> Not meaning to sound like a torture advocate, but I think
> this is a little facile. Torture is an, er, skill, part of
> which is knowing when to stop, how much to apply, what will
> not work on whom, etc.
I'm not sure why you think this statement would not make you a "torture advocate" -- the whole point is that IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER IT 'WORKS' OR NOT, or even how you define 'works' -- Cheney's position is that you *can* measure whether it works or not and thus is a valid thing to do in "some" cases.
Those of us who are not torture advocates DO NOT CARE whether you can calculate the efficiency of torture: it is wrong in every case.
You apparently agree with Cheney.
/jordan