right thats the main reason the US strongly opposes torture for interrogation (as i understand it, the UK doesn't), people supposedly will confess to anything to get out of torture, its one of the few things both obama and mccain agreed on, though obviously mccain is the more reputable authority on the subject
Actually, your guys were far more in favour of it than ours and far more recently. The one thing that 'alternative techniques for intelligence' (I love that phrase) will always get you is a raft of false positives. People will tell you whatever they think you want to hear after a while.
The thing with modern day 'torture' is that it is not really any more scientific than torture in the olden days. Sure, it leaves less marks and relies far more on inducing psycholgical trauma over physical trauma, but it's not the type of thing you can do clinical trials on - not many volunteers would come forward, and many agencies are understandably none too keen to keep detailed records of exactly what they've done, to whom, how much, and for how long.
As a means for Intelligence gathering Gitmo, and places like it, cost far more than they were worth. The propaganda value for those seeking to radicalise the Muslim youth was immense while the quality of Intelligence was questionable.
Gitmo's greatest contribution to the US was as a plot tool for the scriptwriters on NCIS, cracked a case but can't get a confession? Threaten the perp with a one way trip to Gitmo, Gibbs... cue closing credits.
Am not sure how the scriptwriters will get over its passing, but it's time that the Intelligence services on both sides of the pond sharpened their pencils, stopped sticking them under people's fingernails, and started gathering Intelligence properly.
If he does nothing else in his tenure, Obama's swift decision to close Gitmo, will be a valuable legacy, as long as it isn't stuffed up by the processing of former inmates on closure. An open, international court would be the most appropriate route to take, but it is also the most unlikely; "national security" being a nice big carpet to sweep all uncomfortable issues under.
As for the individual in question, the fact that he is free to pursue his legal claims speaks volumes for the weight being attached to his 'confession' and for the views of intelligence gathering organisations on both sides of the pond as to his guilt.
When it comes to assessing the impacts of torture and to whether an individual has been tortured (which is a highly emotive word, provoking all kinds of vivid images in ones imagination) it is important to remember that we're not talking about something akin to scenes from Hostel, it is the slow, systematic breakdown of an individual's psychological resistance through predominantly non-invasive techniques.
In answer to the original post- no, he wasn't released because of the torture claims (you'd be fitting a revolving door on remand centres on both sides of the pond if that was likely to work), he was released, and once he was safely home, he has made allegations which will need to be investigated.
