Here's a better link: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/africa/05/12/libya.al.qaeda.prisoner/index.html?iref=24hours

Depends what the objective was. If the objective was to start a war with Iraq, then obviously it did work.

It doesn't matter (although this incident is tragic). Torture is illegal under US and international law, and, to quote the relevant statute: "NO EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES WHATSOEVER, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture." So even if "it did work", it is still a war crime, and I hope every last person involved in it gets put on trial (Democrat, Republican, Martian, I don't care). . . .

Probably not, to answer your question. . There were various reasons cited for going to war with Iraq. I am still convinced it was the right thing to do. If you read up on Saddam Hussein and his sons you may well think so to. THOSE three knew from torture.

pretty much lol

Torture is routinely used by totalitarian and lawless states to coerce false confessions from prisoners. The Spanish Inquisitors used it to get perfectly innocent people to "confess" witchcraft and heresy. The Commies used it to force our soldiers to "confess" to committing crimes against the Dear Leader and North Korean people during the Korean War. Those in a position to know have routinely dismissed torture as a tool for getting factual information. The ticking time bomb scenario is particularly silly. That is the last place where torture would be likely to work. Any operative worth a penny would simply lie, thus getting the pain to stop and letting the bomb go off while the interrogators were off on a wild goose chase.

Why would you call his terrorism "alleged" when he admitted his work with Al Qaeda, but his allegations of torture (not by Americans) are assumed automatically to be true? Would the torture not be "alleged" as well? Maybe Fox is the fair and balanced one?

<misplaced>

Leaving Iraq and Afghanistan out of the picture for the moment, we have no bases in countries that don’t want us to have bases there. In fact they scream bloody murder when we try to close them. As for bases being seen as ‘arrogance and selfishness expressed in tangible and threatening form’ the vast, vast majority of bases were established in WWII and the cold war when most countries were pretty happy to have us hanging out in their backyards. The only thing that has changed is that we are now considered the only world power. We are no more or less ‘arrogant’ than we were then. But really this business of other countries seeing us as threatening is overblown. The notion that most of the people of the world stay up nights worrying that we will attack them is ludicrous. We did and do continue to kill terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. People who are shooting at us is as good a definition as any, but you’re right, there’s not much due process in a firefight. This is not news though. Of course war will encourage people to join up against the ‘oppressors’ and of course deposing a tyrant will mean that people ruthlessly held in check will feel free to go back to their old internecine battles. And you’re right, there’s not much due process in a firefight. This is not news either. I see that I will not convince you that the war with Iraq could be worthwhile. I can’t demonstrate that it was, but it isn’t over yet. I did and do maintain that we have had gains and may see more. I also maintain that it was reasonable to go to war but agree that in retrospect it may not have been worth it. Only here we are now. I hope we can make the best of it.

Since none of the existing links given for this question seemed to work as of today (15 OCT 2009), here (followed by an extract) is one that does: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/14/iraq.torture/index.html Al-Libi's claim that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's government had trained al Qaeda operatives in producing chemical and biological weapons appeared in the October 2002 speech then-President Bush gave when pushing Congress to authorize military action against Iraq. It also was part of Powell's February 2003 presentation to the United Nations on the case for war, a speech Powell has called a "blot" on his record. Al-Libi later recanted the claim, saying it was made under torture by Egyptian intelligence agents, a claim Egypt denies. He died last week in a Libyan prison, reportedly a suicide, Human Rights Watch reported. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - So to get back to the question: was it a success story? Not only was it a complete failure, it raises other questions about its real motivation, and the methods employed.

They got the answers they wanted. Which is the end result of any kind of torture. Yes. Iraq was unnecessary until Bin Laden's head was obtained.