How about some consistency in our thinking about the efficacy of "harsh interrogations." The Iranian courts have released Roxana Saberi, after she was convicted of espionage. I'd bet that 100% of Americans believe she is not guilty of spying for the U.S., and the charges are completely trumped up. Not so fast there. She did have in her possession a classified Iranian state document. Was this solid evidence she was spying for the U.S.? No, but the Iranians DID also have a "confession" from her. None of us believe the confession was worth the paper it was written on, of course.
So why does anyone believe the CIA obtained any information that was true from any prisoner it waterboarded or otherwise tortured? More below the fold.
The Los Angeles Times reported today on Roxana Saberi's release from Iranian prison. See http://www.latimes.com/...
The Times says:
After weeks in isolation and continuous interrogation inside Tehran's Evin Prison, she was hustled into a courtroom April 14 and convicted of espionage in a trial that lasted less than an hour. Authorities said she confessed to passing on intelligence to the United States.
Through her lawyer, Saberi quickly recanted, insisting her confession was made under duress.
I'm sure we all agree with Saberi's lawyer. But how (why) do we think the information obtained by the CIA from its prisoners through waterboarding and other torture techniques is more reliable than Roxana Saberi's "confession"? Hopefully, the new "holy grail" memo by the Inspector General that the Obama Administration is reportedly about to release will also show that virtually no reliable information can be obtained through torture techniques, whose purpose throughout history has been to break people's will and get them to sign false "confessions" for public consumption. Only we Americans could fool ourselves into thinking such techniques ought to be used because they can ALSO extract truthful "confessions."