A new CIA report seems to indicate that torture has little value in preventing terrorist attacks:
When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.
The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.
In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida’s tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida — chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates — was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.
Within weeks after he was captured, and before any harsh interrogation techniques were applied, Zubaida gave interrogators information that led to the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, as well as other information about al Qaeda operative who had fled Afghanistan.
However, that wasn’t good enough for those in Washington who believed he knew more:
As weeks passed after the capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried.
The pressure from upper levels of the government was “tremendous,” driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered.
“They couldn’t stand the idea that there wasn’t anything new,” the official said. “They’d say, ‘You aren’t working hard enough.’ There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution — a feeling that ‘He’s going to talk, and if he doesn’t talk, we’ll do whatever.’ ”
The application of techniques such as waterboarding — a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime — prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.
Abu Zubaida’s revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological “dirty bomb” in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.
“We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms,” one former intelligence official said.
And, to date, the CIA has been unable to provide an example of a single piece of “actionable intelligence” that was obtained from Zubaida via waterboarding.
Given that, isn’t it about time that we asked ourselves why we need to continue doing it ?

March 29th, 2009 at 9:52 am
[...] of this wasted money and resources could have been avoided simply by following our country’s obligation, [...]
April 26th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
[...] Iraqis and Iranians? Apparently these experienced and knowledgeable sources disagree with you. A new CIA report seems to indicate that torture has little value in preventing terrorist attacks: – Mar. 2009 . [...]
April 28th, 2009 at 10:34 am
[...] by: Sonart . A new CIA report seems to indicate that torture has little value in preventing terrorist attacks: – Mar. 2009 . [...]