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
So begins a remarkable op ed in today's New York Times entitled My Tortured Decision, at the end of which the author is described as follows:
Ali Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.
Like the the recent remarks of Philip Zelikow on the legal memorandum he wrote as a counselor to Condi Rice, we learn this as a direct result of the declassification of the memos from Justice, and - again similar as with Zelikow - we learn that the arguments put forth by advocates and defenders of the so-called "enhanced interrogation methods" do not hold water (and yes, that imagery is deliberate).
The most important high value information obtained by the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah - the identify of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed - was obtained without the use of such methods, but rather through traditional interrogation. So was the identity of Jose Padilla, himself later subjected to such abusive methods that his mind was effectively destroyed - and we should remember, that Padilla was never charged with the high value crimes for which government officials justified his mistreatment.
The author is blunt:
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.
due process - what a remarkable idea, isn't it? Bedrock in the Bill of Rights, derived from a history of protection of rights in criminal situations going back to the 13th century. And somehow the Bush minions thought it was dispensible - not because they could not get actionable intelligence, but because as we are increasingly learning, the intelligence they were obtaining did not match their preconceived notions. A la the Downing Street Memo, they were fixing the intelligence around those preconceived notions, and if they had to use torture so that they could claim the methods had worked, so be it.
This op ed is crammed full of material - so much that include in this post all that is relevant would immediately put me in violation of copyright, well beyond the limits of fair use. You do need to read and absorb the entire thing.
Let me offer a few snips of what Ali Soufan has to offer us. Consider this:
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.
Because the FBI refused to allow its agents to participate in the abusive methods - torture - that was being used, we needlessly blinded ourselves from using in interrogation knowledge that should have been used in any interrogation.
We have known for some time that the FBI refused to continue participatin in any fashion in the absue methods. Now read this carefully worded expression:
My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s 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.)
We have already seen the damage done to our national image and our success by the outsourcing of critical functions to those not officially in government service, and a practice of the previous administration of further seeking to indemnify them against any prosecution under either US law or Iraqi law. We saw that with Blackwater and the many other mercenary-like groups operating in Iraq. The recently released memoranda expand our understanding, which is that under the Cheney-Bush administration, with the active complicity of the group around Rumsfeld, there was a deliberate decision made to suspend any and all legal restrictions because they thought they could. And again I remember the words of G. W. Bush to CNN in December of 2000 that "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator" - words that become even more chilling the more we learn of subsequent actions. Remember, those words were offered BEFORE we were attacked in September of the following year.
Perhaps this diary serves no real purpose except that it may cause you to read the op ed. Perhaps that is the only service that I am really offering. I am no expert on interrogation, I had and have no special access to military or other intelligence, so why should it matter what I think about these matters? Why should it matter that you know, what you think?
Because together we are part of "We, the people of the United States." It is our government, theoretically acting on our behalf and in our names. We have a right to know.
What was done was NOT necessary. We have been told that by those who know both interrogation and torture. We repeatedly learn whatever valid information that might be obtained cannot easily be discerned from the false informatio given out in the hopes of stopping torture. The use of such methods precludes prosecution under our laws - we follow the British precedent in outlawing Star Chamber proceedings of any kind.
But that is an argument from utility. And to embark on that argument is to fall into a dangerous trap - because then the perpetrators will say "but what if we can show JUST ONE CASE" where they can claim lives were saved? Then, we focus on that distraction rather than the important moral issue:
Some things are never acceptable. They are immoral. They not only violate our laws and ratified international agreeements, they are morally reprehensible. They are war crimes, so classified because they are so shocking to the conscience that the world has near unanimously rejected their use under ANY circumstance. Put simply, they are crimes against humanity.
Whether or not those involved are criminally punished is a discussion further down the road. What is clear is this: unless there is complete disclosure, it can and will happen again. Some future president may feel impelled or pressured, or perhaps like some who seek power merely want to feel unlimited in pursuing beliefs and goals whether or not they have any reality to them. Those who believe that God has chosen them for specific tasks are prone to think they now have the ability to act with the authority of God which places them beyond the laws that limit men.
Zelikow and Soufan have given us information that makes clear that we have been lied to, our legal and political processes manipulated, our national honor besmirched. They have not provided us with all we need to know, any more than what was released in the memoranda provide a complete picture.
But we know this much: if we do not seek complete exposure, whether or not we can under our laws successfully prosecute all the perpetrators, then we will have acquiesced in what they did, we will have left ajar the door of possibility that they (should they return to levers of power) and/or some future government officials will act in similar abhorrent fashions in the future.
And then the idea of the rule of law is moot, meaningless. Our Constitution and our Courts become a Potemkin Village.
No more. Full Disclosure. Now.