Reading Soufan's article and credentials, he is a very credible source. I think it would be foolish to question his motives, expertise or patriotism. He's a guy who wants to get the information. He's saying that the so-called "enhanced interrogation" methods are the wrong way to obtain that information, especially when traditional interrogation techniques have proven to be as effective, in some cases even more effective. And he's dispelled certain "facts" used to justify enhanced interrogation: we obtained much, if not all, of the information BEFORE these controversial techniques were employed.
My background comes from the military perspective. Military interrogators aren't interested in protecting anyone's civil rights or human rights. They will work within the confines of the military regulations that establish a standard of conduct, but they're not emotionally invested in the process. Ask any military interrogator around (those who have actually interrogated prisoners, suspects, detainees and terrorists), and they will tell you almost to the last person that enhanced interrogation simply does not work. It is counterproductive. It instills the will to resist rather than overcome it.
Interrogation is a chess match. It's a matter of keeping track of the moves the opponent made, anticipating the moves the opponent will most likely make, and making moves that will throw your opponent off his game. It is something that is done with finesse and requires a lot of patience. Waterboarding is about as sophisticated as playing chess with a two-by-four.
My challenge to waterboard defenders is: if you were a commander whose mission was based on intelligence obtained through interrogation, would you bet the lives of your men on information that was beat out of someone or information that a prisoner offered and that same information having been confirmed by another independent source of intelligence? This is what dispels the so-called "ticking bomb" argument.
Although I think it was driven as a PR move, I also support the Obama administration's policy of following the techniques in the Army interrogation manual and getting rid of contractor interrogators. The Army interrogation techniques have withstood the test of time because they work. And none of them call for slapping or threatening prisoners. The civilian contractors were cowboys, and they did more damage than good. I'd say we ought to hold each and every one of them accountable for their stupidity and gross incompetence, but they were acting under orders. We gave them that permission, and for that, we're to blame.
I will add, however, to not be fooled into thinking that military interrogation is a pleasant thing. It most certainly is not. As a human race, we need a set of values to believe in...yes, even terrorists need that, and a military interrogation screws that up and turns it upside down. Bruises from physical hits always heal. Bruises from having ideals, beliefs and principles shattered are something different.
The comedians at the CIA never understood that subtlety.
