Interesting

It seems that the Guardian (yet another British newspaper) has some information on the guy who spilled the beans on the British bomb plot.

The information may have been obtained through *gasp* torture.

Reports from Pakistan suggest that much of the intelligence that led to the raids came from that country and that some of it may have been obtained in ways entirely unacceptable here. In particular Rashid Rauf, a British citizen said to be a prime source of information leading to last week's arrests, has been held without access to full consular or legal assistance. Disturbing reports in Pakistani papers that he had "broken" under interrogation have been echoed by local human rights bodies. The Guardian has quoted one, Asma Jehangir, of the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan, who has no doubt about the meaning of broken. "I don't deduce, I know - torture,"

That is very interesting.

I thought torture was supposed to be unreliable? It seems to have worked this time.

Of course, what the left calls torture and what I consider torture are two entirely different things. I've talked with guards who served at Guantanamo and what they describe to me isn't torture, yet we routinely see it characterised as such. So, are we suppose to believe that torture is nothing more than simply inconveniencing someone, or are we talking about hanging-from-meathooks-while-their fingernails-are-pulled-out torture?

From the definitions I have seen lately, it's hard to know, isn't it?

That is another problem with letting the politically correct define our words for us: We forget what they really mean.