FBI Interrogator: Torture is counterproductive

[PixelPusher]

source: Some left-wing moonbat blog that hates Freedom, coddles terrorists and what-not (http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/05/13/former-fbi-agent-torture-sucks-dont-do-it/)

Former FBI Agent: Torture Sucks. Don’t Do It.

Posted by Some hippie flake with no credibility or expertise in any facet of the War On Terrorism (http://www.cato.org/people/david-rittgers)

The Senate Judiciary Committee hearings produced an ugly picture of the role torture played in interrogating Al Qaeda leaders. The testimony of former FBI agent Ali Soufan shows how traditional intelligence techniques worked on Abu Zubaydah and “enhanced” techniques did nothing to advance national security interests:

Immediately after Abu Zubaydah was captured, a fellow FBI agent and I were flown to meet him at an undisclosed location. We were both very familiar with Abu Zubaydah and have successfully interrogated al-Qaeda terrorists. We started interrogating him, supported by CIA officials who were stationed at the location, and within the first hour of the interrogation, using the Informed Interrogation Approach, we gained important actionable intelligence.

We were once again very successful and elicited information regarding the role of KSM as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and lots of other information that remains classified. (It is important to remember that before this we had no idea of KSM’s role in 9/11 or his importance in the al Qaeda leadership structure.)

Soufan then recounts a tug-of-war between the interrogators and the contractors brought in to apply the third degree. The intelligence and law enforcement professionals struggled to reestablish rapport with Zubaydah after each iteration of harsh interrogation tactics.

The new techniques did not produce results as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking. At that time nudity and low-level sleep deprivation (between 24 and 48 hours) was being used. After a few days of getting no information, and after repeated inquiries from DC asking why all of sudden no information was being transmitted (when before there had been a steady stream), we again were given control of the interrogation.

We then returned to using the Informed Interrogation Approach. Within a few hours, Abu Zubaydah again started talking and gave us important actionable intelligence.

The enhanced interrogation techniques were not only inferior to traditional interrogation techniques, they proved counterproductive. The use of illegal techniques resurrected the “wall” between the CIA and the FBI with regard to these detainees. This prevented FBI experts who knew more about Al Qaeda than anyone else in the government from questioning them. Plus, as Soufan recounts, coercive techniques make detainees tell you what you want to hear, whether it is true or not. As Jesse Ventura says, “you give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney, and one hour, and I’ll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.”

Torture did not advance the work of picking apart Al Qaeda, it disrupted it.

[Winehole23]

Yoni responded in the other thread, but I don't think he bothered to read Soufan's statement. This version may be short enough for his notoriously short attention span. :tu

[gtownspur]

release the memos.

how hard is it?

[Winehole23]

release the memos.

how hard is it?Bush and Cheney didn't while they had the chance. Maybe they had some good reason not to.

[gtownspur]

Bush and Cheney didn't while they had the chance. Maybe they had some good reason not to.

You're dense aren't you?

[JohnnyMarzetti]

Cheney is full of crap. http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-05-13/cheneys-role-deepens/

Two senior U.S. intelligence officials at the time tell The Daily Beast that the suggestion to waterboard an Iraqi prisoner came from the Office of Vice President Cheney.


Someone needs to waterboard his penguin looking ass. I hate him.

[jacobdrj]

Captain Picard said it -300 years ago... The more things change, the more they stay the same.

AHH! A wormhole!

[01.20.09]

"I'm bothered over Gitmo because it seems we've created our own Hanoi Hilton. And we can live with that?
It's a good thing I'm not president because I would prosecute every person that was involved in that torture,
I would prosecute the people that did it and the people that ordered it, because torture is against the law.
I was waterboarded at S.E.A.L. school. It is torture. It's drowning. It gives you the complete sensation
that you are drowning...I'll put it to you this way. You give me a waterboard, Dick Cheney, and one hour
and I'll have him confess to the Sharon Tate murders.""
-- Jesse Ventura, who often has moments of clarity ,

[jacobdrj]

Well put.

[Bigzax]

do what you gotta do at gitmo...:tu

[JoeChalupa]

do what you gotta do at gitmo...:tu

Shut it down?

[Clandestino]

Shut it down?

where do you send the terrorists?

[JoeChalupa]

where do you send the terrorists?

Max security prisons. It can be done.

[ChumpDumper]

We are already holding convicted terrorists on the mainland.

[ChumpDumper]

We've also had convicted Islamic terrorists imprisoned on the mainland for over 15 years.

[PixelPusher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Nichols

Refresh my memory - did we waterboard Timothy McVeigh or Terry Nichols?

[jack sommerset]

I noticed a trend the past few days. I was watching Hannity and this girl said " Everyone knows waterboarding is torure" She repeated it a few times. Of course Hannity said different. On Olberman he says "Everyone knows waterboarding is torture" said this 5-6 times in a few minutes. On CNN I heard some guy I don't know say "Everyone knows waterboarding is torture"

Fact is Everyone does not know waterboarding is torture and ALOT of people donot think waterboarding is torture. I certainly don't. I don't like this part of the media. Report waterboarding, give ur opinion but don't lie. Everyone does not know or think this is torture. Thats a lie when you make that statement.

[ElNono]

I noticed a trend the past few days. I was watching Hannity and this girl said " Everyone knows waterboarding is torure" She repeated it a few times. Of course Hannity said different. On Olberman he says "Everyone knows waterboarding is torture" said this 5-6 times in a few minutes. On CNN I heard some guy I don't know say "Everyone knows waterboarding is torture"

Fact is Everyone does not know waterboarding is torture and ALOT of people donot think waterboarding is torture. I certainly don't. I don't like this part of the media. Report waterboarding, give ur opinion but don't lie. Everyone does not know or think this is torture. Thats a lie when you make that statement.

The U.S. State Department has recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in other circumstances, for example, in its 2005 Country Report on Tunisia.

You can't say it's torture when another country does it and not torture when you do it.

It's torture, plain and simple.

[Yonivore]

The U.S. State Department has recognized "submersion of the head in water" as torture in other circumstances, for example, in its 2005 Country Report on Tunisia.

You can't say it's torture when another country does it and not torture when you do it.

It's torture, plain and simple.
Okay, no one will answer the fundamental question of whether or not the enhanced interrogation techniques were against any United States statute at the time they were employed.

Were they? And, if so, cite the statute please.

Otherwise, this is just a bunch of arguing over differences of opinion.

[ChumpDumper]

Ah, Yoni -- still completely ignorant of the common law justice system in use by the west for 800 years and the entirety of US history.

Hilarious.

[Yonivore]

Ah, Yoni -- still completely ignorant of the common law justice system in use by the west for 800 years and the entirety of US history.

Hilarious.
Not answering the question. Under what statute would anybody involved in the enhanced interrogation techniques have been charged?

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me Yoni -- are written federal statues the only source of law in this country?

Yes or no.

I really think you don't know what a statute is.

[Yonivore]

Tell me Yoni -- are written federal statues the only source of law in this country?

Yes or no.

I really think you don't know what a statute is.
I'm asking under what statute these alleged offenders would be charged. If you're accused of breaking the law, there has to be a law to break. What is it?

Just say you don't know if you don't know.

[ChumpDumper]

Tell me Yoni -- are written federal statues the only source of law in this country?

Yes or no.

I really think you don't know what a statute is.I'm asking if written federal statues the only source of law in this country.

Just say you don't know if you don't know.

[Yonivore]

I'm asking if written federal statues the only source of law in this country.

Just say you don't know if you don't know.
My question was first.

If these people broke the law, which law did they break.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh, the torture statutes and treaties are on the books -- quite well known in fact.

Were they not, there would not have been successful prosecutions against Americans and foreigners by Americans over the past century.

That's the way the statutes have been interpreted using the common law system. There is a significant case history supporting the conclusion that waterboarding as torture. What you have to do as a lawyer (:lmao at the thought) is show why that century of case history somehow doesn't apply to the current detainees. Bybee and Yoo and you have utterly failed to do so.

[Yonivore]

Oh, the torture statutes and treaties are on the books -- quite well known in fact.
Then, specifically what torture statute or treaty has been violated?


Were they not, there would not have been successful prosecutions against Americans and foreigners by Americans over the past century.
Prosecutions in what courts, under what jurisdiction, and pursuant to what specific statutes?

Are you suggesting we should just find a court somewhere in the world that has the appropriate laws under which to try our citizens? America doesn't have a statute that says they violated an American law but, let's find some place that does and send our citizens to them just so we can get them tried.

I think Spain currently claims universal jurisdiction over all sorts of crimes committed anywhere in the world. Maybe we could send them there.

It's like you've found some criminals and now, you're in search of a law they've broken.


That's the way the statutes have been interpreted using the common law system. There is a significant case history supporting the conclusion that waterboarding as torture.
What statutes have been interpreted that way?

Also, you have to demonstrate the enhanced interrogation techniques -- particularly waterboarding -- are identical to the other forms of torture (whether by the same name or not) and, as yet, that's not conclusive.


What you have to do as a lawyer (:lmao at the thought) is show why that century of case history somehow doesn't apply to the current detainees. Bybee and Yoo and you have utterly failed to do so.
What you have to do as a government in the United States of America wanting to put an American citizen on criminal trial is to state, in a indictment, the specific American statutes that were violated by the defendant.

If there are not statutes, in American criminal law, then you've got to find some other avenue to punish them. I don't see this government surrendering its own citizens over to another jurisdiction for trial.

Again, what law was broken?

[Winehole23]

http://images.spaces.covers.com/Upload/UserImages/Mr_Magoo.jpg

[ChumpDumper]

Prosecutions in what courts, under what jurisdiction, and pursuant to what specific statutes?Federal and military courts, pusrsuant statutes that existed and were never successfully challenged. I could easily see something from Title 18 of the US Code being used, among others.


Are you suggesting we should just find a court somewhere in the world that has the appropriate laws under which to try our citizens? America doesn't have a statute that says they violated an American law but, let's find some place that does and send our citizens to them just so we can get them tried.

I think Spain currently claims universal jurisdiction over all sorts of crimes committed anywhere in the world. Maybe we could send them there.

It's like you've found some criminals and now, you're in search of a law they've broken.Damn, you've got to be running low on straw after that one. No need to go outside the US -- there have been several successful prosecutions here. Why do you pretend there haven't?


What statutes have been interpreted that way?If you are that interested, please look up all the cases you demanded earlier and never did anything with.


Also, you have to demonstrate the enhanced interrogation techniques -- particularly waterboarding -- are identical to the other forms of torture (whether by the same name or not) and, as yet, that's not conclusive.Actually, you (Yoo) are the one who has to prove it is different.


What you have to do as a government in the United States of America wanting to put an American citizen on criminal trial is to state, in a indictment, the specific American statutes that were violated by the defendant.

If there are not statutes, in American criminal law, then you've got to find some other avenue to punish them. I don't see this government surrendering its own citizens over to another jurisdiction for trial.

Again, what law was broken?Again, there have been successful prosecutions in federal and military courts regarding waterboarding using existing statutes. It is your burden to explain why they do not apply.

[Yonivore]

Federal and military courts, pusrsuant statutes that existed and were never successfully challenged. I could easily see something from Title 18 of the US Code being used, among others.
Really, cite a provision of Title 18 that applies. C'mon Mr. Prosecutor. Under what U. S. statute are you going to try these people?


Damn, you've got to be running low on straw after that one. No need to go outside the US -- there have been several successful prosecutions here. Why do you pretend there haven't?
Those prosecutions you cited were for violating a criminal statute and the sheriff's deputies were charged under those statutes. Federal civil rights violations if I'm not mistaken. And, given the circumstances of these interrogations, I think you'd be hard pressed to apply them here.


If you are that interested, please look up all the cases you demanded earlier and never did anything with.
Actually, I'm not. I don't think any laws were broken. If you want to prove me wrong, it's going to be you that comes up with the specific statute they violated.


Actually, you (Yoo) are the one who has to prove it is different.
Actually, they don't. It doesn't appear there is going to be any civil or criminal action taken against either Yoo or Bybee.


Again, there have been successful prosecutions in federal and military courts regarding waterboarding using existing statutes.
What are the statutes?


It is your burden to explain why they do not apply.
No, it's not. Waterboarding isn't a crime, just like shooting someone isn't a crime. Now, waterboarding may be an element of a crime (as you so ably demonstrated with your U. S. v Parker and U. S. v. Lee cites), just like shooting someone may the an element of a crime (i.e. murder, assault, manslaughter, etc...) but, in and of itself, it isn't a crime.

And, as best as I can determine, nor is it considered torture in the context in which it was used by our government in the 2002 to 2005 time frame. Unless you can show me some statute -- and it would have to be a federal statute since the incidents did not occur in any U. S. State. -- I'm calling no crime here.

[Winehole23]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html

[ChumpDumper]

Really, cite a provision of Title 18 that applies. C'mon Mr. Prosecutor. Under what U. S. statute are you going to try these people?I gave you the Title to see if you would actually look. You didn't.

Hilarious.


Those prosecutions you cited were for violating a criminal statute and the sheriff's deputies were charged under those statutes. Federal civil rights violations if I'm not mistaken. And, given the circumstances of these interrogations, I think you'd be hard pressed to apply them here.Well, one would have to actually say why the decisions reached in that case regarding torture do not apply to the torture statutes if nothing else.



Actually, I'm not. I don't think any laws were broken. If you want to prove me wrong, it's going to be you that comes up with the specific statute they violated.It's in there. You didn't look.


Actually, they don't. It doesn't appear there is going to be any civil or criminal action taken against either Yoo or Bybee.They didn't torture anyone. They just wrote really horrible legal opinions.



What are the statutes?:lol You pretend that statutes don't exist because you are ignorant of them.

It's funny.

I told you where they were, and you didn't look and demanded to know where they were.


No, it's not. Waterboarding isn't a crime, just like shooting someone isn't a crime.:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

I guess you are going to argue that the CIA personnel were actually trying to waterboard a quail and just accidentally waterboarded detainees.

[Yonivore]

I gave you the Title to see if you would actually look. You didn't.

Hilarious.
Sorry, not doing to law research for you. If you say they violated Title 18, show me.


You are indeed mistaken.
So, with what were they charged?



It's in there. You didn't look.
Nope, I didn't


They didn't torture anyone. They just wrote really horrible legal opinions.
That's your characterization and that doesn't rise to the level of a crime, even if you're correct.


:lol You pretend that statutes don't exist because you are ignorant of them.

It's funny.

I told you where they were, and you didn't look and demanded to know where they were.
If there is a specific cite, I'll read it. Directing me to an whole Title of the U. S. code isn't very specific.


:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

I guess you are going to argue that the CIA personnel were actually trying to waterboard a quail and just accidentally waterboarded detainees.
Great how you had to take that out of context to make yourself laugh.

Find me a statute that says waterboarding is a crime.

[ChumpDumper]

Sorry, not doing to law research for you. If you say they violated Title 18, show me.Sorry, not doing your law research for you.


Nope, I didn'tSorry, not doing your law research for you.



That's your characterization and that doesn't rise to the level of a crime, even if you're correct.When did I say they committed a crime?

Please provide a link.


If there is a specific cite, I'll read it. Directing me to an whole Title of the U. S. code isn't very specific.Sorry, not doing your law research for you.



Find me a statute that says waterboarding is a crime.Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You'll have to trust that they exist.

There is a federal torture statute.

A federal judge said waterboarding meets the statuary definition of torture, calling it torture -- 12 times in one case.

[Winehole23]

In the face of clear and repeated evidence, all Yoni has left is bald denial. He won't ever budge from it, even if people are charged and convicted.

[Yonivore]

In the face of clear and repeated evidence,
Evidence of what?


all Yoni has left is bald denial.
They waterboarded three terrorists, I'm denying nothing.


He won't ever budge from it, even if people are charged
With what?


and convicted.
Of what?

[Yonivore]

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.


When did I say they committed a crime?

Please provide a link.

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.


Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You'll have to trust that they exist.

There is a federal torture statute.

A federal judge said waterboarding meets the statuary definition of torture, calling it torture -- 12 times in one case.
Okay, then. I guess I win the argument. I say there are no statutes that say waterboarding is a crime. You say there are.

You won't produce them.

[ChumpDumper]

Okay, then. I guess I win the argument. I say there are no statutes that say waterboarding is a crime. You say there are.

You won't produce them.Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You don't know how the law works in this country. You refuse to acknowledge 800 years of common law and over 100 years of case law regarding the specific practice of waterboarding.

You don't think laws against torture exist.

You don't think waterboarding has ever been legally defined in a court of law.

You don't think anyone has ever been tried or punished for waterboarding.

Your only defense of waterboarding is denial.

I guess I win the argument by default, because you can't even argue.

[Yonivore]

Sorry, not doing your law research for you.

You don't know how the law works in this country. You refuse to acknowledge 800 years of common law and over 100 years of case law regarding the specific practice of waterboarding.

You don't think laws against torture exist.

You don't think waterboarding has ever been legally defined in a court of law.

You don't think anyone has ever been tried or punished for waterboarding.

Your only defense of waterboarding is denial.

I guess I win the argument by default, because you can't even argue.
Maybe you win in bizarro world. You're the one claiming a law was broken...not me.

I haven't even seen anywhere in any of the media where anyone has been accused of a specific crime.

Yes, they waterboarded terrorists to extract information.

You (and a bunch of people who hate the Bush administration) say that's a crime. I (and a bunch of others) say it isn't.

I can't prove a negative so it falls to you to prove the affirmative.

[ChumpDumper]

Maybe you win in bizarro world. You're the one claiming a law was broken...not me.

I haven't even seen anywhere in any of the media where anyone has been accused of a specific crime.

Yes, they waterboarded terrorists to extract information.

You (and a bunch of people who hate the Bush administration) say that's a crime. I (and a bunch of others) say it isn't.

I can't prove a negative so it falls to you to prove the affirmative.:lol

Your attempt to wear ignorance as armor is laughable.

You were already shown the specific cases where defendants were successfully prosecuted and punished for waterboarding -- the waterboarding victims were quite varied -- US citizens, US soldiers, foreign citizens and foreign insurgents.

Your response -- they didn't happen because you don't know about them.

You didn't like the answer you were given so you pretended you never got one.

Now that you have been shown all this case law exists, that waterboarding has indeed been declared to be torture numberous times by military and civilian courts, the burden has fallen back on you to back up your claim that no crime has been committed.

Your defense -- "Well, it just isn't because the blogs I plagiarize told me to think that way!"

[Yonivore]

:lol

Your attempt to wear ignorance as armor is laughable.

You were already shown the specific cases where defendants were successfully prosecuted and punished for waterboarding -- the waterboarding victims were quite varied -- US citizens, US soldiers, foreign citizens and foreign insurgents.
The charge was waterboarding?


Your response -- they didn't happen because you don't know about them.
I think you're deliberately avoiding the fact that none of these people were charged with the crime of waterboarding.


You didn't like the answer you were given so you pretended you never got one.
You've yet to show me where waterboarding is a crime. You've shown cases where some type of water torture or treatments were elements of a crime.


Now that you have been shown all this case law exists, that waterboarding has indeed been declared to be torture numberous times by military and civilian courts, the burden has fallen back on you to back up your claim that no crime has been committed.

Your defense -- "Well, it just isn't because the blogs I plagiarize told me to think that way!"
No, you've yet to state what crime you believe was violated. Waterboarding isn't a crime.

[Winehole23]

Evidence of what?Laws against torture.



They waterboarded three terrorists, I'm denying nothing.You deny this is a crime.


With what?Under Title 18 or Geneva, or any other relevant statute.



Of what?That's for prosecutors to decide, not me. Waterboarding is pretty clearly torture. Many of the EIT's, as applied, may have been.

[ChumpDumper]

The charge was waterboarding?Sorry, not doing your law research for you.


I think you're deliberately avoiding the fact that none of these people were charged with the crime of waterboarding.No, I deliberately showed cases where the practice of waterboarding was successfully prosecuted using existing statutes and legal definitions.


You've yet to show me where waterboarding is a crime. You've shown cases where some type of water torture or treatments were elements of a crime.:lmao I'm sure you don't realize what you posted here.


No, you've yet to state what crime you believe was violated. Waterboarding isn't a crime.Sure it is -- that's already been proved. You simply are too stupid to understand what has already been done several times over.

[Yonivore]

Laws against torture.
First, you have to prove it was torture.


You deny this is a crime.
Yes, I do.


Under Title 18 or Geneva, or any other relevant statute.
Yes.


That's for prosecutors to decide, not me. Waterboarding is pretty clearly torture. Many of the EIT's, as applied, may have been.
Well, I don't think you're going to get your wish of ever having this prosecuted so, we're just going to have to imagine what a prosecutor would decide.

And, waterboarding isn't clearly torture. Maybe in your mind but, not mine...and, obviously, not in the legal opinion of the Bush Justice Department.

[ChumpDumper]

And, waterboarding isn't clearly torture. Maybe in your mind but, not mine...and, obviously, not in the legal opinion of the Bush Justice Department.And upon what are those opinions based?

[Yonivore]

Sure it is -- that's already been proved. You simply are too stupid to understand what has already been done several times over.
Where is the statute that specifically says waterboarding is a crime.

[Yonivore]

And upon what are those opinions based?
An analysis of the law.

[ChumpDumper]

An analysis of the law.Which laws?

[ChumpDumper]

Where is the statute that specifically says waterboarding is a crime.Where is the statute that specifically says ripping out fingernails is a crime?

[Yonivore]

Where is the statute that specifically says ripping out fingernails is a crime?
That's not a crime either.

[ChumpDumper]

That's not a crime either.:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Back to the accidental torture defense!

[Yonivore]

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Back to the accidental waterboarding defense.
No, back to the act being only an element of the crime being alleged.

What crime are you alleging?

[ChumpDumper]

You still don't know?

[ChumpDumper]

I'll just let your words speak for me from now on.
You've shown cases where some type of water torture or treatments were elements of a crime.

[Yonivore]

You still don't know?
It could be more than one. Please specify.

[ChumpDumper]

You've shown cases where some type of water torture or treatments were elements of a crime.

[Yonivore]

So, you still don't know what statute under which you'd charge these people?

[ChumpDumper]

Asked and answered.

I know.

I told you were it is.

[Yonivore]

Asked and answered.
Title 18?

[Winehole23]

Title 18?Fuckin A, man.

[Yonivore]

Fuckin A, man.
Well, good luck with that.

[Winehole23]

The argument from expedience that saving lives justifies torture ought to be proved in courtrooms, not assumed as a matter of course. If we assume it, torture becomes SOP anytime we get scared.

Americans seem to be fine with using it on terrorists and suspected terrorists, but once this door is opened there is no telling what might be deemed sufficiently heinous (or dangerous to society) to warrant it in the future. Once expedience is allowed to trump principle, in theory there is no rational limit to the expansion of the practice, because in some sense all criminals are at war with society.

One difference between civilized and barbaric systems of law is the protection afforded to offenders. Civilization protects the guilty from the irregular composition of the mob, whereas barbaric societies resort to outlawry, in the antique sense: caput gereret lupinum. Let him bear the wolf's head. Outlawry places the offender beyond the protection of the law. He is considered a wild animal and may be pursued and killed with impunity by anyone at all.

The normalization of torture represents a reversion to outlawry and self-help, hence, to the barbaric origins of Anglo-Saxon justice.

[Winehole23]

After a contentious closed-door vote, the Senate intelligence committee approved a long-awaited report Thursday concluding that harsh interrogation measures used by the CIA did not produce significant intelligence breakthroughs, officials said.

The 6,000-page document, which was not released to the public, was adopted by Democrats over the objections of most of the committee’s Republicans. The outcome reflects the level of partisan friction that continues to surround the CIA’s use of waterboarding and other severe interrogation techniques four years after they were banned.




The report is the most detailed independent examination to date of the agency’s efforts to “break” dozens of detainees through physical and psychological duress, a period of CIA history that has become a source of renewed controversy because of torture scenes in a forthcoming Hollywood film, “Zero Dark Thirty.”


Officials familiar with the report said it makes a detailed case that subjecting prisoners to *“enhanced” interrogation techniques did not help the CIA find Osama bin Laden and often were counterproductive in the broader campaign against al-Qaeda.
The committee chairman, Sen. Dianne Feinstein *(D-Calif.), declined to discuss specific findings but released a written statement describing decisions to allow the CIA to build a network of secret prisons and employ harsh interrogation measures as “terrible mistakes.”


“I also believe this report will settle the debate once and for all over whether our nation should ever employ coercive interrogation techniques,” Feinstein said.


That conclusion has been disputed by high-ranking officials from the George W. Bush administration, including former vice president Richard B. Cheney and former CIA director Michael V. Hayden. Both of them argued that the use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation and other measures provided critical clues that helped track down bin Laden, the al-Qaeda leader who was killed in a U.S. raid in Pakistan in May 2011.


Largely because of those political battle lines, Republicans on the Senate intelligence committee refused to participate in the panel’s three-year investigation of the CIA interrogation program, and most opposed Thursday’s decision.


Sen. Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, the committee’s ranking Republican, said in a statement that the report “contains a number of significant errors and omissions about the history and utility of CIA’s detention program.” He also noted that the review was done “without interviewing any of the people involved.”


The 9 to 6 vote indicates that at least one Republican backed the report, although committee officials declined to provide a breakdown.


Other GOP lawmakers voiced support for the report’s conclusions. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), who was a prisoner of war in Vietnam, issued a statement saying that the committee’s work shows that “cruel” treatment of prisoners “is not only wrong in principle and a stain on our country’s conscience, but also an ineffective and unreliable means of gathering intelligence.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/report-finds-harsh-cia-interrogations-ineffective/2012/12/13/a9da510a-455b-11e2-9648-a2c323a991d6_story.html