I guess I could choose to believe the CIA obtained actionable intelligence via these means but it doesn't matter because the main point remains that as an instrument to achieve effect
it doesn't work (see my initial post).
You may struggle to call what the detainees went through torture, but I think it fits the definition:
Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (UNCAT):
“... 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”
Also of note, the CIA had no expertise in interrogation prior to 9/11. They reverse engineered their own RTI programme. The FBI who really
do know about interrogation, offered to undertake the necessary activity but the CIA declined.
Sun