I think you probably mean Mark Bowden, Ace.

He's got a new post that's even more absurd than that one. A priest compares the Church's attitude towards gays to Nazi attitudes towards Jews, and Andy makes it his quote of the day? What the fuck?

After reading the Newsmax article, I did not feel that it shows that "torture works." If you think about it, they got the name of his unit and carrier and the target they were supposed to hit. So what? They could probably figure most of that out simply by looking at where he got shot down and at his uniform and aircraft wreckage. The information was not very useful when they got it. When he "broke" and signed the "confession" about doing war crimes, big f'n deal. He felt terrible about it, but what did the "confession" accomplish for them? The only people who would have believed in it being true were already on the Commies' side anyway, like the Jane Fondas and John Kerrys of the world.

Think about it: all the torture that the NV did to our guys in the Hanoi Hilton-- what did it get them? Do you really think they got anything useful out of it?

The only thing the Commies succeeded at was hurting, humiliating and otherwise mistreating our prisoners. They also used their fake "confessions" as a propaganda tool, but only people already on their side would believe it anyway.

As has been pointed out, yeah, you can get anyone to say what you want them to say by torturing them for long enough. But anyone who is committed to a cause enough can delay the extraction of the information until it is not very useful, or inject enough misinformation into it to make it worth less or even be a hindrance.

I do think that torture can work, I just think it's overrated. I don't have any moral qualms about doing it either, in the right circumstances. Just saying that I don't think this McCain example "proves" that torture works.

There are examples of torture that I have heard of that worked, for sure, most notably by the French in Algeria.

I think the confession is a rather big deal, Mark.

Not that I hold it against McCain or any of the other servicemen who succumbed. But you can better bet they didn't want to make those statements. Those statements were hateful to them, and yet they made them all the same.

You say "so what" to the intelligence offered by McCain. Similar minor intelligence offered up by a terrorist -- "By what method do your superiors contact you?" -- may result in additional arrests and lives spared from maiming or death.

Weak-ass lefties want to take a short cut to the high ground by claiming torture doesn't work because the victim will say anything to make it stop. And I suppose the victim would do that. Once.

But if you kick the crap out of him for bad information I'd bet the world he won't do it twice. I'm no fan of torture but you can't let the Left take the easy out here.

Recent arguments against torture are confusing and misleading. MCain and others take the position that it does not work and we must remain above that sort of thing so American soldiers will not be tortured in the future. Am I wrong or does anybody remember any war where Americans were not tortured anyway, I can't think of one.
By the way I suspect had some reasonable chap pointed out to the British that standing in a line with pretty red uniforms while getting whacked from behind trees and bushes was a recipie for disaster, and had anybody listened, we may be eating crumpets to this day. Adapt to the enemy or fail.

andy took the boeing, newsweek jumped the shark

I appreciate it very much that Ace and Allah read Andrew Sullivan's ridiculously overwrought horseshit so that I don't have to.

In Paul Johnson's History of the Jews, he says the Nazis tortured a Jewish girl for weeks and she never talked. I figure there is a tiny fraction of us who could stand up to torture, but I think you'd have to be really crazy and really masochistic, sort of like Mel Gibson. Regardless, Ace's post was spot on.

Yeah, I guess you're right Ace. The Frence were certainly mopping up insurgents in Algeria until they were forced to stop torturing prisoners.

French, sorry.

Torture works. The problem for the interrogator is determining what is real information and what is just a cover story; however, this is also true about information gleaned from other sources and from methods that don't involve torture. Torture speeds up the process of making the prisoner run out of stories to tell.

So we too can beat phony confessions out of prisoners, provided we're sufficiently brutal? Capital.

>>John McCain: Torture Worked on Me

Man, that's klassy with a K.

>>And - as McCain has publicly admitted at least twice - the torture worked!

And crackerjack writing too! Holy thumbscrews, batman!

What is this, a race to the bottom? That piece is garbage. Surely an article about something as serious as torture could aim a little higher.

The Frence were certainly mopping up insurgents in Algeria until they were forced to stop torturing prisoners.

It worked there, too, Mark.

The battle was lost, of course.

But I think one of the generals there defended tough tactics by saying they were necessary and they worked.

The fact that the Nazis lost WWII doesn't mean their tanks and tank-tactics weren't effective. They were.

Here's how we get Sully on-side: We let it slip that the Al Q types we're putting through the grinder are really of "alternate sexuality" and are doing this as a purely consensual gesture of homoeroticism.

He'd set himself on fire in front of Stonewall to keep torture legal, if that was the case...

Ace:

Loose shit alert: Mark Bowden didn't write that Atlantic Monthly article that you linked. It was a guy named Bruce Hoffman.

It's true. Torture does work. This blog is living proof. Ace has convinced me that gay, hyperbolic Neocrats(R) can't believe the sky is blue no matter how gray it gets. All their silly posturing is torture but it only works on Neocrats. Go figure.

The article goes on to say that McCain was tortured into _signing a false confession_. File that next to our 'slam-dunk' case about Iraq's WMDs in the "Torture works, really!" file.

Ace
You are a moron and couldn't hold McCain's jockstrap. Your simian intelligence also doesn't seem to comprehend that all the North Vietnamese gained was useless information. Sure torture works!
Have them read your ramblings

Drew, why the hostility? Nobody is going to take away John McCain's jockstrap from you, your most prized possesion that you wear 24/7.

And, Drew doesn't wear McCain's jock like a viking, he wears it like Victoria's Secret model.

What actionable intelligence did torturing McCain produce?

Oh wait, I forgot that torturing the bad guys is a sign of manhood and dominating the enemy amongst this crowd. Kind of like cannibalism is amongst some cultures.

Just admit that you enjoy the thought of people like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed being tortured. We know that's what this is really about.

Thank you Ace, this article will be a worthy addition to the "Public Support" section of my blog.

As to torture working, yes it's true. America's govt has already made good use of torture to get a prisoner to verify a certain fact they needed. Namely al-Libi's revelation that there was a link between Al Qaida and Iraq, which was useful in Powell's UN presentation to sell the invasion.

Thank you Ace, this article will be a worthy addition to the "Public Support" section of my blog.

As to torture working, yes it's true. America's govt has already made good use of torture to get a prisoner to verify a certain fact they needed. Namely al-Libi's revelation that there was a link between Al Qaida and Iraq, which was useful in Powell's UN presentation to sell the invasion.

Torture works. The problem is, the democrats would rather feel good about themselves and allow a WMD terror event to take place in the USA than admit they "dirtied their hands" by allowing the use of torture. We will have to wait until after we lose a city before they will see the light. Perhaps not even then.

How about you volunteer as a guinnea pig then? We'll give you a secret and keep electrocuting your gonads until you talk. Sure, you might prove your point, but we get to torture you. Win win situation.

Seriously, who gives a fuck if it works or not, are you not a member of an enlightened first world country? Yet you have no problem stooping to the level of the terrorists and torturing people? People like you make me sick.

It seems to me that it is tactically useful to at least keep the bad guys guessing as to what we are capable of. For this reason alone, encoding moral absolutes into law probably puts us at a disadvantage.

Why not just admit you like the idea of torturing people.

"Don't fuck with us or we will cut out your tongue".

That's what this is about. Ace gets a stiffy from torture.

Torture works

terrorism works

genocide works

So, why not collect the whole set? Be the first on your block to become your enemy.

Morons. The point Ace is making is not that we should be torturing everyone all the time, but that when used it can work. No one here is saying that we like or want torture. But some of us are willing to tolerate it in certain desperate situations, even though we don't like it at all. This is a life or death situation we are in here, remember? The point was not about if we should or should not be using it, but whether or not it really works if used. Not that Ace needs me to make the point for him [see his newer post farther up the page].

First of all, I keep seeing a lot of references to torture opponents saying "torture never works. Never never never." I'm just curious how many places you've seen it stated that emphatically? I haven't read every word ever written on the subject, but I assume if you're characterizing the opposition stance this way you can reference several examples, particularly since so much of your post is dedicated to disproving what all these critics are saying.

I'm also not persuaded by the Sri Lankan example. What makes "Thomas" an unimpeachable source? Am I to take it from the article that we can now move on from advocating torture to advocating summary execution? It's a good thing he's incapable of being mistaken about a suspect. And while I of course can't disprove what he said, I don't see why an unnamed Sri Lankan torurer should be the decisive voice in the matter. The Israelis certainly seem to have a different take on the subject.

I think we need to be clear about what we're talking about here. I see a lot of pro-torture advocates trying to make their point by minimizing what we're doing, to the point of dishonesty. "We turned up the air conditioning, boo hoo" may seem like a pithy rejoinder, but it adds nothing to a debate that I would hope both sides take seriously. There's credible evidence that we have torutred many prisoners to death. It's just speculation, but if any of these instances of torture had saved countless lives, I have to believe the administration would have found a way to leak that out.

I also question where we draw the line. If a military patrol captures an enemy soldier and wants to know if there's an ambush ahead, it seems to follow logically that they can torture their prisoner. After all, they are facing imminent death. So when do we not use torture? If a kidnapper is apprehended, but we don't know where his victim is, let's go ahead and torture him. If it's appropriate over there, why isn't it appropriate as a codified part of our criminal justice system?