>>>>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...

Intelligence is not evidence, even if they presented it as such.

>Why you think your current 'evidence' (or strong wish to present things certain way) is any better ?

We now know that EITs were used and that the resulting information was used to prevent further specific attacks and capture other targets.

>Even in US courts information obtained by using violence is not submissible. Ever wandered why ?

By the letter of the law, you're correct, however, that is not always true in practice.

I'm suggesting that the idea that "torture doesn't work" is false and should be removed from the argument.