NYT: Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive

[babylonsister]

Interrogations’ Effectiveness May Prove Elusive

By SCOTT SHANE
Published: April 22, 2009


WASHINGTON — Even the most exacting truth commission may have a hard time determining for certain whether brutal interrogations conducted by the Central Intelligence Agency helped keep the country safe.

Last week’s release of long-secret Justice Department interrogation memorandums has given rise to starkly opposing narratives about what, if anything, was gained by the C.I.A.’s use of waterboarding, wall-slamming and other physical pressure to shock and intimidate Qaeda operatives.

Senior Bush administration officials, led by Vice President Dick Cheney and cheered by many Congressional Republicans, are fighting a rear-guard action in defense of their record. Only by using the harshest methods, they insist, did the intelligence agency get the information it needed to round up Qaeda killers and save thousands of American lives.

Even President Obama’s new director of national intelligence, Dennis C. Blair, wrote in a memorandum to his staff last week that “high value information came from interrogations in which these methods were used,” an assertion left out when the memorandum was edited for public release. By contrast, Mr. Obama and most of his top aides have argued that the use of those methods betrayed American values — and anyway, produced unreliable information. Those are a convenient pair of opinions, of course: the moral balancing would be far trickier if the C.I.A. methods were demonstrated to have been crucial in disrupting major plots.

For both sides, the political stakes are high, as proposals for a national commission to unravel the interrogation story appear to be gaining momentum. Mr. Obama and his allies need to discredit the techniques he has banned. Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision to rein in C.I.A. interrogators.

But if a strong case emerges that the Bush administration authorized torture and got nothing but prisoners’ desperate fabrications in return, that will tarnish what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have claimed as their greatest achievement: preventing new attacks after Sept. 11, 2001.

more...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html?_r=1&hp

[stillcool]

1. I love how they keep using..

that portion of the Dennis Blair memo, conveniently omitting the part where he states it isn't worth it. I really loathe the fractured, twisted reporting designed to manage the public opinion.

[LeFleur1]

2. What the Hell?...

Robbing banks and giving the money to those who have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own would help keep the citizens of the country safe, too. Safe from starvation and having no shelter.
Is that okay?

Shooting the trash talking nut next door would probably make the neighborhood safer. Is that okay?
Poking the eyes out of the porn viewer might keep children safe. Is that okay?
These nutcake supporters of torture need to stop the crazy talk.

I just don't get this mentality.

WE WOULD HAVE BEEN SAFE FROM ATTACK IF BUSH HAD PAID ATTENTION TO THE MEMO THAT INFORMED HIM OSAMA's AL QAIDA WAS GOING TO USE OUR OWN AIRPLANES TO ATTACK.

Only those lacking in morals and brain power could possibly believe this country had an excuse to torture after the Bush administration screwed up and we were attacked.

This whole subject makes me puke.

[babylonsister]

3. I know. I considered snipping it, but the rest of that para. was

newsworthy. I'm glad you're aware of the holes in this reporting. :thumbsup:

[stillcool]

5. No skimming through articles these days...

for me. I hope I've learned my lesson and practice more vigilance in ferreting out the facts..if any..embedded in an article.

[Supersedeas]

8. note too how little substance and exposition we receive from the Senate Armed Services Comm Report

they don't want to touch the substance.

[stillcool]

9. If you don't read it for yourself..

you will never know what's in it. I hope all the people mentioned in the report speak up. If the government acknowledges what is in the memos and the report I don't think I can imagine what really went on.

[Echo In Light]

4. "keep the country safe" = Absolute bullshit

[gratuitous]

6. Is that "elusive" or "illusive"?

"Otherwise, in the event of a future terrorist attack, critics may blame his decision." And the Times will be right there to carry the water for these nameless, anonymous, hypothetical critics who "may" seek to fix blame on President Obama instead of the perpetrators of the attack.

Why doesn't the Times just come right out and say they're rooting for a terrorist attack so they can endorse the crackpot culpability theories of the rabid right?

[Spazito]

7. Hmmm, Scott Shane again...

He is the same one who wrote the article posted yesterday that stated:

"The program began with Central Intelligence Agency leaders in the grip of an alluring idea: They could get tough in terrorist interrogations without risking legal trouble by adopting a set of methods used on Americans during military training. How could that be torture?"

which we know is false, it came from the very top of the Bush Admin.

Link to his article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/22/us/politics/22detain.html?_r=1

Now he is still trying to infer the same:

"Four successive C.I.A. directors have made similar claims, and the most recent, Michael V. Hayden, said in January that he believed the methods “got the maximum amount of information” from prisoners, citing specifically Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the chief 9/11 plotter.

Many intelligence officials, including some opposed to the brutal methods, confirm that the program produced information of great value, including tips on early-stage schemes to attack tall buildings on the West Coast and buildings in New York’s financial district and Washington. Interrogation of one Qaeda operative led to tips on finding others, until the leadership of the organization was decimated. Removing from the scene such dedicated and skilled plotters as Mr. Mohammed, or the Indonesian terrorist known as Hambali, almost certainly prevented future attacks."

The only recognition he grudgingly gives re the Bush Administration authorizing the torture is this:

"But if a strong case emerges that the Bush administration authorized torture ..." and even at that he adds, "and got nothing but prisoners’ desperate fabrications in return, that will tarnish what Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have claimed as their greatest achievement: preventing new attacks after Sept. 11, 2001."

Tarnish????? Geez, this writer is showing himself more and more as a Bush apologist, imo.

Edited to correct duplicate paste.