[quote=CONCHO]Have there been studies done on the validity of information gained via torture? It seems to me that torture is a low percentage proposition.

This torture has never been about gaining intelligence. It is about setting the precedent that the government can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants. It is meant to give any political opposition pause before opening their mouth. It is about display of ultimate power, nothing more.

CIA officers, military and law enforcement officials and even the Army’s own manuals state that torturing doesn’t produce good intelligence. So anyone who tells you otherwise is just covering up the horrible truth. It’s about power, that’s it.[/quote]

CONCHO: I had this very argument with Casca on another thread. You’re absolutely correct. I spent three years in Central America during the 1980s with an Army advisory team and saw both torture and interrogations (there is a clear difference between the two).

Torture was used to send a psychological message (Psyops) and was NOT used to gather or glean intelligence. That was what interrogations were for. You would be amazed what sitting down with someone over a period of hours or days can produce in terms of useful intelligence.

You subject someone to excruciating pain and they will tell you anything to get the pain to stop. The US Army and CIA did extensive research following the Vietnam War on the various “tells” or “leads” a questioner would provide a torture victim and how the torture victim would then answer questions trying to satisfy the questioner.

All that being said, you also have to create a dividing line between what constitutes an interrogation and what is genuinely torture. Sleep deprivation, threat of punishment/pain, etc are all valid interrogation methods. Take a close look at waterboarding and you tell me if you think that is torture or not.