"I am not able to tell you that." In plain English that meant that CIA head and former Intelligence Committee Chair, Peter Goss, has reason to believe that United States tortured people being held in American custody. He should have used the plain English. Instead we get horrifying gibberish, designed to gloss over the truth.
"As I said publicly before, and I know for a fact, that torture is not - it's not productive," Mr. Goss said. "That's not professional interrogation. We don't do torture."
The argument that torture is not a productive source of intelligence is a non sequitur. The statement implies that the sole role of the "interrogators" was to gain intelligence, which is debatable. My logic would entail determining what took place, then later discern the intent. And claiming that "we don't torture" rings hollow in the face of the prior "I am not able to tell you that." The methods that I have heard of taking place in the official record and those that have been asserted by past detainees sound like torture to me. I wish that a truly independent prosecutor could look into these apparent crimes.
Of course, brutalizing people is not a good way to treat anyone for any reason. But the "interrogation" techniques are not designed like medical procedures, where care is taken to avoid danger and side effects. Worst case scenario for the modern day Torquemada's is that the prisoner is injured or killed, which probably seems like fair play for self-righteous American interrogators. It has been a dangerous experiment to allow U.S. officials to have the leeway to use any physical force, mental cruelty or humiliation unrelated to the suspected crimes (like smearing fake menstrual blood on prisoners).
Peter Goss was not held in a "stress" position in the chair he sat in before the congressional committee. That would have been torturous. I doubt he would have been any more forthcoming. But those that he is protecting should be liable for criminal prosecution.