Especially for the "torture worked" crowd:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

My Tortured Decision

By ALI SOUFAN
Published: April 22, 2009

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

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 hadnt 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 wasnt, or couldnt 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.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibhs capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just dont add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

It was the right decision to release these memos, as we need the truth to come out. This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the worlds foremost defenders of human rights. Just as important, releasing these memos enables us to begin the tricky process of finally bringing these terrorists to justice.

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat DAmuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that we dont do that, and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Departments inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (Its worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

As we move forward, its important to not allow the torture issue to harm the reputation, and thus the effectiveness, of the C.I.A. The agency is essential to our national security. We must ensure that the mistakes behind the use of these techniques are never repeated. Were making a good start: President Obama has limited interrogation techniques to the guidelines set in the Army Field Manual, and Leon Panetta, the C.I.A. director, says he has banned the use of contractors and secret overseas prisons for terrorism suspects (the so-called black sites). Just as important, we need to ensure that no new mistakes are made in the process of moving forward a real danger right now.

Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.

Especially for the "torture worked" crowd:

  Funny, a single "anecdotal" eye-wittness with no telling what motivations, would rate little more than a terse dismissal from you on an issue you supported.

gus.

 

It appears to me, from reading and listening to the right wing talking heads that they will never accept America as a Nation that stands up as the worlds foremost defender of human rights.

   You mean "stands up" as in hobnobbing, and bowing, and glad-handing with the world's most notorious violators of human rights?  That kind of "stands up"?   pfftt...

gus.

 

Funny, a single "anecdotal" eye-wittness with no telling what motivations, would rate little more than a terse dismissal from you on an issue you supported.

I have posted others before this, Gus. And I could say the save for those who are leaping on the items in the Bradbury memo which are second-hand accounts of what was represented to him by self-interested parties.

What you fail to acknowledge (or perhaps to understand) is that my interpretation is based on a synthesis of all evidence. It does not rest on any individual piece of evidence, even if I don't waste space and time compiling everything into every post, but rather just present the latest bit.

So presented with a new item, I look to see how it fits with everything else we've seen and also try to evaluate the relative reliability of various pieces. I categorically deny that I merely dismiss evidence which doesn't fit my prior conception.





EDIT:

I'd point out that he put his name to this statement. That lends some extra credence over claims made by anonymous persons. Do you believe he is lying about his (non-torture) interrogation of Abu Zubaidah having yielded actionable intelligence regarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Jose Padilla (both claimed by torture advocates to have been the product of "enhanced interrogation)? Would not such a direct public lie be quickly shot down by others with direct knowledge of the events? Lets see if that happens. I won't hold my breath, how about you?

I have posted others before this, Gus. And I could say the save for those who are leaping on the items in the Bradbury memo which are second-hand accounts of what was represented to him by self-interested parties.

   Pretty much like the climate change issue. 

What you fail to acknowledge (or perhaps to understand) is that my interpretation is based on a synthesis of all evidence. It does not rest on any individual piece of evidence, even if I don't waste space and time compiling everything into every post, but rather just present the latest bit.

   Well, not *all* evidence.  I think Cheney might have a point.  But it's again, not unlike climate-change.  The Left gleefully sews up a shiney new quilt, and wraps themselves up in it, end of story.  All of *their* "evidence" is as iron-clad as a kettle, and any opposing views are promptly demonized, or otherwise discounted.  I understand all that after 35 years of watching it.  With any luck, the vascilating Obama will allow Soros, and Move On to proceed with their prosecutorial efforts, and reap the whirlwind.

gus.

 

Well, not all evidence. I think Cheney might have a point.

All evidence available to me. I would have thought that was obvious, but if you must nitpick then fine, I make that amendment.


But it's again, not unlike climate-change. The Left gleefully sews up a shiney new quilt, and wraps themselves up in it, end of story. All of their "evidence" is as iron-clad as a kettle, and any opposing views are promptly demonized, or otherwise discounted. I understand all that after 35 years of watching it.

How have you been "watching it" compared to how I have been watching it? I read most of the major climate change research as it is published. Do you? I have read the bulk of the IPCC Assessment Reports as they have been published. Have you? I have had personal conversations with a number of the primary researchers in the field, including a couple of prominent skeptics. Have you? I have read and spent considerable time analyzing pretty much every anti-AGW argument that's ever been aired. Have you? I'd venture to say that over the past 35 years, I've devoted a good four to five months of my life to studying the topic. How about you?

How have you been "watching it" compared to how I have been watching it? I read most of the major climate change research as it is published. Do you? I have read the bulk of the IPCC Assessment Reports as they have been published. Have you? I have had personal conversations with a number of the primary researchers in the field, including a couple of prominent skeptics. Have you? I have read and spent considerable time analyzing pretty much every anti-AGW argument that's ever been aired. Have you? I'd venture to say that over the past 35 years, I've devoted a good four to five months of my life to studying the topic. How about you?

   Not even close, and I happily admit that.  Nor would I consider my opinions as well researched as yours on either issue.  So what's the final outcome?  Members of the Bush Admn. are indicted, or they're not.  We are attacked again, or we're not, and either way the issue of "torture" will *never* be factored into that equation in any objective way.  Climate change will radically alter the way we live, or it won't.  Just don't preach, and we'll get along fine.

gus.