Dubya, by trying to explain the subtleties of terrorism and torture, continues to maintain his title as "The stupidest President of the USA." Before we go into the wrongs and rights of it, shouldn't we find out if it works? I mean: torture ....
Staritng with the commonsensical idea that people will say anything to make the pain stop, to be able to sleep, not to freeze or die of thirst ... you get the idea.
So, how do we know what they tell us is true? What if they are clever or well-trained to mix some true stuff with the lies? The kindergarten answer is: we check against what we already know to be true. Essentially, then, torture is research, however distasteful its methods!
Back to the original question of whether it works. If you already have some baseline info or data against which to check, then yes, it does yield more usable info. Now we can tackle the ethical question, should we use it? Well, if time is short and alternative methods absent or costly, then the pragmatic answer, however repulsive, is yes.
What if we lack any prior situational knowledge? Then, torture is just a dumb, time and resource wasting option because checking is either complicated or tedious. Okay, now the $64 million question about torturing terrorists and dear Dubya's signed approvals. Tactical or operational torture, where there are already boots on the ground or a Predator, satellite or radio-scanning, does provide battle field info.
But for the really useful intel on which committee handles what and who attends and who writes the minutes and whom are vulnerable to influence and of what kind, torture is clearly useless. When we need to know a woman or man's life story, being a friend works better; but that's too subtle for Dubya ...?
