Dick Cheney thinks you can't read

Months ago, when the Obama administration released the Yoo/Bybee/Bradbury torture memos, under whose authorization the government engaged in years of conduct theretofore prohibited by all manner of custom and statute, Dick Cheney was shocked and appalled, and accused Obama of selectively releasing information about this program for political gain. He referred specifically to reports that he had seen testifying to the efficacy of the techniques, and the lives saved thanks to their use. This week Cheney got what he wanted - the reports of which Cheney spoke (heavily redacted) have been released, along with the CIA Inspector General's report on the subject. Immediately Cheney took to the airwaves to claim victory, asserting that now the public can see all the good that he and his allies did for the country.

Except, wonder of wonders, the memos don't say that that "Enhanced Interrogation" works, at all. What they do say is that the interrogation program was successful, in that a) terror suspects were not out free to commit acts of terrorism while they were being interrogated (duh) and b) terror suspects gave up critical intelligence while in custody. On the second point, the memos indicate that the efficacy of individual techniques is indeterminate, but they note that a majority of info that turned out to be reliable was given up by the terrorist prior to being tortured. After torture began, it was impossible to tell the lies from the truth without corroboration.

Unlike Cheney, I won't assume that you'll take my word for it. Read the memos - they're heavily blacked-out, but the Vice President isn't saying that the real truth is in the still-classified parts - he's saying he's won the case.

Torture isn't just wrong because it flies in the face of our values, even though it does. It's not just wrong because there are laws that prohibit it, even though there are. It's wrong because it flat out does not work, which means it's dangerous and makes us less safe, regardless of what the Cheney's of the world say. Here's what Ali Soufan, an FBI interrogator who actually did this for a living and actively fought the CIA against the use of these methods, had to say in his testimony (reading the whole thing is recommended) to the Senate some months back:

Authoritative CIA, FBI, and military sources have also questioned the claims made by the advocates of the techniques. For example, in one of the recently released Justice Department memos, the author, Stephen Bradbury, acknowledged a (still classified) internal CIA Inspector General report that had found it "difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations have provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks."

In summary, the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again.

It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective, and play directly into the enemy's handbook. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that was working and naively replace it with an untested method. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that is based on the cumulative wisdom and successful tradition of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community, in favor of techniques advocated by contractors with no relevant experience.

The mistake was so costly precisely because the situation was, and remains, too risky to allow someone to experiment with amateurish, Hollywood style interrogation methods- that in reality- taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world. It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.

For the last seven years, it was not easy objecting to these methods when they had powerful backers. I stood up then for the same reason I'm willing to take on critics now, because I took an oath swearing to protect this great nation. I could not stand by quietly while our country's safety was endangered and our moral standing damaged.

It's actually amazing that in the United States of American we have to have this conversation, because until Bush and Cheney came along, this was obvious to everyone on the left and the right. Reagan, LBJ, Eisenhower, Churchill - they all knew how bad for national security torture was.

Here's another review of the memos from Tim Noah at Slate. More later today on Eric Holder's announced investigations and the classy responses from the right.