Yes.

Zen, I think you’re confusing or conflating physical torture designed to get a predetermined “confession” (as in the Inquisition) versus the psychological and physical means used by those with plenty of psychological and medical knowledge to break someone down. The former is simple brute force, merely applying force until the subject says what the interrogators want him to say. In the latter, bits of information can be drawn out little by little, and those bits which can be verified can be used to determine when the subject has finally broken, making further information obtained more reliable. Reliability of information can be tested cheaply, it’s not like your side has to take a huge gamble on it before commiting lots of resources. It can also be cross checked beween several prisoners, or other sources.

Granted, many despots have used torture as reprisal, and as a means of subjugating people through fear. Sadistic jailers have used it for their own sick pleasure, as in Abu Graib. (As a slight defense of those jailers, the overall culture of degrading prisoners to break them was probably put in place by those in charge, and the jailers took it too far.)

In 1976 I spoke with a former Navy pilot of the Vietnam war era who went through POW training. He told me that he was taught that *everyone* eventually breaks down. So even back in the 60’s, the Vietnamese/Russians/Chinese had torture/interrogation down to a science. He also said the goal of the person under torture, the POW, was to delay as much as possible and make the enemy work for the information. And I’ve spoken with an actual US Army veteran who was held POW by the North Vietnamese. Do some research about POW Bobby Garwood in relation to John McCain’s stint as a POW. McCain collaborated more than Garwood, yet Garwood was the one court-martialed. That was a big controversy. Most former POWs hate McCain’s guts because he actually served as a radio announcer for North Vietnam on propaganda that was piped to the POW camps in the North.

The thing about getting information from a prisoner is down to a science. The militaries of the world have been using modern psychology for a few generations now. Those who are willing to use whatever means it takes, can pretty much get what they want. There have been enough wars and conflicts and opportunity for all the big players, East and West, to have built up the science. Compared to some of the things I’ve heard and read, waterboarding is actually humane in comparison.

I have my doubts that its far less reliable. Seems that would be context and method dependent. If you have any arguments I’d like to hear them, but I’m pretty sceptical on that point. My guess also is that the question of ‘less reliability’ is ‘compared to what,’ so in a situation where you don’t have alternative sources of intelligence, it only needs to be more reliable than random guessing.
What I’m really saying is that I think Books. et al have a winning hand on this particular question and I’m more interested in the tangent.

I’m no naif about British ruthlessness when fighting the likes of Adolph. However, none of the turned spies subsequently complained of having been tortured. It’s possible, I suppose, that the British might have only tortured those they planned to hang, but I doubt it. There would have been no point: They didn’t have information that was all that useful, and the threat of being made to dance Danny Deever had already failed to turn them.

The point I was trying to make was not whether or not water-boarding constitutes torture (I don’t think it does) or whether water-boarding can ever be justified (I think it may sometimes be), or if it should be admitted to (I think its use should have been denied , as a matter of national security), or if any form of torture is acceptable under any circumstances (I’m not addressing that).

Regardless of one’s position, this fact has now been established and admitted to: It works. Moreover, it has been admitted to by someone on the “side” (Democrats) which was most vociferous against water-boarding when it was used during the administration of the other “side’s” president.

The claim that water-boarding doesn’t result in obtaining useful information can no longer be used; by anyone.

If ya’ll want to take the comment thread on tangents, go ahead. I’ve done so many a time.

Vader, do you suppose that the British didn’t know how to keep war-time secrets? I wouldn’t put it past them to have tortured those spies who refused to cooperate and then hung them after obtaining information.

Wars and spying are based on lies and deception, by all sides.

The argument that waterboarding doesn’t work always seemed to me the weakest argument in its opponents’ arsenal and probably more a form of wishful thinking than even an argument. I would far rather see a thoughtful discussion of what torture is and why its wrong, applied to the case of waterboarding.

The British tortured no Nazi spies they caught in England, in spite of the fact that the Nazis were as evil as any Islamist. Instead, they politely gave them a choice between prompt and humane hanging or turning. Most turned. Those who didn’t were hanged for espionage, using the measured drop, which is arguably the most merciful form of execution around.

I say we give the Islamists the same choice. Turn, or be hanged for crimes against humanity.