Like every one of those retired generals and admirals who has fought against the current administration’s torture policies, the author of the Post piece DOES know what works:
I taught the members of my unit a new methodology — one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they’re listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of “ruses and trickery”). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi. Over the course of this renaissance in interrogation tactics, our attitudes changed. We no longer saw our prisoners as the stereotypical al-Qaeda evildoers we had been repeatedly briefed to expect; we saw them as Sunni Iraqis, often family men protecting themselves from Shiite militias and trying to ensure that their fellow Sunnis would still have some access to wealth and power in the new Iraq. Most surprisingly, they turned out to despise al-Qaeda in Iraq as much as they despised us, but Zarqawi and his thugs were willing to provide them with arms and money. I pointed this out to Gen. George Casey, the former top U.S. commander in Iraq, when he visited my prison in the summer of 2006. He did not respond.
This piece also includes the best description anywhere of the immorality—and absolute counter-productivity—of the single worst policy in which the United States has engaged since it annihilated most of the Native American population in the 18th and 19th centuries:
Torture and abuse are against my moral fabric. The cliche still bears repeating: Such outrages are inconsistent with American principles. And then there’s the pragmatic side: Torture and abuse cost American lives. I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me – unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.
Those are the words Barack Obama needs to remember—and those are the ideas and the facts that you have not read in The New York Times.

The piece on thinking about Guantanamo should have been reinforced with either a close analysis of sections of "Terror and Consent," or an interview with Philip Bobbitt. It turned out to be one of the slightest articles in an otherwise quite good issue of the paper.
The New York Times needs to have a full Higher Education section, as at The Australian, and needs to ask how hard-news-style book reviews could substantiate political news. The Paper Cuts book blog is often too infantile to bother with.
In bookstores now, you will often find excellent sections in economics, history, political science, terrorism and espionage. These books should be the subject of a live curriculum in honors social sciences programs in New York schools. The New York Times is not able to keep up with these books.
The choice of subjects at The Lede is often good, but it is surprising that this relatively high quality blog is not attracting more and better comment. The New York Times is also being dragged down by some second-rate people, such as William Safire, and his pathetic and trivial "On Language."
Journalism schools have to develop much more power in teaching media reading cycles, in getting students to absorb far more books, and in encouraging them to work in a more intelligent way. How can we still have GRE and TOEFL?
CJR should interview Michael Ignatieff on torture, or have him participate in a video discussion with Bobbitt.
Posted by Clayton Burns on Wed 3 Dec 2008 at 07:08 PM
"interrogrator"
Posted by Joshua Zatkin-Steres on Thu 4 Dec 2008 at 11:30 AM
Great article, thanks.
Posted by Tony Pro on Thu 4 Dec 2008 at 05:04 PM
This example is why blogs are of vital importance as an integral part of journalsim and the public trust.
One reads original "investigatory" reporting in a national or international print news source, such as the NYT, WaPo or LAT. Then the experts, intellectuals and advocates in the blogosphere analyze and dissect the strengths and weaknesses of the evidence, logic and reason. Commenters add to this discussion.
That's how I now "get" news. The blogosphere acts as collective filter, expert witness, taste tester, editor and disseminator.
I can't imagine having to rely solely on corporate or government media for news again. I wouldn't be able to trust it - the "retired military analysts" as propagandists just one example.
This interactive process takes commitment on my part to seek out experts, filter the wheat from the chaff of hucksters from experts and legitimate sources from tabloid fiction, but in so doing, it encourages me to engage with the news in a way that wasn't previously possible.
In the case of torture and US policy, there is still a large part of the story that isn't being reported: the use of nurses as agents of abuse and torture by the military, CIA and by DIHS and ICE on immigrant detainees. This is far more disturbing since nurses work almost exclusively as employees and are encultured to display obedience to corporate demands, even though by ethics and statutes they are charged with protecting patient safety and serving as patient advocates. They are always the last resource between preventable harm and death and appropriate healthcare.
I really wish that any investigatory reporter would look into this. I documented my research as far as I could get, but the USPS and ANA aren't responding to questions.
Posted by Annie on Thu 4 Dec 2008 at 08:41 PM
Torture and pre-emptive war have never been and never will be "real American" principles for good reason. Both concepts destroy the initiator much more than they help. The forefathers of the USA knew this from the experiences with England and the more violent native American cultures in the 17th and 18th centuries. If torture and pre-emptive war are acceptable, what is next? Human sacrifice? Cannibalism? Ritual infanticide? All of these, perhaps, as a "loyalty test"? The US Constitution is a bulwark against indescribable horrors as well as a document delineating rights and responsibilities. No American should ever forget that. The fact that SOME have forgotten that does not prevent the rest of us refusing to forget.
Posted by Ron Planesi on Thu 4 Dec 2008 at 10:21 PM
There and hundreds, if not thousands, of American reporters and media officials who also work for the CIA. I probably don't need to mention this at CJR, but Google "the Mighty Wurlitzer" to see a lot more about the CIA control of the American media.
Posted by NoOneYouKnow on Fri 5 Dec 2008 at 01:30 PM
Mazzetti and Shane's coverage of torture and the debate about it (if there ever should be a debate in the first place!) has become unfortunately a common practice in mainstream journalism - the framing of admitted, indisputable and egregious government practices as "alleged," as in Brennan's "alleged role in the agency’s detention and interrogation program."
By contrast, those who oppose crimes against humanity such as torture are dubbed "ardent supporters on the left."
As I wrote in my blog the other day (http://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2008/12/slip-sliding-away-and-democrats-is.html):
By describing Brennan’s role in supporting rendition and torture as “alleged” Mazzetti and Shane were engaging in the equivalent of declaring that 2+2 = 4 (allegedly).
It’s like Hillary Clinton cagily saying during the campaign that Barack Obama isn’t a Muslim, “as far as I know.”
This is what Brennan said in a March 8, 2006 Frontline interview: ”I think George [Tenet] had two concerns. One is to make sure that there was that legal justification, as well as protection for CIA officers who are going to be engaged in some of these things, so that they would not be then prosecuted or held liable for actions that were being directed by the administration. So we want to make sure the findings and other things were done probably with the appropriate Department of Justice review.”
Why was there concern of possible prosecution for CIA officers? There would be no concern if these CIA figures were following the Army Field Manual. There was only concern because they were engaging in practices prohibited by the AFM and that are unequivocally categorized by the Geneva Conventions as torture.
Mainstream media can’t bring itself to name practices for what they are when it comes to calling out government officials for what they are doing, but Mazzetti and Shane have no trouble describing in derogatory terms the critics of rendition, torture and massive, felonious surveillance as “ardent supporters on the left.”
I suppose that being opposed to torture makes you a lefty and hence all right-thinking, non-ardent, middle of the roaders or righties are for torture?
Brennan isn’t an “ardent” supporter of rendition. No, ardent isn’t good. He’s merely an “alleged” supporter of such practices.
Is it then better that we be “allegedly critics of torture?”
Speaking of alleged critics of torture: quo vadis Obama and the Congressional Democrats?
---
For the rest of my analysis of Feinstein and Wyden and why I think it's clear that they're receiving signals from the Obama team, see http://dennisloo.blogspot.com/2008/12/slip-sliding-away-and-democrats-is.html.
Posted by Dennis Loo on Sat 6 Dec 2008 at 12:01 PM
Annie, I coordinate a Center for Constitutional Rights project on the role of health care professionals in torture and am looking for information on nurses. I'd be interested in discussing your research. I'd rather not post my full name and main address here because of spam, but if you e-mail my alternative address cir_investigations@yahoo.com, I'll pass on my work contact information.
Annie said:
In the case of torture and US policy, there is still a large part of the story that isn't being reported: the use of nurses as agents of abuse and torture by the military, CIA and by DIHS and ICE on immigrant detainees. This is far more disturbing since nurses work almost exclusively as employees and are encultured to display obedience to corporate demands, even though by ethics and statutes they are charged with protecting patient safety and serving as patient advocates. They are always the last resource between preventable harm and death and appropriate healthcare.
I really wish that any investigatory reporter would look into this. I documented my research as far as I could get, but the USPS and ANA aren't responding to questions.
Posted by Deborah on Fri 12 Dec 2008 at 02:37 PM