>>>>>>Does this mean we can finally put to rest the old canard "torture does not work."?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/did_they_work.asp
>>>>>>http://oceanaris.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/obama-vs-cheney-round-two/
>>>>>
>>>>>Torture does work.
>>>>>It increases terrorist threat almost exponentially. It is a form of terrorisam in itself and also great inspiration and motivation
>>>>>for more terrorisam. For those who aspire these goals, it is actually very productive.
>>>>>
>>>>>Now amount of usefull information extracted this way, it is hard to determine;
>>>>>If you waterboard enough some Afganistany Taxi driver, he will admit not only plotting several new attacks on US/EU soil, but also masterminding and carrying out personally JFK assasination in Dallas !! (You just have to ask right questions!)
>>>>>Two more waterboardings, and he might as well reveal who really gunned down Abraham Lincoln. (Boot was just a patsy! {g})
>>>>>Now these are indeed 'valid intelligence leads' to follow.
>>>>
>>>>In this case, we have specific actionable information which was used to disrupt specific homicidal plots and saved lives. The information was obtained by using questionable techniques of varying degrees of intensity, up to and including waterboarding, which many regard as "torture". The adage to which I refer is that "torture does not work." We now have strong evidence that these techniques worked, in that they provided the aforementioned information which saved lives. To me this suggests that the adage is false, which is why I posed the question.
>>>>I am not asking whether or not we "should" use these techniques, I'm asking that we remove the failed adage from the argument. Or at the minimum we amend it to be a more honest representation of known fact.
>>>
>>>You had 'strong evidence' on Saddam having WMD's as well. Turned out... Why you think your current 'evidence' (or strong wish
>>>to present things certain way) is any better ? Even in US courts information obtained by using violence is not submissible. Ever wandered why ?
>>
>>Yes. Thousands of dead Iranians and dead Kurds killed by poison gas seemed like pretty good evidence. I guess that wsn't enough for you.
>
>That was over 10 years earlier. It was not the argument for an invasion of Iraq that was presented to the American people. What the heck do we care about the Kurds? If was repulsive and Saddam Hussein was a pig. There are lots of pigs in power around the world. We can't invade all of them.

Changing history or selective memory? :o) It was used in the argument to the people and even used in Colin Powell's briefing to the UN to demonstrate that the world have proof of Iraq's use of wmds. What we didn't have, and was required by the U.S. and the U.N. was proof that he had destroyed all of his wmd. We know now that he intentionally did not provide proof in order to maintain the illusion that he had them for his enemies. He didn't want to appear weak and that stance is what really brought it all on. What we still don't know is how much was actually destroyed and how much was moved (to Syria?).

Just a refresher:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=6079&Cr=iraq&Cr1=inspect
(There is a video link at the bottom)

I also recommend you watch these videos (they are all only a few seconds):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030205-powell-un-17300pf.htm