This, and then that's enough on torture

The only lingering possible justification for torture -- the so-called "ticking bomb" rationale -- has, I think, been dealt its death blow by increasing statements from key people that it is not effective. Those, like Dick Cheney, who claim that it was, have not offered specific examples. Those, like Karl Rove, who cite the "west coast attack," are distorting the role of torture in stopping that attack. It was stopped by conventional intelligence methods.

Against that lack of supporting evidence, we have this, from McClatchy news service:

"The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos."

[Inspector General John] "Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit, according to the memos."

"Even some of those in the military who developed the techniques warned that the information they produced was "less reliable" than that gained by traditional psychological measures, and that using them would produce an "intolerable public and political backlash when discovered," according to a Senate Armed Services Committee report released on Tuesday."

"Last December, FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair magazine that he didn't believe that intelligence gleaned from abusive interrogation techniques had disrupted any attacks on America."

I think that about sums up the case. Dick Cheney and FOXNews will continue to claim otherwise, but that doesn't make it so.

For me, that's enough about the torture question.

Ralph