A most humble welcome to all...
The subject of the day, and for some time to come, will be torture, and its use by the CIA and the US military...Though obviously immoral and illegal, the practinioners of torture and their supporters (eg Charles Krauthmmer) have but one argument left: though abhorent and unacceptable (in most cases, that is), torture works; as such, a nation at war has no other option but to use whatever methods lead to protecting its citizens...It is therefore not surprising that members of the US security establishment have not hesitated to confirm that thanks to "enhanced interrogation techniques" (what most of us call torture) vital information and numerous attacks have been prevented.But then, what else could we expect them to say?
If torture is immoral, illegal, and ineffective, would we not be entitled to know why they did not refuse to engage in such dispicable activities?
Interestingly, back in 2003, George W Bush , in a speech to the UN commemorating International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, said that the US is "committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example"...
Considering that the US administration had approved the use of torture August 1, 2002,
what are we to make of Mr Bush's statement: pure cynicism, or plain ignorance?
In any case, though torture enthusiasts are now arguing that these methods were useful, the US government decided to abandon them in March 2003: "no one was waterboarded after March 2003, and coercive interrogation methods were shelved altogether in 2005"
But if torture is so effective, and if the end justified the means, why did they scrap the program?