re: #134 Lawrence Schmerel

“For [Bush] to demonstrate the use of torture saved British lives he has to demonstrate you can’t get information any other way.”

Is that statement correct? Regardless of whether torture is right or wrong, is it true?

If the use of torture resulted in information that saved British lives, does Bush have to demonstrate that the information was otherwise unavailable before he can honestly say that the use of torture saved British lives?

The Bush administration stated that “torture works.” Implied in that statement is the idea that by using torture, more and better information would not have been attainable via other means.

Does “torture work” if by using torture you miss out on more and better information?

My answer is only if you have some irrational need to defend the use of torture.

In other words, if using torture provided information that saved lives but more lives could have been saved if other methodologies (the ones recommended by experienced interrogators, btw, as opposed to methodologies recommended by interrogation novices and politicians who panicked in the face of 9/11), can you really say that torture “saved lives?”

If the use of torture results in a net loss of lives saved, had it really “saved lives?”