That is my understanding as a general rule. People under torture will say anything to make it stop. It's not a reliable method of getting true information. On the other hand there were some specific reports that the waterboarding of Sheik Khalid Muhammed oroduced valuable intelligence.
--- Doug Henwood <dhenwood at panix.com> wrote:
>
> On Mar 20, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Wojtek Sokolowski
> wrote:
>
> > --- Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The effectiveness or lack thereof of torture is
> an
> >> emprical question. Is there data?
> >>
> >
> > [WS:] Absolutely. This was precisely my point -
> it is
> > impossible to determine this a priori, because
> there
> > are compelling arguments for and against that
> > effectiveness.
>
> I thought that military and intelligence
> professionals frown on
> torture - it's ineffective and produces a lot of
> false leads (people
> will say anything to get you to stop), and they
> don't want the
> precedent of others doing it to our guys. It's only
> vicarious macho
> hotshots like Mitt Romney that cheer it on. Am I
> wrong on this?
>
> Doug
> ___________________________________
>
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
____________________________________________________________________________________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs