>
>>>>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.
>
>Do you also have any kind of list where it did not work and people were tortured needlessly?

Yes

>Or do we now take single sided anecdotal information from a blogger and declare "ergo it works".

This is not the only example of success nor is it only from a "blogger". In addition I am not attempting to suggest that it always works. My specific point is that it can work and the adage "torture doesn't work" is false. Mind you, there is a debate about whether these "techniques" are torture at all. For instance, I do not see how "prolonged isolation" qualifies as torture. To me suggesting this technique is torture, degrades the concept of what real torture is.

>What does this really mean? It works all the time? 50% of the time? 10% of the time? A few times? I can't see how you can make a meaningful declaration from this.

Update : Sorry, I forgot to respond to this in my initial reply.

I think what this means is that we need to account for potential success in this debate. Many have tried to shut down the debate by declaring that "torture does not work". With that line the argument is made that since it doesn't work there is no need to ever apply and we can comfortably stick to our moral high ground knowing that we've tried everything to save lives. However, if "torture" is effective in some circumstances, then that high ground becomes murky. Now we must confront ourselves honestly and ask when should it be applied and how can we determine that ahead of time. The ticking time bomb example is the classic example. However, if we know that certain techniques, while morally troublesome, are successful some of the time, do we have an obligation as a society to never employ them regardless the cost? Do we put a human toll on their use? What if 1 person is in danger? Or 100? Or 1000000? In the USA we are frequently passing laws to "protect the children" from smoking, drinking, topless clubs, etc, so what if it's 1000000 children?


>
>>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.