I could not be more disheartened by your post, Pat. It almost appears that you have failed to read every article that has systematically used insiders experiences with this program that demonstrate that not only did these torture techniques not work, but they actually PREVENTED information from being obtained by traditional techniques

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/14/torture/

This is a great article detailing how the FBI agent in charge of interrogating Abu Zubaydah. That is, before the CIA’s hodgepodge program swooped in and started the torture. The agent details how he had gotten good information using traditional techniques, only to have the suspect completely shut down once the torture began. This is an interesting perspective echoed in the VAST majority of intelligence and interrogation community. Information from torture is unreliable, often false, and detrimental compared to traditional techniques.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/12/us/12psychs.html

Next you should read about the two architects of this program. Two academics, outside the government, with no experience in either interrogation or intelligence matters, beginning the system of torture and ill-advised interrogations that led to so many false positions that the FBI refused to work with them. That is, Of course, in addition to the FBI’s refusal to take part in any torture.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html

I’m sure you read about the Bush admin’s pondering of sending the U.S. army into Buffalo New York to arrest suspected terrorists, fearing that the government did not have enough information, not only breaking a fundamental tenant of the Constitution (no U.S. military deployed in police actions), but also bypassing the guaranteed rights of this country (a la Padilla). This just demonstrates how far the Bush admin was willing to go to break the constitution and the laws of this nation. I am astonished that you can still believe in the good natured intentioned of the admin that consistently defied law and even the basic foundations of our country.

Lastly, I do not think officers who followed the guidance they received from Washington should be prosecuted. The justice department should look into they went further into their torture, but if they did not then they should be left alone. The real criminals are the ones who formulated these illegal policies, even up to the White House. Just because the President or Vice President says or does something does NOT make it illegal. If they broke the law, they need to be held accountable. How far do you want to go Pat. I close with Ben Franklin’s best quote (aside from his musings on beer). . . .

“Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”

I don’t agree that the damage has already been done. That depends upon the results of the investigation. If for instance, this independent investigation comes up with nothing prosecutable or with some isolated incidents of violations, and then other nations see us as being bound by the rule of law and not simply hushing up wrong doing. If they find that there were wide-spread problems (which frankly, I seriously doubt they will find) then we will be seen as not afraid to police ourselves. The countries that this will hurt us with are basically against us no matter what the outcome so that doesn’t matter.

Of more of a concern is the possible chilling effect that this might have. I don’t know that that is as of great importance as some might think. Those people within the agency may know that some of the people were crossing the line and may also disapprove of that. In that case the chilling effect would only be on those who would otherwise do illegal and immoral things. If it does have a chilling effect on all interrogators, then that would obviously be a bad thing for our future endeavors, but you seem to be assuming that the chilling effect is a done deal and is agency wide. I wonder if that is so. Having worked with a number of these types of people, albeit many decades ago, I believe that they are not automatons who all think in the same manner. I suspect that the spirited discussion we are having is also going on within the agencies.

And I do appear to be giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, as you appear to be denying him the benefit of the doubt. Never-the-less, you still have not presented an alternative as to how to do this type of investigation. It seems that you are satisfied with letting each agency do its own internal investigation without outside observation. I would posit that that could be a very slippery slope because no bureaucratic agency wants to admit its own shortcomings. So what do you propose?

I believe you underestimate the personnel in the CIA and NSA agencies.