I’m certainly not the first blogger to draw attention to this stunning New York Times op-ed written by Ali Soufan, but it’s worth quoting at length in case you missed it:
One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.
We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.
So: all the useful intelligence gained from Abu Zubaydah was the result of “traditional interrogation methods.” “No actionable intelligence” came from “enhanced” interrogation–what the rest of the civilized world would call torture–and torture often “backfired.”
Can there be any doubt about the total intellectual and moral bankruptcy of torture defenders? It’s not as if Cheney and company didn’t know that they were distorting the record in the way Soufan indicates. They know torture doesn’t work, and when they say otherwise I presume they’re simply lying. After reading this op-ed, can anyone continue to believe that using torture as an “interrgation” technique has anything to do with protecting the U.S. from terrorist attack? Read it for yourself, as they say, and let me know.
these were too good to pass up:
1) Christopher Hitchens being waterboarded
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808
2) Hannity Offers To Be Waterboarded For Charity
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/22/hannity-offers-to-be-wate_n_190354.html
Comment by aaron — April 24, 2009 @ 2:10 pm
The most horrifying idea to come out of this whole controvery is the idea that Cheney tortured people in order to obtain information that would justify the war in Iraq by establishing a link between Iraq and Sept. 11th.
Just today I listened to a broadcast of NPR’s The Diane Rehm Show in which a former Bush Administration Official claimed without any equivocation that torture is the sole reason America was able to prevent a major terrorist attack against Los Angeles. Were it not for torture, he said, hundreds if not thousands of Americans would have been killed. If I could save hundreds of lives by inflicting pain on a terrorist, I’d have a hard time justifying any decision other than to go forward with the torture.
This debate is like the debate over the death penalty — while some argue that killing a defenseless person is simply immoral, and others argue that the death penalty is too expensive and yeilds no clear benefits in terms of deterence, the most persuasive argument against the death penalty seems to be that we simply cannot rely on our legal process to effectively decide when a person should die. Evidence of wrongly-convicted death row inmates makes the point that our legal system isn’t sufficient to legitimize the taking of a life. Similarly, if it turns out that Cheney did have people tortured not to save the country from a terrorist attack but merely to provide political justification for a war — this should be the basis for a whole new line of argument: that we cannot trust any human being to make the decision to go ahead with torture.
I can’t say I’m disappointed with Obama’s political judgment that he shouldn’t be the one calling for investigations into the Bush Administration’s torture program — but I agree with Paul Krugman that we need to prosecute those responsible in order to reclaim our national soul.
Comment by Ian — April 24, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Regardless if it’s effective or not it’s wrong and illegal
http://phronesisaical.blogspot.com/2009/04/quick-review-of-torture-law.html
Comment by John — April 27, 2009 @ 10:12 am
I agree. Even if it WERE effective, it shouldn’t be overlooked, cause it’s illegal. Even if it were legal and effective, I think we should oppose it because of the power it invests in a central organization allowed to do what it will to people.
Comment by Lee — April 27, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
I was rather fond of Obama’s nod to the epistemological question behind claims of torture’s efficacy – “could we have gotten the information without using those techniques?”
And I think there is substantial reason to believe that we could have:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103627997
Comment by aaron — April 30, 2009 @ 2:08 pm
The argument that it’s illegal would ordinarily be the only relevant argument — since we’re supposed to live in a country where even the executive branch of the government is expected to follow the law. The political problem with that approach is that (and this is just my opinion) the American people are not prepared to accept a situation where CIA officers are being prosecuted for doing things that were legal and necessary according to the President of the United States. If Obama went after the individual CIA agents who carried out the torture, the political consequences would be so disasterous that they would threaten everything else he is trying to do.
And if you can’t go after the actual torturers for political reasons, then any other prosecutions — of the people who ordered the torture, for example, or the people who wrote the legal memos justifying the torture — will seem politicized because the law is being applied selectively. In letting the actual torturers off the hook, we’ve already abandoned the idea that the law will be applied strictly.
The problem with making an argument that torture is absolutely wrong on moral grounds is that it gives the impression that we are constrained by our morality in ways that give the terrorist an advantage. You could also say it is absolutely immoral to kill innocent civilians — but our military does that all the time, calling it “collateral damage.” I can easily imagine someone arguing that if we refused to take any military action that might lead to civilian deaths, we would quickly be defeated by an enemy that was willing to kill civilians. And when it comes to torture, anyone who takes an absolute position on the morality of torture faces absurd hypotheticals: What if a nuclear bomb were about to destroy New York City and the man who knew how to defuse the bomb was tied to a chair? Is it really moral to let an entire city be annihilated just to avoid commiting the “sin” of torture? Most people are unwilling to take an absolute position on torture because they can’t accept the hypothetical implications.
That’s why the question of whether torture works is so important. And that’s why I believe it is so important to focus on the fact that Dick Cheney wasn’t ordering torture to stop a ticking time bomb. He was torturing someone in order to obtain information that could be used to advance his own political agenda. This is less like the ticking time-bomb scenario, and more like the Watergate break-in.
If this ends up being a debate between those who say torture is wrong under all circumstances and those who say torture may be acceptable in some circumstances, then I’m afraid the pro-torture folks are in the majority. IF this ends up being a debate about what the Bush Administration actually did and whether it was acceptable, I think the anti-torture folks are in the majority.
Comment by Ian — May 2, 2009 @ 8:30 pm
I don’ think it is possible for anyone to say with any degree of certainty that torture does or does not work. I am sure sometimes torture does provide valuable information, just as I am sure that sometimes it doesn’t provide any valuable information. The question is whether or not one is willing to employ this type of method to get information they think they can get. If you feel that torture is immoral and never helps then you must be willing to live with anything that happens. I think Obama is right in not going after the people who carried this out. He is very popular now, and can probably get donw anything he wants right now; by going after these people now he is going to create enemies that he doesn’t need. I suspect there are a lot of moderate republicans who support Obama right now, but may turn against him if he tries to put people into jail over this issue
Comment by rbates — May 8, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
Cheney advocating for advance interrogation techniques (i.e. torture) is like Richard Nixon appearing on T.V. endorsing the subversion of our democracy. Torture is wrong! Al Capone did not go on the radio and advertise murder and tax fraud.
I want the Attorney General to investigate all aspects of this illegal policy; specifically, I would want to know the Bush’s administrations’ motivation for the endorsement of these crimes. Perhaps, the reason are more nefarious then suspected. I think that the Obama administration owes the American people legal clarity on this issue. People should be prosecuted including Cheney if he is the architect of criminal activity. If Nancy Pelosi or other democrats knew of torture and did not do anything to stop it, then they are culpable by silence and weakness. They should lose their jobs.
Comment by Barry H — May 19, 2009 @ 6:48 pm