The Torture Debate Is Back

Did the harsh interrogation program (waterboarding, sleep deprivation, humiliation, etc.) get us the info that led to Bin Laden? More importantly did it save American lives? My print column is up.

UPDATE: Meanwhile former CIA chief Michael Hayden sez as late as 2006 fully half of the government's knowledge about the structure and activities of al Qaeda came from harsh interrogations.

Mike Mukasey writes:

Osama bin Laden was killed by Americans, based on intelligence developed by Americans. That should bring great satisfaction to our citizens and elicit praise for our intelligence community. Seized along with bin Laden's corpse was a trove of documents and electronic devices that should yield intelligence that could help us capture or kill other terrorists and further degrade the capabilities of those who remain at large.

But policies put in place by the very administration that presided over this splendid success promise fewer such successes in the future. Those policies make it unlikely that we'll be able to get information from those whose identities are disclosed by the material seized from bin Laden. The administration also hounds our intelligence gatherers in ways that can only demoralize them.

They should knock it off or be voted out next year.

UPDATE II: Gene "Gene the Liberal Dancing Machine" Robinson offers "Torture is still Torture."

OK. Fine. But we're for it if it is needed and used to save American lives. Period.

Still, I would add that I am unconvinced that it would have been justifiable alone in tracking and killing of Bin Laden for two reasons.

First, Bin Laden was no longer the operational head of al Qaeda. He was the symbolic and spiritual head, but he wasn't the man behind the plan, devising terrorist attacks against us. He was only in touch with his courier about six times a year, so that he couldn't be tracked down and killed. All that is to say that catching and killing him at this point was probably not necessary when it came to directly saving American lives.

Having identified the courier that led us to him, the man was not immediately picked up and tortured to get the information. And he probably wouldn't have been under the Bush administration either. He was quietly followed for months. After 10 years and Osama more or less removed from the day to day terrorist operations of al Qaeda there was no hurry, no ticking bomb reason, to force the issue.

That information gleaned from EITs may have ultimately led to the Osama is a bonus, but may not have justification enough to have used the rough techniques in the first place. That too is an open question to me. But I am convinced that our intelligence agencies and Commander in Chief need the latitude and discretion based on their own knowledge of terrorist threat levels to use whatever means necessary to stop imminent terror attacks.

More Mukasey:

Consider how the intelligence that led to bin Laden came to hand. It began with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information—including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.

That regimen of harsh interrogation was used on KSM after another detainee, Abu Zubaydeh, was subjected to the same techniques. When he broke, he said that he and other members of al Qaeda were obligated to resist only until they could no longer do so, at which point it became permissible for them to yield. "Do this for all the brothers," he advised his interrogators.

Any questions?

UPDATE III: More from James Taranto.