On MSBC, Bob Baer, who was a CIA officer in the middle east, said that he and his CIA colleagues had long ago formed the professional judgment that torture was not an effective way to get at the truth, based on the information yield from interrogations performed by middle eastern countries known to use torture.
This morning’s NYT contains an op-ed by former FBI Supervisory Special Agent Ali Soufan, who says he has previously remained silent owing to the classified nature of these doings, but now feels free to speak as a result of the declassification of the OLC memos. He provides authoritative rebuttal of the idea that enhanced interrogation of Abu Zubaidah produced anything of value, and reports that the refusal of FBI Director Mueller to allow the FBI to become enmeshed in the CIA’s interrogation program probably had costs in the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
A NYT news analysis says the FBI director is sticking to his view:
In an interview with Vanity Fair last year, the F.B.I. director since 2001, Robert S. Mueller III, was asked whether any attacks had been disrupted because of intelligence obtained through the coercive methods. “I don’t believe that has been the case,” Mr. Mueller said. (A spokesman for Mr. Mueller, John Miller, said on Tuesday, “The quote is accurate.”)
Experts are coming out of the woodwork to dispute Cheney’s assertion that torture works; none (that I have seen) are providing actual evidence (as opposed to loud unsupported assertions) in defense of his position that “enhanced interrogation” was important to “keeping us safe.”