Something that has been troubling me about this whole thing is how it was claimed that 'enhanced interrogation techniques' yielded valuable information about future terrorist attacks on the US. What info exactly was that and was it obtained before the torture was used? I got the impression that many such 'plots' were never really regarded seriously. That's sort of troubling for me, logically, as well. I mean, JS himself wouldn't profess to represent all people that are essentially right-wing on this issue, but beforehand the argument had largely been that torture did not take place. There had been little to no debate on if torture in fact worked. I remember posing the question on these forums becuase it seemed murky at the time but I don't recall getting much feedback on it. It's been generally the consensus of the modern military and CIA that torture does not work. Period. Now JS's argument -- again, at the moment one person but possibly others may adhere to it -- is that torture DOES work, and what happened at least could be thought of as torture. But what's very frusterating about this is that it doesn't seem to have come from any source other than the Vice President (Cheney). And he did so just on the preumption that it would work. It's very frusterating to go to people mostly acknowledged to know the issue and they say it doesn't work... and that's been the policy for years... and then one man comes along and just 'knows better' and he just happens to be right? And everyone else is wrong? And always WAS wrong? That's a bit... I mean, c'mon.