Torture actually hinders interrogations?

The interrogation is to extract the knowledge from the subject.

Torture is the deterrent. If the subject was to go back and say he got tortured they may be more fearful of capture, or it may have an opposite effect. The subject may tell others of his experience, the 'others' may than retaliate, therefore gaining the support of the American people.

Torture also makes the subject confused, emotional and it may keep them fighting longer. It causes all sorts of emotional problems in the subjects mind.

SOF's such as the Green Berets and the SAS are trained in dealing with capture, interrogations and torture etc. they are specifically told not to fight a winning battle in there minds, its believed that they could be driven to mental distractions and breakdowns. 3rd world forces have little access to such physiological training, and we can use it to our advantage.

So on the surface it would seem stupid and ineffective, but as you dig deeper you see that it is justifiable.

What you fail to consider is that there is no corroborating testimony or evidence that supports Ali Soufan's claim. Considering the number of people necessarily involved in such a program, all the way up the chain of command, doesn't it seem a little odd that nobody else has provided similar testimony?

And, if the additional documents that Cheney believes should be declassified and released support Ali Soufan's claim, as Obama and Feingold allege, then why are they so hesitant to release them?

Shouldn't you be more skeptical of politicians who claim that a classified document says what is politically expedient for them?

Shouldn't you ask yourself why all the CIA and Intelligence directors concur with what Cheney said, and that nobody else involved, except the Arab guy, claims it didn't work?

I find your utter faith in unsupported claims against Republicans to be disturbing. You need to be more skeptical of claims, even those from your own side. And you need to especially be concerned about claims that seem almost too perfect (as this one is).

I'm pretty sure Bush wasn't the first president of the United States to interrogate TERRORISTS by using questionable techniques. I bet the people who's children were beheaded with dull swords on television by these savages don't think waterboarding is too harsh...ever think of that...

Yes.. he's right and security forces from hundreds of countries have been wrong for thousands of years.

The facts are that torture ( assuming any of the things he mentions actually qualifies as torture, which isn't likely ) is just as effective as any other means of getting information.

The problem is you're talking one or two situations where a "stern talking to" worked.. without factoring in the thousands of failures.

Some things are completely out of bounds and should never be done.

Sometimes, tame methods work and produce results.

But sometimes, harsher methods are also effective.

im about as conservative as they get, and i agree with you. torture for torture's sake alone is effective, it tears down enemy morale and stresses the body. the enemy is not as effective in a weaker state. but, it is against laws we have submitted ourselves to, and also, by not participating, we set ourselves above the bad guys, and thats something to be proud of.

torture for interrogation purposes is retarded. most people who would require torture to talk have either been trained in resistance, or will tell you what you want to hear just to make you stop.

Yes since the person under torture would say everything in order to stop his or her ordeal!

This is fact.

The people defending torture as some kind of truth serum are complete ideologist and would never admit a fact if it was against their ideology.

Yep