Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Undertoad
Does it count if Mr Ross links the O'Reilly interview from the ABC News Brian Ross Investigative Team website?
|
If Ross cites that interview on a site of his own control and states that that is what he meant, then we can suspect Ross has some solid information. Especially because of Ross's credibility.
Remember what we are discussing. No one disputes that torture causes talk. But the integrity - accuracy - of that talk is everything.
Let's take the previous example. Typically they never would be interrogating because they knew the bomb was in Central Park and because they knew it would explode in 24 hours.
The realistic scenario is that interrogators need know what this guy knows. They don't know of a bomb (but may have other sources implying a bomb may exist somewhere). They don't know if he really knows anything about a bomb. They have someone who, if he has information, then they want it.
That latter scenario is typical of interrogation. They must get him to talk AND that talk must be in a manner that talk has credibility. Anyone can claim a bomb in Central Park. Again, more Orange Alerts.
Brian Ross's information gains credibility when posted on web sites / news sources without a political agenda. And again, its not about talking. Does torture get reliable information? Integrity of that information determines whether it is information. Even most all books in a library are fiction.
BTW, your Brian Ross reference raised my ear significantly. Brian Ross does have significant integrity.