I am not a categorical proponent of WBing, but it is getting a bit deep.
You are mistaken. Testimony is evidence by definition. You assertion that most who testified never witnessed the actual events is an admission that some did. Those who did rendered evidence to the committee. That was not hearsay testimony. You are also somewhat confused about hearsay actually is, so it might be better to omit that from your argument in the future.
Arguing that KSM's info has been disputed is not a competent argument that it was wrong.
Is that as obvious to you as your understanding of the word hearsay?
Interrogation is a process of drawing responses. Aside from incorrectly assessing my understanding of the english language, you have also completely sidestepped the fact that no interrogation technique can guarantee the accuracy of the information provided. Since this argument cuts against all interrogation, it is as a matter of logic not an argument against WBing.
That is false. It is illegal largely because of the 5th Am.
It is not persuasive to argue matters beyond your knowledge. Over time, the practice does nothing for a fellow's credibility.
That is non-responsive. The senate testimony re KSM was not hearsay. It reflected first hand observation, and would not require "facts backing it up". The testmony is the form in which the facts were received by the senate committee.
Actually it is. Most of those that testified never witnessed the actual events. That is heresay by definition. Also, as I said before, they never backed up these statements with fact. The information gathered from KSM, and it's validity, has been widely disputed. The senate committee was never presented evidence and when they asked for evidence they were denied it. Testimony is not evidence.
You are mistaken. Testimony is evidence by definition. You assertion that most who testified never witnessed the actual events is an admission that some did. Those who did rendered evidence to the committee. That was not hearsay testimony. You are also somewhat confused about hearsay actually is, so it might be better to omit that from your argument in the future.
Arguing that KSM's info has been disputed is not a competent argument that it was wrong.
You obviously do not understand the word "effective."Effective interrogation works as follows. The interrogator asks questions. If he gets answers, it was effective. It isn't that hard. That the information elicited merits verification is a constant feature of all interrogations and so is not an argument against the efficacy of WBing.
Is that as obvious to you as your understanding of the word hearsay?
Interrogation is a process of drawing responses. Aside from incorrectly assessing my understanding of the english language, you have also completely sidestepped the fact that no interrogation technique can guarantee the accuracy of the information provided. Since this argument cuts against all interrogation, it is as a matter of logic not an argument against WBing.
That does not change whether or not they are "effective." They are not illegal because they are mean things to do. They are illegal because it is not only unfair it is ineffective in obtaining good intel without abuse of the practice.Coerced police confessions are illegal because they violate a citizen's rights under the COTUS
That is false. It is illegal largely because of the 5th Am.
It is not persuasive to argue matters beyond your knowledge. Over time, the practice does nothing for a fellow's credibility.