Odd, I see no one responding to my mention of chemicals that loosen the tongue. Those work without the torture. Am I to assume that our agencies are denied access to these substances, or that torture is the preferred method of enlightenment?
Thank you for your civil reply to me. I am, after all, voicing my moral assessment and hard-earned opinion.
Chemicals can be effective...but they don't always work.
Besides which, how do you know that every conceivable method of enhanced interrogation wasn't tried before employing the waterboarding. It almost certainly was -- since, under the circumstances, nobody was inclined to leave a stone unturned.
They weren't playing "torture" -- as you assert. They were conducting serious, important...and critical...interrogations.
Frankly, your position on this torture issue is a moral enigma, inside a twisted logic...and shrouded by absurdity.
I don't know if chemistry is on or off the table, currently for interrogations. If it is not allowed, then that's a huge mistake, as it is a very effective method for many subjects.
But I get back to my basic point: the only thing that matters is effectiveness. It's all about finding that thing that works on each individual, and in that I would leave nothing off the menu. I'm not prepared to say that some technique is *always* wrong when I don't know the whole continuum of need.