Fascinating reading
especially the 2nd paragraph:
If he were an innocent, or even an accomplice after the fact, responding to torture, he would confess to anything because of the effects of torture. Torture doesn't reveal original truth in any appreciable quantity; it compels agreement with the inquisitor. He would be aware of this. He would also be aware of the existence of corroboration, as some of it was collected when he was apprehended. So if he says he was tortured, and then he confesses, then he casts doubt on all of his admissions. How do the prosecutors dispell those doubts? By revealing some of the corroborating evidence. For his associates still on the outside to know a little more about what the prosecutors know would be of some use to them.
That never would have occurred to me, and as I replied to ER, shows me how out of depth I really am with this politics&spy business.