So, before proceeding, can we agree that the film was not the source of the claim that enhanced interrogation lead to the death of OBL? Simple yes or no will suffice.
Ok:
Jophiel wrote:
I suppose there's the "Agency trying to cover its ass in the face of massive public and Congressional disapproval" side and the "The truth" side but I'd assume only morons would take the former and pretend it's equally valid as the latter.
Neither of those propositions are inherently contradictory though. One side can engage in CYA without the other side having "the truth" on their side. There's at least as much vested interest in one side insisting that no useful intelligence ever came from enhanced interrogation as there is the other side insisting that there was. I just find the former claim incredibly unlikely. No useful intelligence
ever? Really?
A reasonable and objective person would assume the truth is somewhere in between. Well, he would if there was a reasonable in between here. The problem is that one side is taking the already reasonable position that "some" intelligence was gained via these techniques, while the other is taking the absurd position that "no" intelligence was gained. The "some" position is almost certainly true, right? I mean, if we're being reasonable, rational, objective people.
The correct question here isn't whether any intelligence was gained via enhanced interrogation, but how much was gained, and whether it was worth the means used to get it. Of course, to answer this, we'd need to honestly assess what was done, make some real ethical analysis of those actions, and weigh them against the alternative of not using them. Platitudes are not sufficient for this analysis. Constant repetitions of "torture doesn't work!" doesn't accomplish this. Sadly, most people would prefer to go forward using emotion inspiring slogans and don't want to bother with pesky facts and analysis. Par for the course, I guess.