>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
>
>I think the gist of that article is this exerpt:
>
>"An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture."
>
>It never actually talks about the effectiveness or timliness of getting information from the suspect. I would like to know if after the military stepped in, whether or not they were successful.

I think the tone of the article is that torture is not effective.

But also that using torture is damaging to nations spirit.

A lot of 'intelligence' is complete crap so who knows if you are torturing the right person and it doesn't matter because its not the point . The point is its wrong.