is of course not "torture" but "techniques." It's now a "complex issue." That is bullshit.

My own less-than-comprehensive poll (stopping ten people on the sidewalk) resulted in all ten people agreeing with the statement "torture is wrong." But five agreed with the statement "torture should be an option in certain scenarios." When I asked what kind of circumstances, three of the five responded with some version of "if there was a bomb or if it helped save somebody."

That is what they call the "Ticking Time Bomb Scenario." It is a fallacy with no evidence of ever having been used successfully, nor is there any hope of it ever being used successfully. You will bed Gisele or George Clooney or whoever your wank fantasy is before this concept is ever validated.

But why do we believe it? A look at a generation of Soviet and Commie bad guys in everything from The Manchurian Candidate to Body Snatchers to Red Dawn to Rocky IV shows how cartoonish an "evil" can be made for an entire population. Or how prison life in film leads Americans think they understand "how it is" (rapes for everyone!) without at all understanding how it is.

Purdue English professor William Palmer argues that the general population's sense of history is most informed through film. One of Palmer's better examples is that depictions of the Vietnam War, from Apocalypse Now to Platoon to Deer Hunter to Hamburger Hill to Born on the Fourth of July, have come to completely inform a majority of American's understanding about the conflict and its collateral. (The John Belton book Movies and Mass Culture is another good resource.)

But torture, and especially the "ticking time bomb" bullshit, is also a perfect example of this phenomena. While everyone points to post-9/11-porn 24, the reality is America's understanding of torture has come entirely from a highly-structured and specific use of torture in TV and film.

But surprisingly, as much onscreen torture fails as is successful. Maybe more. Just as often as Taken's Liam Neeson gets the info he needs by electrocuting a guy, Rambo resists giving up the info despite being electrocuted.

There are very specific criteria when it comes to depicting torture onscreen and these criteria very much match up with the public's perception of when torture is acceptable and works and when it doesn't and isn't. The six criteria, most of which must be met to make onscreen torture is necessary and acceptable, reinforces opinion that torture is sometimes acceptable and successful:

1. An unquestionably "good guy" needs information from an unquestionably bad guy.
2. Time sensitivity: he good guy needs the information from the bad guy to stop something that is going to happen in the very immediate future.
3. This information is to stop something unquestionably horrible from happening to innocent people.
4. It's a last resort: even the hero doesn't condone it. But after trying all other avenues he sees himself as having no other choice (see above).
5. The torture is spontaneous and improvised and appears desperate. There is no organized interrogation or a team of interrogators and there is no torture "set up," for water boarding or forced drug use, etc.
6. The torture is a success and the information is obtained. This cannot be stressed enough: It always works.

Don't believe it? Here are films that meet all of these criteria.