Jason Kuznicki of Positive Liberty has on several occasions put forth the thesis that using forceful methods in interrogations “never works”. Obviously there are a great number of people in the intelligence communities that disagree. Given the obvious benefits of finding out the truth of this matter, the sad fact is this is a matter which could easily resolved … by people with the right security clearance.
In our intelligence community we have received a flood of data from various sources, electronic, snitches, interrogation, and probably others I haven’t considered. We also have the ability to gauge the veracity and accuracy of information from those sources and can measure in some relatively quantifiable means the effectiveness of the same. While we in the public don’t know “what works” and “what doesn’t”, surely the intelligence community (and the White House and Congressional oversight committees) are in a position to settle this matter. A quick study of data received which has been confirmed false or true and then evaluated for whether it is right or wrong. How effective and good are these different methods? This is a straightforward question which can easily be answered and probably has been.
I haven’t been convinced by Mr Kuznicki’s arguments that they never work, and I don’t think I’ve seen data to that effect from anyone who has access to the data and has done a careful study to verify that assumption or not. This is a matter which can surely be settled. The question is, why hasn’t it? There is the distinct possibility that the reason this hasn’t settled for the public is that the answer is the uncomfortable one, not the one that nice people in warm rooms wish it might be, not the one that voters would cheer.
One Response
Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.
Continuing the Discussion