http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_prisoner_abuse
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/08/13/070813fa_fact_mayer
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5780585
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/25/opinion/main619513.shtml
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/jun/08/usa.uknews4
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2007/02/26/usint15408.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/01/AR2005110101644_pf.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_site
GW, the fact that you believe that the extent of US torture is that 3 Al Qaeda were water boarded is absurd. I don't know why I bother to post any information as we all know you don't read anything.
Whatever the US policy is regarding torture it should be discussed and decided upon through open debate and codified. The secretive, double talking, covert insidious way it is being carried out under this administration is not what an open democracy is all about. I don't think any reasonable person would object to a practice of water boarding in appropriate situations. It just needs to be out in the open imo with some level of review and control.
Morality aside, I think there is a real question as to the efficacy of torture. Many interogators in the know seem to hold that it is not an effective way to get reliable intelligence.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7516880/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2302-2005Jan11.html
http://www.slate.com/id/2106702/
"...listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones. Asked whether that would be true of religiously motivated fanatics, he says that the "batting average" might be lower: "perhaps six out of ten." And if you beat up the remaining four? "They'll just tell you anything to get you to stop."
"...the fact that torture, when applied, seems very likely to produce false intelligence upon which we rely to our own detriment. Ask Colin Powell. He delivered a key presentation to the Security Council in which he made the case for war against Iraq. The keystone of Powell?s presentation turned on evidence taken from a man named al-Libi who was tortured and said that Iraq was busily at work on an WMD program. This information, of course, was totally wrong. Al-Libi fabricated it because he knew this is just what the interrogators wanted to hear, and by saying it, they would stop torturing. It was a perfect demonstration of the tendency of torture to contaminate the intelligence gathering process with bogus data. And for Powell, it was ?the most embarrassing day of my life.?
Mr Bush said the CIA had used an "alternative set of procedures", agreed with the justice department, once suspects had stopped talking.
But he said: "The US does not torture. I have not authorised it and I will not."
On January 27th, President Bush, in an interview with the Times, assured the world that ?torture is never acceptable, nor do we hand over people to countries that do torture.?
Bush's signing statement: The president, as commander in chief, can waive the torture ban if he decides that harsh interrogation techniques will assist in preventing terrorist attacks.
