Replies

Under EIT under the CIA high value targets would confess to anything,...

Marc Theissen has written several times debunking this fallacy. The EITs were not to extract information but to break the suspect's will to resist. The questions they were asked under duress were ones to which the interrogators already knew the answer. Once the terrorists will was broken, information was extracted using conventional techniques.

"Marc A. Thiessen (born 1967) is an American author, columnist and political commentator, who served as a speechwriter for United States President George W. Bush (2004–2009) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (2001–2004). He wrote the 2010 New York Times bestselling book, Courting Disaster, in which he argues that the enhanced interrogation techniques used by the CIA, which the Obama administration has characterized as torture"

Now there is a credible independent expert on the subject for you. /I hope I don't have to point out the sarcasm in this statement/

The guy is a speachwriter and republican political operative with no experience in national security, intelligence, or investigative techniques.

And why real conservatives would choose to defend the bigotted ignorant actions of know-it-all better-than-anyone-else neocons is absolutely beyond me. Remember, these guys bankrupted the US.

For those interested a great discussion of the various sides in this argument is at "Counterfactual, A curious history of the C.I.A.’s secret interrogation program", by Jane Mayer. Read more http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/03/29/100329crbo_books_mayer#ixzz1cw96Xr1S