There's a soda machine that appears to be filled with soda, and you are thirsty -- very thirsty. You grab some change from your pocket and put it in the coin slot. Out comes a soda and you drink it. But you are still very thirsty. You put in more money, but this time nothing comes out. You put in the last of your money -- still no soda. You are sure this machine isn't out of soda, and you must have some more. In desperation you pick up a crowbar and pry it open, only to find that the machine is empty. There just isn't any more soda. Does this mean that ripping open soda machines to get soda doesn't work?
Since the Washington Post printed its misleading story about Abu Zubaidah, many, particularly on the left, have uncritically accepted the opinion of one group of unnamed sources as if it were gospel truth. That's nothing surprising. But they've also generalized from this one incident, claiming that the Abu Zubaidah case somehow proves that torture doesn't work -- even though we know for a fact that it can and has worked. I don't expect much reasoning ability from people who don't believe torture can work, since they evidently live in their own little fantasy worlds, but it would be nice if they'd apply even a minimum of elementary logic to their arguments. The Post story, if true, clearly indicates that Abu Zubaidah did not have the information the U.S. thought he had.
If someone does not have information, nothing will get it out of them. I know this is probably difficult for some to grasp, but attempting to extract information from someone who doesn't have it won't work, no matter what method you use. A failure in that case does not invalidate the method.
16 minutes ago