海角大神

Just as happened in the aftermath of the May 2011 raid that led to the death of Osama bin Laden, Tuesday鈥檚 release of the Senate Intelligence Committee鈥檚 massive report on the CIA鈥檚 post-9/11 interrogation techniques has revived a national debate about the effectiveness of torture.

Views on what was learned by the experience of the use of 鈥渆nhanced interrogation techniques鈥� in the years after 9/11 range from a conviction that the admittedly gruesome and shocking techniques detailed in the report 鈥渟aved American lives鈥� to a certainty for other intelligence officials and interrogators that the methods produced no valuable information.

Still others, including the CIA now, take the stance that the methods鈥� effectiveness is simply 鈥渦nknowable.鈥�

Yet while positions on the 鈥渆ffectiveness鈥� question continue to vary widely including among intelligence experts, a consensus does seem to have formed around the idea that torture is a moral abomination.

It is that consensus that is leading to a call for action that would go beyond President Obama鈥檚 banning of torture in 2009 to congressional action to ensure that the United States never again responds to a tragedy, even one as horrific as the 9/11 attacks, with criminal action of its own.

The renewed debate over the value of extreme interrogation methods does not obscure the emergence of a widely held view that, effective or not, counterproductive or not, torture is wrong and should be ruled out, some intelligence experts say.

鈥淎lmost a decade and a half after 9/11 there continues to be a debate about the effectiveness of these tools, but where there is agreement across the board is that these techniques are morally repugnant,鈥� says Seth Jones, a counterterrorism expert at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va., and a former adviser to the US special operations command in Afghanistan.

That rejection of torture on moral grounds, beyond any debate over its usefulness, is the conclusion reached by Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who favored the Intelligence Committee report鈥檚 release, even as she questioned some of its methodology and conclusions.

鈥淲hile I agree with the Central Intelligence Agency鈥檚 (CIA鈥檚) current position that it is 鈥渦nknowable鈥� whether or not its 鈥榚nhanced interrogation techniques鈥� elicited significant intelligence that would not otherwise have been obtained, the fact remains that torture is wrong,鈥� Senator Collins said in a statement Tuesday on the report鈥檚 release.

Backers of the position that the torture methods employed in the years after 9/11 were effective have not been silent in the context of the Senate report鈥檚 release.

A group of former CIA directors published a long opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal Tuesday rejecting the report鈥檚 findings, insisting among other things that the interrogation methods led in some cases to more compliant and cooperative detainees who provided valuable information.

The former officials say the report is simply 鈥渨rong鈥� to conclude that the CIA 鈥渋nterrogation program鈥� did not contribute to the 鈥渢akedown鈥� of Mr. bin Laden 鈥� a matter of intense debate in particular in the days after the bin Laden raid.

The former CIA directors insist the interrogation methods were 鈥渋nvaluable鈥� in the effort to destroy Al Qaeda by aiding in the capture of Al Qaeda operatives, in the disruption of terror plots, and by providing information on how Al Qaeda operates.

Jose A. Rodriguez, a retired CIA official who administered the interrogation program and subsequently authored the book, 鈥淗ard Measures: How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives,鈥� says the techniques used delivered vital and life-saving information from the 9/11 attacks architect Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 鈥� a fact he says was once acknowledged by Senate Democrats.

For Mr. Rodriguez, the greatest 鈥渉ypocrisy鈥� in the Senate report release is that many of the leading Democrats behind the report once urged the CIA to do everything possible to prevent another attack on US soil.

But other former CIA officers insist that the extreme interrogation methods did not provide actionable 鈥� or above all, trustworthy 鈥� information.

And RAND鈥檚 Mr. Jones says he finds it instructive that the FBI, which also was deeply involved in overseas terror suspect interrogations, took a divergent approach to interrogation from the CIA in the years following the 9/11 attacks.

鈥淭he FBI鈥檚 general approach was that the enhanced techniques were unlikely to be successful,鈥� Jones says. Other approaches, such as developing a knowledge of the individual under interrogation, were considered more productive, he adds.

Even a case like that of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, known in intelligence circles by his initials KSM, remains open to debate. Intelligence officials concur that he ended up providing useful information.

鈥淲hat is less clear,鈥� Jones says, 鈥渋s whether that kind of information could have been gathered with less coercive measures. That,鈥� he adds, 鈥渋s where you get this concept of 鈥榰nknowable.鈥欌��

But others say the verdict is in, that torture is ineffective and ultimately counterproductive in the way its practice violates American values, and that the Senate report should not lead to more debate but to action.

鈥淎s a career interrogator, I know that the lawful, humane methods for acquiring intelligence are also the most effective,鈥� says Col. Steven Kleinman, a former Air Force interrogator who is now an expert in human-rights-compliant interrogation.

鈥淭here is no need to debate this any longer,鈥� Colonel Kleinman says, adding that in the aftermath of the Senate report the US should 鈥渃hart a new course鈥� that will 鈥渘ot only respect human rights, but will also keep American safe.鈥�

Advocates of action beyond Mr. Obama鈥檚 ban on torture say the president and Congress should work together to come up with legislation that rules out interrogation practices that violate American ideals and international moral standards.

One congressman responded to the Senate report by announcing legislation to ban any use of torture.

Saying, 鈥淲e must prohibit torture by law once and for all,鈥� Rep. Jerry Nadler, (D) of New York, said Tuesday he would reintroduce the American Anti-Torture Act of 2014. The bill would extend Army Field Manual standards to all interrogations, 鈥渆nsuring that U.S. law has a single, uniform, baseline of treatment of prisoners,鈥� Representative Nadler said, while clarifying that methods prohibited for use by the military are also prohibited for other federal agencies including the CIA.

Elisa Massimo, president of the Washington-based Human Rights First, says such legislation should not 鈥渓eave room for loophole lawyering鈥� 鈥� the kind that she and other interrogation program critics say was at the root of America鈥檚 post-9/11 torture experience.