For future debate/sound reasoning/logic reference, when something cannot be proven to work, it is de facto proven not to work.

Did they make you strip naked, put you in a dog collar while some woman was laughing at the size of your manhood and make you crawl onto a pile of your naked comrades and commit sodomy too?

Nothing wrong with getting tortured and sodomized by prison guards??? Note to self...don't get transferred to Barbe's prison.

The facts are indisputable. After 9/11 there have been no additional attacks. That proves that we were doing something right during the Bush administration period. Quod erat demonstrandum

Naughty Fiddler, that's not what I meant! I meant that should you wish to strip naked and put on a dog collar while some woman laughs at the size of your manhood and so far, hey, who are we to judge....

Sigh...just trying to lighten the mood just a tad...

The facts are indisputable. After 9/11 there have been no additional attacks. That proves that we were doing something right during the Bush administration period.

"If you want proof that the interogation worked then find out how many lethal attacks by terrorists happened after 911."

Even by this fallacious standard of proof [which fiddler has just described], the interrogation fails the test:

March 11, 2004: suicide terrorist attacks shake several train stations on Spain's capital Madrid, killing 190 people and injuring 1,247.

July 7, 2005: suicide terrorist attacks shake London transport system killing 52 people and injuring 700.

http://www.netipedia.com/index.php/21st_century#Worldwide_deaths_from_war_and_terror_attacks

March 11, 2004: suicide terrorist attacks shake several train stations on Spain's capital Madrid, killing 190 people and injuring 1,247.

July 7, 2005: suicide terrorist attacks shake London transport system killing 52 people and injuring 700.

The fact is we have NOT been attacked since 9-11 and planned follow on attacks were revealed and thwarted via information extracted using EIT's, period, full stop.

I can just imagine the interrogators: "No, we don't give a sh!t about any of those plans against foreigners; just the USA, goddamnit!!"

Wrong, the fact is you have absolutely no proof EITorture thwarted anything.

No, you're right, I don't, the CIA does. And people who were involved, including the former VP say that they did.

Now what proof do you have that the 3 people who EIT's were used on did not divulge useful intel?

Did you read the documents recently referred to by former Vice President Cheney and others, saying that the use of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques not only protected the nation, but saved lives?

But here's what I can tell you -- that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques -- which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques -- doesn't answer the core question, which is: Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques?

And if part of the United States were under imminent threat, could you envision yourself ever authorizing the use of those enhanced interrogation techniques?

And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe, but I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking shortcuts that undermine who we are. And there have been no circumstances during the course of this first hundred days in which I have seen information that would make me second-guess the decision that I've made.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,”

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

April 29, 2009 9:12 PM
Obama: Info Gained Doesn't Justify Torture
President Obama said tonight that the "torture memos" do not show that intelligence obtained using harsh interrogation techniques could not have been discovered through alternate methods.

In making that argument, the president was deflecting charges by former Vice President****Cheney that the memos that have been made public do not reflect the important information gained by using waterboarding and other controversial techniques.

"The public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question," Mr. Obama said. "Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?"

Mr. Obama said that even though it might be harder, he still felt it was best for the long term security of the country to only employ intelligence gathering practices that are consistent with America's values.

"Part of what makes us, I think, still a beacon to the world is that we are willing to hold true to our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy," Mr. Obama said.

On the issue of whether or not waterboarding constituted torture, the president was unequivocal, reiterating statements he made on the campaign trail that there was no distinction.

"What I've said -- and I will repeat -- is that waterboarding violates our ideals and our values," Mr. Obama said. "I do believe that it is torture. I don't think that's just my opinion; that's the opinion of many who've examined the topic. And that's why I put an end to these practices."

In making this decision, the president stated that he was cognizant that he will be judged by whether or not he successfully keeps the American people safe.

"There have been no circumstances during the course of this first 100 days in which I have seen information that would make me second guess the decision that I have made," Mr. Obama said.

The president plucked a historical example to bolster his position, noting that during the bombing of London, Winston Churchill refused to condone torture of German detainees.

"The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people," Mr. Obama said. "It corrodes the character of a country."

Ultimately, by rejecting these interrogation methods, Mr. Obama said that the country would not only regain its status as a beacon to the world, it would also rob Al Queda of a key recruitment technique. The terrorist group, the president said, uses the United States use of such practices as a justification for killing civilians and vilifying America.

The president plucked a historical example to bolster his position, noting that during the bombing of London, Winston Churchill refused to condone torture of German detainees.

"The reason was that Churchill understood, you start taking short-cuts, over time, that corrodes what's -- what's best in a people," Mr. Obama said. "It corrodes the character of a country."

President Obama said tonight that the "torture memos" do not show that intelligence obtained using harsh interrogation techniques could not have been discovered through alternate methods.

In making that argument, the president was deflecting charges by former Vice President****Cheney that the memos that have been made public do not reflect the important information gained by using waterboarding and other controversial techniques.

"The public reports and the public justifications for these techniques, which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques, doesn't answer the core question," Mr. Obama said. "Which is, could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question, are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques?"

doesn't answer the core question," Mr. Obama said. "Which is, could we have gotten that SAME (emphasis mine) information without resorting to these techniques?

You do realize that what Obama says here is that the information was sound but he simply does not like the method. In other words, it works, he just doesn't approve of it.

You do realize that, by using the same (or a few other much more exquisite) techniques that I could get you to admit to being an AIDS-ravaged closet homosexual with a depraved desire to spread the disease to others or that you sexually abuse your child on a daily basis?

Naive people are so simplistic in their thinking.

your local police force accomplishes more in terms of prevention in a single year than Dork Cheney and his thugs did in 8

So, when you ask me if I am a closet homosexual and I say yes, you then go to my ex or girlfriends and ask them under duress how long I have been a closet homosexual and none can recall an instance where I exhibited these traits, you would return to me and demand more truth and less lies.

Of course, under duress with proof that you simply don't take my word for anything and verify that information, I would be careful to tell the truth when questioned and the information would go back and forth between interrogation teams and detainees until the truth begins to congeal.

Intelligence analists pick up internet chatter, suspect movements, financial transactions, airport surveilence and put this all together.

And if you think they aren't guilty of coercion, strong arming, and other tactics to get what they need, you are the naive one. I'm not saying it always happen but it does happen and a lot more than anyone outside of the fray ever hears about.

Nothing was accomplished of any more significance than what can be accomplished by routine investigative techniques (your local police force accomplishes more in terms of prevention in a single year than Dork Cheney and his thugs did in 8).

The hallmark of naivite is accepting at face value the statements of those who have a vested interest in protecting their own asses.

Under duress, your ex or girlfriends would have plenty to say about your proclivities to confirm the "intel".