No, no, no: it was not torture. It was merely EIT.
EIT? What’s EIT? “Enhanced interrogation techniques.”
See? That didn’t hurt, did it? Just rename it.
The CIA flack who appeared on the PBS News Hour hastened to tell us what a great job the CIA did to keep America safe. The CIA stopped a second attack on the USA, he insisted. He was vague on when or where this attack almost took place.
Here is what another expert in torture said.
Well, there was no ticking time bomb. That’s the justification that people have been using, that because another attack was imminent, we had to resort to this.
But if you look at the majority report, you look at the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, he actually gave us the name of Mukhtar, who was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and that was done through the traditional law enforcement model of rapport-based interrogation. It wasn’t used, it wasn’t derived from abusive interrogation techniques. . . .
The term enhanced interrogation technique is a ruse. You always want to get accurate information. You want actionable intelligence, and you do that by getting a voluntary statement. Look, I can get somebody to admit to being the second shooter in the JFK shooting if I use the right techniques, but that’s a worthless confession.
We want something that’s usable in court and usable to prevent future attacks. And the position of the majority, which I agree with, is by using traditional rapport-based interrogations. . . .
You sit them down. You make them comfortable. You establish rapport and then they will give you information. It’s when you resort to torture or abusive interrogation, that’s when you start getting information that typically is not helpful.
(To read the whole interview, click the link.)