Re: CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style A
According to the article, the restrictions on such use were very well defined.
According to the IG report the practices were well defined. Also, according to the same source, the implementation of the practices varied from well defined policy so much that there were recommendations to the DoJ to look into some things.
Counter, what happens when we do not use such and learn later a preventable attack was carried out... do the families of the dead get to sue because we didn't do everything we could to prevent it?
This begs the question. It assumes your conclusion as a premise.
What's at contention is the relative usefulness of the EITs. If EITs are relatively useful when compared to the ITs then there may be a point to your question. However, if EITs are not shown to be any more useful, then your point made in the question is moot.
It's not enough to show that EITs produce info--'cause that's not really in question--but it needs to be shown whether EITs are as useful as ITs. The IG report points out that EITs increase the production of intelligence reports. It also notes that quantity of reports is not the same thing as quality of information. As the CIA noted in their infamous KUBARK manual, time spent verifying false leads is counter-productive.
Given the other issues associated with EITs, EITs would have to be shown to be superior to ITs before they would be a good choice. If EITs were only "as good" as ITs then there wouldn't be much to justify using EITs over ITs.
I'd break the knee caps of any terrorist that had possible information to save lives and sleep well at night. I'd have nightmares if I learned I didn't act and people died.
You're begging the question again. You're assuming your conclusion as a premise again.
You also have to consider the possibility that what you did may have cost people their lives because you wasted time breaking his knees instead of using a more effective method of acquiring information. OR that you cost people their lives because we had to waste time chasing down the bad leads the guy gave.
The real question to ask is, could you sleep at night knowing that terrorist in custody knew about that bomb and we didn't get the information in time.
I couldn't.
You're begging the question again. You're assuming your conclusion as a premise again.
The point in question is that harsh techniques may not be the fastest or most reliable method available. If you would have trouble sleeping, then perhaps you should use the best methods available. And it's not at all clear that EITs are even as useful as ITs, let alone better.
ETA
Oh yeah, your link is broken