Feeds: 
symbol identifies content for paid subscribers only.
FREEZING OUT THE FBI.
Ali Soufan, a former FBI agent, sets the record straight (again) on Abu Zubayda. Some of the claims about the intelligence he offered were false, but all the useful information we got out of him was disclosed before he was tortured.
We've talked about the ways torture makes us less safe--it undermines our moral standing in the world, it gives our enemies a cause to rally others to, it puts the treatment of captured American soldiers in danger, and it makes our allies less likely to cooperate with us. It's also unreliable. But Soufan identifies another effect of the Bush administration's torture regime: the result of the CIA torturing prisoners was that some of our most experienced counterterrorism experts were shut out:
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.
Soufan also writes that there were instances of torture "backfiring" which he says are "still classified."
First of all, I think it almost goes without saying that there's something comforting about the fact that the FBI recognized that these interrogations were illegal and refused to participate in them. I think that has a great deal to do with the fact that the FBI is a law enforcement organization as opposed to an intelligence gathering one, there impetus is very different. It's also worth pointing out that while a number of former Bush administration officials claimed torture "worked" and intelligence gleaned from such methods saved American lives, FBI director Robert Mueller III* has said this wasn't the case.
But here's my question. As a result of the previous administration's torture program, some of the country's best interrogators and counterterrorism experts were frozen out of the intelligence gathering process. How does that make us any safer?
*He's still the FBI director. My bad ya'll.
-- A. Serwer
COMMENTS (2)
How does that make us any safer?
It jibes perfectly with the Bush administration's embrace of the notion that ignorance is strength. Fancy-schmancy "experts" aren't to be trusted -- it's all about touigh, resolute, outdoorsy men deciding everything from the gut. C'mon -- don't we all "know" that roughing bad guys up makes them cooperate with us more than not roughing them up does?
Posted by: Steve M. | April 23, 2009 10:34 AM
e the Mueller comment - seriously?
Dare I ask whether you make a distinction between "foiling attacks" and, for example, "providing names and addresses so that terrorist cells can be arrested"?
It may be all CIA lies, but per the OLC memos (and the CIA memos they cite), the interrogation of KSM led to Hambali and his group, which was involved in the Bali bombing of 2002.
Or try this - suppose we get information that leads to the arrest of Bin Laden himself. Was that valuable intel even if Bin Laden had no specific attacks underway?
This is from Scott Shane of the Times:
"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."
As to the tainted evidence problem - if people wanted to solve that they would do something similar to the FISA courts. Cheney never would, given his view of the Executive powers, but if Congress legislated certain enhanced interrogation techniques (like the belly slap) subject to court review, I bet it could be used in US courts.
Posted by: Tom Maguire | April 23, 2009 4:52 PM