Torture: Our Boys Lie, Terrorists Confess

After years of torture, KSM's "confession" is paraded through the media. KSM is reported to have admitted to being a ringleader to every terrorist act of the last 100 years. (Guess Bin Laden was really innocent after all. Is that why Bush doesn't care where Bin Laden is?)

We tortured him for years, he gives a factual confession.


But when Iranians bind British troops and subject them to less than two weeks of individual cells, the wiley British cleverly lie to the Iranians through false confession in order to regain their freedom.

A reader over at Andrew Sullivan observes:

During the the hostage/POW (depends on the context) ordeal, British "confessions" offered contrite prisoners, apparently well-treated and healthy. After a relatively brief period, they were returned home where they immediately repudiated the "confessions" as coerced.

The conventional wisdom response: "of course they were coerced." Honestly, did anyone believe for a second that the British Navy had equipment so sketchy that they couldn't settle their location? No, the sailors said what they needed to in order to get home.

Meanwhile, the U.S. position is that torture (or torture-like) techniques garner valuable information as opposed to false statements engineered to end discomfort. Anybody else see a disconnect here?