Hal O'Brien

pecunium posted about an interview he did for radio. The show is Justice Talking, and the topic for him is the usefulness (or lack thereof) of torture in interrogations. It's admirable because he manages to make his point without using the phrase "movie plot."

This is an .MP3 of the whole show. This is an .MP3 of only Terry's segment.

The show as a whole starts off with John Yoo. What's striking, especially listening to it after hearing Terry, is that Yoo doesn't even appear to be justifying the sweeping anti-constitutional doctrines he espouses on the basis of usefulness. No, he appears to be taking the tack of starting with the conclusion that The President Has Broad Powers In Wartime, and then backfilling his argument from there. A classic of, If the facts don't fit the theory, they must be disposed of. Very French, if we are to believe Adam Gopnik, and his idea that a French newspaper would hire "Theory Checkers" rather than fact checkers.

Listening to Terry, though, leaves one with the idea that torture just doesn't work empirically, on its own terms. So much so, that I can't think of a single historical instance where it has. I suspect if I was in a public debate with someone advocating torture, I'd probably ask them to cite three examples where it has worked. I'd even leave aside current operations, to not let people's opinions on Iraq to get in the way -- just name three incidents historically. (There's also the minor problem that many of the advocates of torture who have putative expertise are also the practitioners of torture, and so have a vested self-interest in puffing their own records, regardless of real-world outcomes.)

I don't think they could do one. (But, in that internet way, I invite you to do the same now.)