Courier's Name Did Not Come From Waterboarding

The torture enthusiasts, which are pretty much the last remnants of George Bush supporters, really believe Bush's state-sanctioned torture program led to the killing of bin Laden.

There are a few important items to consider when talking with these people.  Along with believing torture should be standard practice for a Constitutional Republic, they also believe Iraq had something to do with 9/11, that Bush was a popular president, that any criticism of Bush could not be tolerated and equaled treason and that the deficit only became a problem in 2009.  They are not the sanest people you are ever going to come across.

On top of all that, though.  Whether or not torture can produce good intelligence, which there's no doubt it can, is that the most important piece of information-- the name of bin Laden's courier-- that eventually led to his killing by U.S. Navy Seals on May 1st, is that it came from an al Qeada operative that had not been waterboarded and was described by CIA agents as being "quite cooperative."

In 2004, however, a Qaeda operative named Hassan Ghul, captured in Iraq, gave a different account of Mr. Kuwaiti, according to the American official. Mr. Ghul told interrogators that Mr. Kuwaiti was a trusted courier who was close to Bin Laden, as well as to Mr. Mohammed and to Abu Faraj al-Libi, who had become the operational chief of Al Qaeda after Mr. Mohammed’s capture.

Mr. Kuwaiti, Mr. Ghul added, had not been seen in some time — which analysts thought was a possible indication that the courier was hiding out with Bin Laden.

The details of Mr. Ghul’s treatment are unclear, though the C.I.A. says he was not waterboarded. The C.I.A. asked the Justice Department to authorize other harsh methods for use on him, but it is unclear which were used. One official recalled that Mr. Ghul was “quite cooperative,” saying that rough treatment, if any, would have been brief.

Again, though, the debate wrongly seems to center on whether or not torture produces results. Sure it does. I don't know anyone who has ever denied that torturing someone doesn't produce intelligence. It can produce a lot of things, some good some bad.  The question, however, is not whether torture works but whether torture should be a policy of the American government.  I for one don't believe it should.  Not only is it illegal and morally wrong but it's also as counterproductive as it is useful.

The take from this isn't whether or not people were tortured that led to intelligence in the hunt for bin Laden.  People were tortured, we know that.  But the most important piece of information, that being the name of the courier, came from someone who was not subjected to Bush's enhanced interrogation technique of waterboarding or what the Navy Seals themselves refer to as torture.