[from VanityFair.com last December] I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?
“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”
If not, why not? It seems to me nothing is more important in the current debate than whether or not torture produced important, actionable information. Cheney, Marc A. Thiessen (today in the WP) and dozens of others insist that it did. The director of the FBI says it did not. Isn’t that something that Times readers ought to be aware of?
This was Jehl’s reply:
I agree that the question of whether harsh interrogation methods produced important, actionable information is vital, and that it calls for further reporting. Thanks for calling to my attention the Vanity Fair article [which appeared last December] quoting Mr. Mueller. If those are indeed Mr. Mueller’s views, it’s an important element of a debate we intend to explore.
FCP hopes the Times will get around to that exploration real soon.
Bravo, Mr. Kaiser! Damned right.
#1 Posted by Rick Whitaker, CJR on Wed 22 Apr 2009 at 05:59 PM
also known as the carrot vs. the stick with the former the best approach
#2 Posted by Sal Matera, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 06:16 AM
I do think these reporters are too confident in asserting that CIA people knew nothing about the history of waterboarding. In truth, only George Tenet knows what he knew and when he knew it, and you can never really prove that a person was unaware of any particular historical fact. Shane and Mazzetti could have limited themselves to saying that the CIA people didn't look into or didn't discuss the history of these techniques before deciding to use them. Although it's possible that they really were ignorant, reporters should not be so credulous as to take them at their word on that.
But you must not overlook the service this article does in pointing out to the public, most of whom really do not know such facts, that the SERE techniques were based on the methods of Chinese Communist interrogators and other enemies of human rights.
As for the question of whether the torture was "effective", it may seem to you that nothing is more important in the current debate, but to me and many others it's not important at all. Torture is wrong even if you benefit from it.
#3 Posted by D. B., CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 10:30 AM
what d.b. says.
these days pretty much everyone's been to grade school. we all know the teacher just wants to punish someone. s/he won't believe us even if we *do* tell the truth.
if it even *looked* like i might be waterboarded, i'd tell those guys i just got here from io, and offer to show them where i'd parked my ship.)
#4 Posted by hammer&tongs, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 11:25 AM
I know why his slate is empty: Mr. Jehl has been shackled and forced into stress positions whilst being sleep deprived since late 2001. He'll say anything to get it to stop.
#5 Posted by tribulation periwinkle, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 12:20 PM
These reporters should also stop calling the interrogation techniques "harsh" or "coercive" -- they were, in fact, lethal: "eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death" between August 2002 and the publication of this report by Human Rights First in February 2006:
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/exec-sum.asp
And we don't know what has become of dozens of disappeared prisoners:
http://www.propublica.org/article/dozens-of-prisoners-held-by-cia-still-missing-fates-unknown-422
#6 Posted by Jason Guthartz, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 01:33 PM
The NY Times article claiming ignorance of torture techniqes is simply corrupt. This is disinformation that hearkens Judith Miller and other neo-con propagandists.
We would hope that the country's newspaper of record could maintain higher standards.
#7 Posted by Patrick Hunter, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 02:25 PM
It is difficult to read the Times these days. It is like reading the bloggosphere. Each and every reporter's reliability needs to be evaluated separately. The NY Times brand no longer signifies anything about editorial standards. But at least they put the names of the reporters so a reader has a chance to evaluate an article in the context of the authors previous work. The AP does not even do that.
#8 Posted by Timothy Murray, CJR on Thu 23 Apr 2009 at 03:43 PM