Legal Commentary

Contradicting Obama's DNI, FBI Interrogator Says Torture Was Ineffective

By Big Tent Democrat

Obama Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said:

High value information came from interrogations in which [torture] w[as] used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country[.]

In the New York Times today, an FBI interrogator involved in the interrogations, flatly contradicts Blair:

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.

. . . There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques [read torture] 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.

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. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t 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.

Dennis Blair is unfit for the office of Director of National Intelligence. He should resign. Of course he will not and he will continue to cast a pall over attempts to know the truth about the dark period of torture in America.

Speaking for me only

Full post as published by TalkLeft on April 23, 2009 (boomark / email).