Congress should get answers from the policy-makers
Karen J. Greenberg, Joshua L. Dratel
Sunday, January 23, 2005
<snip> -- Does torture work? Given the detailed attention shown in the White House memos to describing three levels of interrogation (from questioning to physical abuse) to be applied in the war on terror, is there an underlying assumption that torture in fact really works? That it is more effective than ordinary means of questioning prisoners? And, if so, what does it work to produce?
Have you considered whether it is a means of venting frustration or a means of obtaining reliable information? Is there clinical, verifiable evidence that torture produces better information more quickly and more accurately than other methods of interrogation?
Did your discussions of torture involve consulting experts in Israel, Britain, Egypt and elsewhere? If so, what did those sources have to say in recommending torture? Or was the administration convinced of the efficacy of torture before it began drawing up its legal documents?
-- Assuming, for a moment, that torture is effective, what is the difference between this conflict and these detainees, and previous conflicts and prisoners? <snip>
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2005/01/23/ING4IASU9U1.DTL