Face off with the experts

In my book, Courting Disaster, I take apart the many myths that have been spread about the CIA's enhanced interrogation program. One of the most pervasive is the false argument from the critics that enhanced interrogation does not work because those undergoing it will say anything to make it stop.

Those who make this argument have absolutely no idea how enhanced interrogation actually worked. Enhanced interrogation was never used to gain intelligence - it was the process by which the interrogators broke the terrorists' resistance. As enhanced interrogation techniques were applied (beginning with the least coercive technique first) interrogators would ask the terrorists questions to which they already knew the answers. If the terrorists were lying they knew it. This allowed the interrogators to gauge when the terrorists had stopped resisting and began telling the truth - indicating that they had made the decision to cooperate. The interrogation processusually lasted only a few days (a few weeks in the case of KSM), and only three terrorists resisted to the point that waterboarding was used. Once the terrorists were determined to be cooperative, the enhanced interrogation techniques stopped - and "debriefing" began with CIA experts questioning the terrorists for intelligence using non-coercive techniques.

The first to be waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah, gave his interrogators the secret to breaking the terrorists - and what he told them explains why this approach was so effective. After Zubaydah was waterboarded he thanked his interrogators and told them: "You must do this for all the brothers." Why did he say this? Because, Zubaydah explained, waterboarding lifted a moral burden from his shoulders - the burden to continue resisting. The Jihadist philosophy, he said, held that Allah would prevail no matter what the terrorists did or said under questioning. All that was expected of them was that they resist as far as they could, and once they had reached their limit they were free to spill their guts.

Knowing this, the CIA designed techniques that would not cause any lasting harm to the detainee, but would allow him to safely resist so that he could do his religious duty. Some of the techniques were actually designed to make the terrorist think he was suffering something far worse than what he was actually experiencing (for example, being thrust into a flexible false wall designed to absorb the blow with a device that made a loud thud when the terrorist hit it). Once they had resisted, they began to talk. KSM because what the CIA called "the most prolific" of the detainees, providing information that led to the capture of dozens of terrorists he had deployed to carry out specific attacks; identifying voices in intercepted phone calls; explaining the meaning of coded messages; describing how al Qaeda moved operatives, and money,and information; chose its targets and those who would strike them, and other vital intelligence. The CIA interrogation program was one of the most important and successful intelligence programs in CIA history. It did not involve torture. It saved countless lives. And we are in greater danger because Barack Obama has dismantled it.

The use of so-called "enhanced interrogations methods" and the failure of the Bush Administration to uphold the international rule of law in their treatment of detainees has encouraged more recruits into extremist causes, and has made America less safe. No convincing evidence has been produced to document that the information gathered utilizing abusive methods since 9/11 could not have been obtained with alternative means—in a more timely fashion and in a more accurate form.

“Interrogation is about being smarter, not harsher,” notes Matthew Alexander, a major in the U.S. Air Force who has led interrogations that produced real results that saved American lives.

Moreover, and more importantly, the use of those methods violates our own rule of law, and has undermined years of U.S. policy aimed at supporting greater respect for human rights and the rule of law abroad. Torture and other inhumane interrogation techniques are the hallmark of dictatorships. In a free society, there is absolutely no place for them in any form.

This news today seems to undermine the majority of Thiessen's argument:

"In 2007, a former CIA operative named John Kiriakou told ABC that waterboarding cracked al Qaeda militant Abu Zubayadh, saying "From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." Now, in a new book, Kiriakou says he wasn’t actually there for the interrogation. "What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," he writes. “I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time." Kiriakou suggested to ABC that Zubayadh only lasted 30 or 35 seconds in a single waterboarding session before cracking. In his book, he writes “Now we know that Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in a single month, raising questions about how much useful information he actually supplied."

In Thiessen we have a speechwriter from one of the most discredited administrations in modern times (WMDs, Uranium in Niger, etc.) telling us what "really" happened as a result of torture. These people have already proven they will distort the truth to promote their agenda and score political points.  Why should we believe them now? 

If it is true that Abu Zubaydah thanked his interrogators and invited them to treat his "brothers" the same way, it is probably because they gave him further reason to hate them and everything they stand for, which is the ultimate goal of his movement.

I find it quite naive to believe that a person who shows readiness to DIE for a cause would give in to interrogation or torture no matter how harsh it is. Obviously, Mr. Thiessen not only ignores what motivates terrorists, he also ignores their history. If torture could yield any positive results, countries such as Russia, Egypt and Algeria would have overcome terrorism a long time ago; well, they did not.

Torture only reinforces the belief of the "terrorists" that the United States, the country that promotes human rights and democracy, is as hypocritical as Ben Laden preaches, which is probably why Abu Zubaydah invited his torturers to treat his "brothers" the same way he was treated. His goal was to reinforce his movement's propaganda with the actions of the "enemy" and to strengthen the beliefs of his fellow prisoners, not relieve them from some " fantastic" religious burden that has no trace in the Koran or the sunnah!