>>>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>I think the adage 'torture doesn't work', which I admit to having used myself, is not really meant to be a carved in stone, 100% of the time sort of truism.
>
>I accept your interpretation that many who say it do not mean it as absolute truism. However, that too adds to my point. If the speaker themselves don't believe it, yet use it to further their argument against torture, isn't that offering false evidence or at least misleading conjecture to the discussion? As recently as April I saw former CIA agent Bob Baer once again offering up this old adage and from what I can see, he truly believes it. Now if we have new information regarding the results of the vary instances that Baer is disparaging.

I think very few people, if any, really believe that torture never works. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I do think most people who say that believe as I do, that it is too problematic to be trustworthy, and therefore we impair our own humanity in the use of something that is barbaric without and real notion that it will serve it's intended purpose.

>
>>It really just means that when you get information through torture, you don't really know what you have. It may be useful information, but it might just as well be useless information meant to buy time for whatever evil is about to befall, to befall.
>
>I absolutely agree, of course, that's the case with the entirety of intelligence gathering. That's why there's analysis. ;)
>
>>>>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?
>>
>>Certainly the possibility that it might be successful has to be part of the debate (or there really is no debate worth the time), but I do hope that people understand that by using torture as a tool, you give the same right to tools to every other nation on earth. If that is an acceptable form of interrogation, then I don't want to hear any whining or moral indignation when Syria or China or anyone else use torture to get whatever it is they want. And if it's just a matter of degree, then anyone can make the same arguments for worse forms of torture that you make here for the means the U.S. used.
>
>We agree here as well. Frankly I don't think anyone was really looking for America's position before starting their own torture programs.

True, of course. But being a bandwagon jumper in such a venture, does not speak well of the ideals under which the U.S. was founded, imho.

>
>>The fact (for me) is that I find it unacceptable for one human being to treat another human being in such a way. Ok, maybe I'm being naive, but at least I can reserve to myself, the right to indignation when anyone does it.
>
>Your right is reserved, and protected.

Whew! Oh, hey, wait a minute. I'm not an American. All I have is a useless Canadian passport.

>>As far as your point about whether it really qualifies as torture; well, my own idea of torture would certainly encompass psychological considerations. A person can be driven mad through psychological means. How can that not be torture?
>
>I would agree that if we drove someone "mad" through psychological means that would be torture. There is no evidence to suggest that is the case with these techniques. We need to avoid dumbing down the definition of torture lest it lose its impact.

I honestly don't believe that you need to go the whole route for it to qualify. Let's take a horrible circumstance. Your children are kidnaped. Every hour or so, you get a phone call in which you can hear your children screaming and the caller laughing. Are you being tortured? Imho, yes.

>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>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.