torture counterproductive?

Remember Khalid Sheikh Mohammed? He was a high-end al-Qaida man most remembered for looking like this when he was captured. Recently, he confessed to being the mastermind behind such acts of terrorism as the September 11th attacks and the death of journalist Daniel Pearl, yet it hasn't gotten that much attention. I found an article on Slate.com about how his capture and confession are proof that torture is counterproductive. I'm not a huge fan of Slate, but it still brings up some good points.

In the column, they talk about how a lot of people thought that his capture would lead to some "ticking time bomb" scenarios. In other words, that his capture would immediately lead to information about attacks that would be happening within hours or days that they would now be able to thwart Jack Bauer style. But that didn't happen. His capture is proof that the "ticking time bomb" scenario, does not exist. So to all of you people who use 24 as an example for why it's ok to torture people because there's an imminent threat and it applies to real life, please join the real world.

The torture part comes into play because the U.S. was debating just what "torture" meant around the time of his capture. It's hard to believe they didn't torture this guy, probably just for kicks and to get his subsequent confession.

It is true that the administration has now stated clearly that torture, at least by its own definition, was not used in KSM's interrogation. ("We don't do torture" is how the White House press secretary cavalierly put it.) But even if we were to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, which hardly anyone will, the circumstances of KSM's detention have been unacceptable, at least by American standards. Even if he was not tortured, then certainly he was held in secret, extralegal, and completely unregulated conditions, possibly in Eastern Europe or the Middle East, certainly under nothing resembling what we in the United States normally consider the rule of law, either international or domestic. The mystery surrounding his interrogation—when it was carried out, how, and by whom—renders any confession he makes completely null, either in a court of law or in the court of international public opinion.

So not only is torture never necessary to stop an imminent threat, it also makes anything the torturee says suspect because of the duress they were under when they gave the information. They even say this about police interregations, some states are even making these sessions be videotaped to make sure it's on the up and up. I've used a lot of cliches in this post, what am I doing? Sorry. These terrorists are without a doubt bad guys. But when our own government tortures them and treats them inhumanly, it just makes our own government look bad and like we're stooping down to their level.