That brings up the Ramzi case where he was thought by some in the intelligence of being some lynch-pin but had no information that was credible when torture was used against him. Wasn’t it Ramzi who said there was a connection between Saddam and AQ?

All those could be very useful in getting information–if getting information is a goal that outweighs all other concerns. I mean, once you believe that torture is useful or even necessary, how exactly do you draw a line? Water boarding IS torture but it’s not the worst kind. If it doesn’t work, how much further of a step is it to bring in some hot irons?

The thing is, we’re either a nation that permits torture or one that doesn’t. We can comfort ourselves and say “yeah, but we only do light torture.” And we can deceive ourselves into thinking it makes us safer. But the truth is, permitting torture just makes us more like our enemies. And that’s not a direction the good guys should head.

Bottom line – KSM did talk and we learned a little (not a lot) some of which was bogus. We also have another case where the suspect just spewed complete nonesense but the nonesense was accepted as fact and lead to supporting the case against Iraq (no small mistake as it turns out!).

I’m not really convinced we’ve got a lot to go on here to support the efficiency of such interregations – which just makes me more suspicious as to why the VP seems so adament about it. I really don’t think Cheney is a bad guy (like the terrorists) but his thinking seems to be extreme and unclear (and unconventional to say the least).

KMan or Tom – can you point me to some better summary of the KSM stuff to back up a pro-torture point?

How about we waterboard people like DosPeros, and see how he likes it.

Gary, one more crack like that and you’re banned. Make a point, and make it well…but don’t ever, EVER make veiled threats.

Michael and Eural…great points.

I’m at work so I can’t just dig into a point and start debating!

I’ve got a few minutes but here’s a quickie take:

OK, lets assume the KSM point is true –

So one success validates the legalization of a technique abhorrent to US and international law (not to mention the ethics of Christianity which the vast majority of US citizens claim to endorse)?

And to what degree was this one incident successful? KSM did such a great job that Al Qaeda is out of business? No, apparently, the bad guys are actually gaining business because of the publicity of practices such as this (there are other reasons but it is a contributing factor to the perception of the US in the Muslim world).

Finally, lets try the accountability system mentioned by ES – if the prez is so gung ho to torture he putts himself on the line. If it works then it was done in a very restricted context and isn’t as liable to be abused. If it doesn’t then he’s got to face the full weight of the law.

A government of laws and not men? Accountability and transparency? Holy crap – we might be talking about some radical democratic republic!

Now, take a look again at the legislation the POTUS and the VP have pushed – no accountability, no transparency and no legal remonstrance (even by US citizens).

How did we ever beat the fascists and the communists without resorting to these measures?

Also, consider, many of these terrorists are willing to blow themselves into bits to take out 10 or 12 enemies and get 72 virgins – do you really think they’d give away secret information about their comrades in fanaticism just cause they’re having difficulty breathing? Sure, waterboarding might work on Joe Blow from the hardware store, but Zubob the Psycho? Hardly.

Why does everything have to be black and white?

You’re putting torturing OBL on the same level as shooting a child in the head! One is a much more acceptable form of preventing a terrorist attack then the other.

Exactly. Today its the CIA torturing enemies of the state, thirty years from now it will be the local sheffiff water-boarding the captain of the football team to find out who the local pot dealer is.

the example of OBL is a very good reason to maintain the illegality of such methods – only someone absolutely convinced they had to break the law to save lives would choose such an option. That would serve the point of making it extremely rare. Legalizing such options would turn it into a fairly common practice – a practice with no real demonstrable effectiveness thus far except for autocratic governments keeping the sheep in line.

Good point Eural.

Some intelligence professionals argue that it often provides false or misleading information because many subjects will tell their interrogators what they think they want to hear to make the water-boarding stop.

Tell them what they think they want to hear. Yes, a valuable technique that gives us loads of good intel.

The keyword being “Some”. Many other believe it to be highly effective. Torture done in the form used during the Inquisition gave the result you site. You’ve got to be a pretty strong suspect nowadays, and the right interrogator knows when you’re lying and when you’re not.

I write fiction for a living so trust me when I say you can invent a “hypothetical” to rationalize anything. We don’t live our lives by overblown hypotheticals. We live our lives according to certain core values. We adjust to reality, but we don’t stop being who we are simply because someone can write a scary scenario. Life is a not a thriller or a screenplay.

I thought conservatives believed in values.

Why does the argument hinge on the “24″ scenario? Will we always be in a state that we are in constant fear of something is to happen? I

Just like the lawyer (Alan Dervowitz (sp?)) said a few weeks ago, if there is a concern of something is about to happen, then the POTUS needs to sign on the dotted line that he takes responsibility for the torture of the suspect. Otherwise there is no accountability.

Can we stop using fiction to assess real-world situations?

Incidently, the example of OBL is a very good reason to maintain the illegality of such methods – only someone absolutely convinced they had to break the law to save lives would choose such an option. That would serve the point of making it extremely rare. Legalizing such options would turn it into a fairly common practice – a practice with no real demonstrable effectiveness thus far except for autocratic governments keeping the sheep in line.

“Give me liberty or give me death” – Patrick Henry

Seems like our leaders were made of sterner stuff 200 years ago.

BTW – your OBL example is truly hypothetical. There is no way to catch him on 9/10 since our leaders were busy ignoring all the warnings something was up. And he won’t be caught anytime soon since Bush has said (in 2002) that he’s really not that concerned about Mr. Bin Laden and doesn’t give him much thought.

Yeah, this is exactly the bunch you want to give the power to torture suspects to.