When youre staring at an ironclad complicity rap from a general public and liberal base looking for some sign that you stood athwart the black site gates and shouted, Stop! yet no such evidence exists or is forthcoming. When youre putting the final touches on a report that somehow cost the taxpayers 40 million dollars, the content of which you characterize as shocking, brutal, and un-American, while looking for a way to extricate yourself and your colleagues from the role of enabler for that which will undoubtedly shock, albeit with intent. When your unanimous and full-throated opposition to the program you once supported hinges upon the notion that it was not only immoral, but ineffective because how can you explain shutting down a program, however objectionable, which was effective at pulling actionable intelligence out of high value Al Qaeda leadership detainees? When the President who signed the executive order shutting down the program, having actually seen the intelligence after being inaugurated and spoken with the leadership at CIA, changes his campaign trail characterization from It didnt work; people will say anything to make it stop to Even if it did produce some information, we dont know if we could have gotten that information using standard techniques. When the famously Democratic former director of the CIA, Leon Panetta, states that the program provided valuable information used against Al Qaeda terrorists but is compelled to attach the Obama administration caveat that he also doesnt know whether we could have gotten the same information using different techniques.

When the only viable narrative remaining is that it was approved by Democrats briefed on the program, it had the full support of briefed Democrats until it (and the notion of their support) became public, those same Democrats then characterized it as ineffective and immoral, yet significant doubt remains after credible claims that information gathered in the program led to Bin Laden. When faced with all of that, what do you do? It all hinges on complicity, doesnt it? Your only possible recourse is to claim that your approval was based on faulty briefings that you were lied to by the CIA, and that the program you approved, supported, and paid for was vastly different than what was actually carried out in those black sites. Then, to tie up the pesky effectiveness issue, youve got to attack the information find a way to accentuate the negative and minimize the positive. But youre going to need some help. You can count on the media and various pundits to advance your position in an incurious and uncritical manner, but youre savvy enough to understand that the media has been on board since 2005, yet you still find yourself in a relatively delicate position. So first, youve got to count on the silence of the briefers youve got to hope that they are either still in the CIA employ and legally bound to remain silent, or at least more silent than you (whose silence is equally bound, yet unequally enforced). If they do find an avenue to challenge your claims of ignorance, you can then turn to the media to shut that down (Of course theyre going to say that their reputation is on the line. Theyll say anything.). Same thing goes for former

Directors attack the messenger, assassinate the character, question the motive, and let the media do the rest. Next, youve got to do some leaking. Activate the Staff-Int channel to the media, get the story you want out there and let it ride. Leak the portions of the classified report you find most damaging to the program and beneficial to you. Get all of those former military interrogators and FBI agents out there fired up and ready to go and count on the media to not scratch too deeply the surface of their actual experience or motivation, or to ponder for a moment the notion that a former interrogator who has never employed enhanced interrogation techniques but has a book to sell would be an appropriate arbiter of the truth an expert from whom to report the truth about torture. What are they to do, these Democratic politicians facing the dilemma of damning a program they fostered in the secretive darkness of a top-secret post-9/11 briefing room, only to claim ignorance and dismay in the harsh light of the post-2005 Washington Post expose? How can they pull it off? In this case, they were presented a gift a life raft on which to float their conspiracy theories, half-truths and cherry-picked condemnations of a successful program they now have no choice but to destroy. They got their hands on millions of pages of top-secret cables, internal memos, emails and briefing documents from the beginning to the end of the program. Every word put to paper; every email argument over tactics and techniques; every mistake laid bare, examined, and rectified in official traffic; every doubt shared with colleagues; every poorly-worded interrogation report; every disproven analysis of current intelligence; every start and stop along the

interrogation and debriefing spectrum of each detainee. In short, everything ever put on paper regarding the deliberations and day-to-day administration of a top secret, clandestine program involving the interrogation of Al Qaeda terrorists. So indulge me for a moment and briefly strip yourselves of any ideological or political bias here step away from any preconception or belief you may hold regarding the program, and give me your honest impression of what you would anticipate, faced with the above-described dilemma, the Democratic Senate Intelligence Committee staff may do with the entirety of CIA records and communications throughout the disputed interrogation program. Theyre going to produce something shocking, brutal, and un-American, arent they? The staffers themselves will tell you that you can take the entirety of internal communications belonging to any government program in the history of government programs, flip a coin to predetermine a positive or negative outcome, and find enough supporting evidence to produce a convincing report characterizing the program as either the most or least productive and effective in all of government, depending on which side the coin landed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------. And I can guarantee with absolute certainty that it would take a lot less than 40 million dollars and five years for me to be able to dive into that document dump and come out with as convincing a positive narrative of the program as

Dianne Feinstein and her staff have apparently produced a negative one. I would lead with the contemporaneous memorandum for record describing the 2002 briefing of Nancy Pelosi and others on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXX and its one of thousands routinely produced by the note-taker in every encounter with congress. Im not allowed to describe it any further other than to say that it is compellingly at odds with the former Speakers claims of ignorance, but if I were on a committee trying to write the definitive history of the interrogation program I would certainly consider this to be of principle import, as it speaks to the crux of the issue of which party is telling the truth about congressional support for the program in its early days. Whether or not this document, or a summary of it, is in the declassified SSCI report will say a lot about which side the coin landed on prior to this investigation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would interview each debriefer who deployed to a black site and questioned the detainees before, during, and after EITs were employed, and would publish each of their unedited opinions on the effectiveness of EITs.

I would examine the early days of the program and highlight the mistakes and hasty decisions made during that chaotic period, but would interview those involved to ascertain the reasons for, and lessons learned from, those mistakes. I would not allow those issues to be presented without context and follow-up. And I would clearly differentiate between the early days of the program, when the training and infrastructure was in its infant stages when the demand outpaced supply and the system raced to catch up to the challenge of implementing a multi-faceted special access program on the fly and the mid-to-latter stages, ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ill wager that there is little to be found in the Senate report from 2004 onwards another test of which way the coin landed. I would produce an entire section on the ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- deliberative process of the efficacy of interrogation using enhanced measures. I would do so for personal reasons, because on a personal level, while I have no quarrel with reporters or cable TV pundits and hosts reporting or commenting negatively on the program (their job is to sell their paper or their program torture sells), I do take issue with former intelligence officers or interrogators professing expert knowledge of techniques they have never used, and which most of whom have never witnessed. They entered the arena to sell themselves, or their books, or both, and during the process they made any number of statements regarding the notion that --------------------------------------- was putting the lives of Americans, and American military personnel in particular, in danger. As they presented

themselves as experts, their words held meaning to those who hosted them on their programs or helped them sell their books, and they are as aware as I am that they are no such thing. They are opportunists who, almost uniformly, spent a relatively small portion of their professional lives engaged in standard interrogation be it criminal or intelligence-related and they bundled their manufactured credibility and their personal opinion into a nice little self-righteous quote package, for sale to the highest bidder. I have no problem with the buyers thats business. I do have a problem with the sellers, and thats personal. I know one or two of them an Air Force Colonel often quoted on his opposition to, and disgust with, the techniques ------------------------------------- A former FBI agent widely recognized as the whistle-blower who was so offended and disturbed by what he saw at a black site that he informed his higher headquarters and took the next plane out of there. I worked with the Air Force Colonel when he was a Captain hed remember me if he saw me because he and I spent a good deal of time sharing an operations tent in the Hafr Al Batin desert of Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. I read in his biography that he was Chief of a joint/combined interrogation team during that war and have heard him describe his interrogations of Iraqis as an example of the effectiveness of Army Field Manual interrogations. If we met again, it wouldnt surprise him to hear that I was puzzled by that part of his bio, as I remember his role at JIF West a bit differently than does he. Perhaps Joint Fusion Analysis Team would ring a bell. I would ask him to remind me of one occasion in which he, I, or any other interrogator encountered an Iraqi prisoner unwilling to provide whatever information we desired. He may

remember that I used to joke that it would be a more efficient use of our time to give them all a list of the top 10 Priority Intelligence Requirements and a tape recorder all we would have to do is interpret and transcribe the tapes. Or maybe he wouldnt remember it that way in fact, I would ask him to describe each of the interrogations he conducted at JIF West. One would expect such passion and certainty regarding the singular effectiveness of interrogation with Army Field Manual techniques to be a consequence of tried and true operational experience in the field certainly if the speaker is prone to cite this experience as validation of his testimony. So, yes, I would ask the good Colonel to remind me how many Iraqi prisoners he interrogated during this apparently seminal period in the development of his current role as an interrogation expert. His answer would say a lot about his memory. I met the FBI agent in an embassy and subsequently a bar in the Middle East. I found him to be a great storyteller and an interesting guy. I later learned of his ill-fated engagement with the CIA team interrogating Abu Zubaydah and have heard both sides of the story his on television and in his book, and the others through ----------------------- personal conversations with people who worked with him on site. While I find his story compelling, I always go back to that passage in the Department of Justice IG report on FBI participation in Al Qaeda interrogations (its online begins on page 67) in which his partner states that he remained at the black site and participated in the interrogations with the CIA after the agent left, because hed been through similar at the SERE course and because he could see that the CIA interrogators were acting professionally and acquiring valuable information. That didnt make it into his book, at

least not in the clear language included in the IG report, but it should have. I have often wondered how such a uniquely gifted American treasure could bear to leave the FBI and intelligence community and take his talents to the corporate world, when he must have known how badly he was needed on the battlefield. I saw his testimony in front of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee one particular statement stands out. He said that he found it ridiculous that CIA interrogators could claim that their program was designed to obtain critical and timely intelligence when they put the detainee in sleep deprivation for days without engaging and attempting to gather information. That was all I needed to hear from this particular witness to understand that his expertise was overstated. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In other words, while it may be obvious to some, I would point out to the FBI agent that sitting in front of an interrogator answering questions from morning to night is accomplished while the detainee is awake. As these experts can tell you, a good interrogator looks for the first lie and spends some time assessing the context of the lie. Does it minimize or exaggerate? Does it protect inward or outward? Is it selfish and self-serving, or is it noble and protective of colleagues? Is it uttered under stress, or freely, with little prompting? Is it a mistake that he attempts to correct, or is it something hes thought about and plans to hold onto? What, exactly, did he believe he had to gain by telling that lie? Was it to hide, to avoid, or to misdirect? Was it believable and delivered with conviction, or was it more ham-handed more obvious?

The answers to these questions help build a resistance snapshot of the subject (as well as a credibility benchmark) and help guide the interrogator in determining how to exploit that lie to gain advantage over the subject to obtain a clearer understanding of what that individual is trying to protect. With or without EITs, how it is handled is crucial to the conduct of the interrogation, so getting the right answer about the motivation behind that lie is a studied, careful, collaborative task. I would ask those interrogation experts to reflect on their own bios, their descriptions of their own particular interrogation experience and expertise, their public descriptions of their knowledge of the effectiveness of EIT interrogations, and the motivation behind any inconsistencies, omissions, or exaggerations in all above. I think that you would find that the tendency amongst this group is to exaggerate their experience and expertise, a trait generally borne of insecurity, self-preservation, and ambition. I would next be interested in determining why such an individual would find it necessary to exaggerate or lie. While most people exaggerate their access or experience to convince others of their worth and stature, others simply do so out of habit. In all cases, though, the act of exaggeration or deception is uniformly self-serving the lie is offered to advance a positive perception of the subject and his or her actions or opinions. The mere existence of the lie suggests that such a perception is unwarranted it is the interrogators job to discover why. Its always the first lie, though. After the first lie, a good interrogator knows where and when to look for the truth. Perhaps a good journalist should take a harder look as well.

With the aid of testimony from experts such as these, the committee is going to report that a program, ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- was, at best, an abject failure. At worst, a criminal enterprise run by the CIA and the Bush administration, with support from a corrupt Justice Department. It will not find that the Democratic members of the intelligence committees and congressional leadership who were briefed on the program had any hand in aiding and abetting the enterprise. To the contrary, it will find that any Democrat who supported the program only did so because they were misled and lied to by CIA briefers and management, and that those techniques to which they may admit approving were not administered in the manner in which they were briefed. Finally, they will find that, despite all evidence to the contrary, the program was either completely ineffective, or that any information actually produced under the auspices of the program was collected despite, or in lieu of, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. Thats the only possible finding that will allow the Senate Intelligence Committee to trash the work of hundreds of CIA officers and contractors over a period of five years, which produced volumes of actionable intelligence from resistant Al Qaeda leadership detainees, and which operated under the full approval and consent of the congressional committees charged with oversight of such programs. It must be ineffective, it must be incorrectly administered, it must include lying by CIA briefers, and it must suggest (though not necessarily conclude remember, they approved it) that the techniques used constituted torture.

Any other result any other result whatsoever will be unacceptable to the liberal base of the party compiling the report, and will be equally unacceptable to the politicians who have staked their reputations and their excuses for providing support and funding to the program - on every conclusion listed above. Anything less would be a failure, and failure is apparently not an option, based on the selective leaking witnessed thus far.

We got to this point because a group of radical Muslims convinced themselves that their religion allowed for, and in some cases mandated, the murder and maiming of others to purify the world of non-believers. It became their daily bread, their lifes calling, and the measure of their manhood. The most powerful country in the world reacted by making it our mission to kill or capture every like-minded human being walking the same earth, and by all accounts we took that mission seriously. To help facilitate that decision to put names and faces on bad guys, to gain an understanding of their leadership, planning, logistics, tactics, and management, to collect every scrap of information available ------------- to track them down and kill or capture them the CIA proposed that interrogators begin using enhanced techniques to draw out that information. The President agreed, and the heads of the Senate and Congressional Intelligence committees agreed as well. No matter how many times the last part of that sentence is stated and ignored, it is still a fact. The CIA interrogation program operated in secrecy for close to three years, during which time it became the principal source

of information used to kill and capture Al Qaeda leadership and operational personnel, as well as the principal source of information on attack plans, both active and aspirational. The intelligence community (both domestic and international) was happy to receive, evaluate, assess, and make use of that information. The intelligence committees were supportive and satisfied with the results, and the means used to obtain those results. The terrorists knew nothing whatsoever about the program they had no idea where their colleagues had been taken, nor were they aware whether or not, or how, they were being interrogated. The program was working, the consumers were happy, and the overseers were in full accord with the program managers. Then the 2005 Washington Post article hit the press, and everything changed. It became predictably, heartbreakingly political. The politicians formerly in support of the program made the political calculation that explaining their support for enhanced interrogation was more damaging to their reputation than lying about it and relying on the inability of those they once supported to publicly reveal their private, and official, surrogacy. They counted on the media and their own public relations shops to develop strategies to counter any versions of the truth that might leak out, and they dug in. Interrogations were suspended, the program was opened up for redesign-by- committee, and the inexorable slide into ineffectiveness and ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me attempt to put this in perspective. If you are so set in your beliefs that you cannot consider for a moment the possibility that you may not have all of the information necessary to make an informed decision, stop reading now because nothing I write will change your mind. If not, consider the following: I have been an interrogator for over half of my life -----------years as an active, engaged interrogator and I have worked at the highest operational level almost every step along the way. I speak Arabic and Persian Farsi. I was a Senior Interrogator in the principle, theater-level interrogation facility during the first Gulf War, then ran interrogation operations in Mogadishu, Somalia during the Black Hawk Down days I was on the last plane out of Mogadishu in March 1994. I then spent 7 years posted at embassies in the Middle East, debriefing everything from visa applicants to walk-in sources to defectors, scientists, suspected terrorists, and any other potentially-valuable source that popped up in the Middle East during my tenure. In the Iraq war, I ran interrogation and debriefing operations on the Iraqi High Value Detainees (the Deck of Cards government, military, intelligence and scientific personnel captured during the war). I debriefed and debunked two separate Ahmed Chalabi-inspired provocateurs, and was the first to brief General Franks on the absence of WMD in Iraq while standing in my operations center at Baghdad International Airport in early-May 2003 after years of absolute certainty that Iraq was in possession of, and hiding, WMD throughout the country. At no time in my career have I ever cared a whit about what I was going to discover during an interrogation or debriefing my job was to use whatever skills I possessed to assess the subject and the information on its merits, and to accurately communicate whatever intelligence information I collected,

regardless of how it may impact or affect anyone or anything militarily, personally, politically, or professionally. I was good at what I did as a result of years of practical and real-time application of every aspect of the interrogation/debriefing protocol. There is no magic to a professional debriefing or interrogation it is a matter of preparation, tactical flexibility, thorough questioning, and consistent follow-up. I learned what I found to be most effective on dozens of disparate source profiles through trial and error, and then through repetition. I conducted thousands of mundane, intricate debriefings on any variety of subjects, and hundreds of more consequential interrogations and debriefings of detainees and prisoners during wars and conflicts throughout the years. During my 20 years in the military, I never so much as raised my voice during the conduct of thousands of interrogations/debriefings. I ran my operations by the book, and taught those who worked for me that there was absolutely zero wiggle room in the Geneva Conventions or the Army Field Manual. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In the case of the thousands of debriefings and interrogations I conducted during my time in the military, the military interrogation options I had available to me at the time were sufficient to get the job done. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- There is simply no comparison. Not by the FBI guy who tells us that establishing rapport and finding common ground is the key to opening up the KSMs of the world. Not by the Air Force interrogator who tells us that the informed interrogation approach, showing the detainee that you understand him and are knowledgeable of his religion and his personal situation are the magic that will make all of our interrogation wishes come true. Not by the CIA desk officer who decided that his inability to gather intelligence from his detainee using the standard techniques proved that the detainee held no

intelligence value. Not by any of those otherwise intelligent individuals who somehow became experts in the use of techniques theyd never employed. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have often read and heard over the last few years that the conduct of the CIA interrogation program served as a principle recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and, more specifically, put American troops in danger of mistreatment and torture upon capture. Putting aside the fact that the program was secret until 2005 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- it is the second accusation which defies all intellectual reason.

First, all of our enemies over the last several decades routinely torture, kill, or maim their prisoners as a matter of course. Its simply what they do. Our more recent enemy, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and their associated brethren, have proven themselves to be amongst the most brutal captors in the history of captivity. (The majority of this piece was written in early 2014, before the name ISIS was known to anyone outside of the intelligence community). They tortured and beheaded captives before the interrogation program was initiated, while it was being secretly carried out, and after it was revealed publicly. There was no strategy shift upon revelation of the CIA interrogation program to switch tactics from establishing rapport and bonding with their captive to sawing off his head. It was always about the sawing off of heads. It still is. That said, some have suggested that our use of enhanced techniques put our country in the delicate position of demanding fair treatment of our prisoners while at the same time using harsh techniques on Al Qaeda detainees. They wonder whats to stop our enemies from using the same tactics we used, and what right we would have to ask them to stop. I would submit that the immediate adoption of the entire CIA interrogation program by every combatant entity currently engaged in any war or battle in any corner of the world would be the greatest thing that ever happened to modern detention and prisoner/hostage/detainee well being. Were the Secretary-General of the United Nations to propose and enforce the adoption of the CIA interrogation program and conditions of confinement on every battlefield on earth, the number of lives improved and saved would qualify him for a Nobel Peace Prize. There would be no more torture yes, I mean actual torture. No detainee would ever be subjected to

any treatment more severe than that we inflict on our own American servicemen every month in SERE training. All prisoners and detainees would be adequately fed, clothed, housed, and given health and dental care. There would be no beheadings, no beatings, no cutting off of hands, fingers, ears, or noses. No starvation of prisoners. No slow deaths from disease and dysentery. No snuff films, or propaganda videos featuring staged confessions or abuse. No beating of the undersides of feet, or genital mutilation. There would be no rape, no sexual abuse, and no blackmail of families. So I would ask those who express concern that the rest of the world will follow our lead especially those who are rolling their eyes at my suggestion above - to consider the facts about the standard tactics being carried out by warring factions all over the world today, and ask themselves which protocol they would rather be in place were they to become the captive ours or theirs? Speaking as a retired soldier who was considered high risk and trained in the SERE course, I would welcome the implementation of the CIA interrogation protocols by any enemy I may encounter, because I would know that whatever they did to me would be monitored, measured, and carried out over a finite period of time. I would know that they would never cause me severe injury or death. I dont know that about any of our current enemies, so I would gladly accept the CIA interrogation protocol as the world standard. At present, due to the shuttering of the program and the subsequent spotlight put on any and all interrogations carried out by US interrogators anywhere in the world, the safest place on earth for a terrorist to be is in the hands of the US military, FBI, justice department, or intelligence services. Along with

three hots and a cot, the modern terrorist captive is also afforded the assurance that he has no obligation or expectation whatsoever to answer questions posed by the interrogators. He enters the interrogation room comfortable with the knowledge that his secrets are safe within him, as long as he can avoid falling under the spell of a rapport-building interrogator exploiting their common interests, comparing their higher-level educational aspirations for their children, and showing the appropriate level of understanding and compassion to convince him that giving up those secrets is just the righteous thing to do. Absent the embracement of that bonding exercise, he is fully authorized to sit in complete silence, or tell the interrogator to go fuck himself, without consequence. This, my friends, is why we kill people with drones. We have nowhere to hold them, no way to compel them to give up information, and no desire to repeatedly highlight our newfound inadequacies by capturing high value terrorists and quite publicly failing to obtain any information from them. So we kill them, and their secrets die with them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I would wonder aloud if the American people believed that KSM, or Abu Faraj Al Libi, or Ramsi Bin Al Shib had the right to not give up information on terrorist programs, personnel, and attacks. If we as a country believed that a terrorist has that right that an acceptable conclusion to an interrogation could be zero information, regardless of the circumstances or the expected value of the information retained by that terrorist then we did the right thing by shutting down the program, because such a conclusion was unacceptable in our program.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But we need to own that determination. We need the politicians responsible for codifying that right to make it clear to their constituents that the interrogation program produced information that will no longer be available to the intelligence community, but that this state of play is acceptable to them because they consider enhanced interrogation to be immoral and un-American. Not ineffective but in their minds immoral and un-American. Not only will that never happen, but the Senate Intelligence Committee report will find a way to pick apart the program probably by focusing on missteps in the early stages to the extent that they will render any information gained through enhanced interrogations to be inconsequential or of no interest to the intelligence community. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- they will surely do everything they can to minimize the successes and focus on the failures, because any conclusion which suggests any degree of effectiveness will ruin their narrative theyll then have to own it. We then need to shut down the US military SERE program, as the same immoral and un-American tactics used in the CIA program are used on American service-members every day. Regardless of how often that fact is stated and ignored, it is as true today as it will be tomorrow we use the same techniques on each other. If Senator Feinstein and her colleagues are to be believed, we are torturing soldiers every day at SERE.

I learned a lot at SERE, both as a student and as a temporary-duty interrogator. As a student, I learned that I could resist, and occasionally manipulate, a talented interrogator during my numerous soft-sell interrogations the rapport-building, we-know-all, pride-and-ego up/down, do-the-right-thing approaches. I had my story relatively straight, and I simply stuck to it, regardless of how ridiculous or implausible the interrogator made it sound. He wasnt doing anything to me there was no consequence to my lies, no matter how transparent. I then learned the difference between soft-sell and hard-sell by way of a large interrogator who applied enhanced techniques promptly upon the uttering of my first lie. I learned that it was infinitely more difficult for me to remember my lies and keep my story straight under pressure. I learned that it became difficult to repeat a lie if I received immediate and uncomfortable consequences for each iteration. It made me have to make snap decisions under intense pressure in real time and fumble and stumble through rapid-fire follow-up questions designed to poke massive holes in my story. I learned that I needed to practically live my lie if I were to be questioned under duress, as the unrehearsed details are the wild-cards that bite you in the ass. I learned that I would rather sit across from the most talented interrogator on earth doing a soft-sell than any interrogator on earth doing a hard-sell the information I had would be safer because the only consequences to my lies come in the form of words. I could handle words. Anyone could. Ask any SERE Level C graduate which method was more effective on him or her their answer should tell you something about the effectiveness of enhanced techniques,

whether you agree with them or not. In my case, I learned that enhanced techniques made me want to tell the truth to make it stop not to compound my situation with more lies. The only thing that kept me from telling the truth was the knowledge that at some point it had to end - that there were more students to interrogate and only so many hours in a day. Absent that knowledge, I would have caved. That said, I was not very proud of the mistakes I made which brought me to the brink of caving. I realized that those mistakes, in a real-world situation, would have opened a number of doors I would have prefered remain shut. As a TDY interrogator in the SERE course, I learned that the toughest, meanest, most professional special operations soldiers on earth had a breaking point. Every one of them. And of all the soldiers I interrogated, all of the significant breaks came during hard-sell interrogations using as many enhanced techniques as necessary to convince the soldier that continuing to lie would result in immediate consequences. It worked time and again, it worked. I did have some success during the soft-cell interrogations, but those came only as a result of tricks, ruses, or lies I was able to gain some short-term advantage as a result of these tactics, but by doing so had burned any credibility I may have had with that particular subject. Consequently, other than my initial breakthrough, my clever manipulation had effectively poisoned any subsequent engagement with the subject. The lesson I learned was that whatever I hoped to gain from leading with a lie, it had better include the mother lode, because I wasnt likely to get another realistic shot at it after pulling the rug out from under the subject.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the SERE course, it was our job to show them that they would all break, and to teach them how best to resist, delay, manage, and recover from that inevitable occurrence. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the most prevalent criticisms of the efficacy of the program which is expressed time and again by individuals opposed to the use of EITs is that people will say anything to make it stop. Each time I hear that phrase glibly tossed about by the politicians, pundits, and experts describing their opposition to EITs, I am left with the same thought: Only if you let them. I wonder if it is truly that drastic an intellectual leap to consider for a moment the notion that the professional interrogators employing those techniques would be acutely aware of that possibility, and prepared to counter it? If every former-interrogator, FBI agent, politician, administration official, columnist and man on the street opposed to EIT interrogation can cite this notion as a central tenet of their ineffectiveness argument, can we not reasonably conclude that a CIA interrogator actually employing those techniques would be equally attuned to signs of such behavior? I realize that much of this criticism stems from the revelation that one of the early detainees in the program lied about his

knowledge of Iraqi government links to Al Qaeda and subsequently admitted that he did so to make it stop. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Page Redacted

Entire Page Redacted

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Critics suggest that their success in retaining that information proves that using enhanced techniques was ineffective. To some extent, they are correct. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Page Redacted

Entire Page Redacted

Entire Page Redacted

In order to take an objective look at the use and purpose of EITs, you have to accept some uncomfortable truths: first, every aspect of our lives are guided in a large part by the concept of consequences we obey traffic and other laws not simply out of a sense of communal decency, but out of fear of consequences. The absence of consequences renders any law unenforceable, and ultimately unheeded. Many of the critics of the program have described various cases wherein they have been able to convince an otherwise resistant subject to provide information but they then go on to explain how they either tricked or deceived the subject, or offered to work with the subject to improve their situation. Perhaps they offered a lesser charge, or a good word to the prosecutor, or immunity for one or more of the lesser charges, or transfer to a better cell, or a better facility, or to a different country. Perhaps they implied or allowed a subject to believe that their participation would be rewarded with release from confinement. There is always an incentive, either real or implied, for whatever level of compliance gained by the interrogator. Any interrogator who tells you any different is a liar.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That high-level detainee would no more have voluntarily sat down across from a debriefer and provided his list of Al Qaeda couriers without having been conditioned to do so than he would have walked ---------------------------------- and asked to speak to the CIA debriefer. It simply would not have happened without incentive, and his incentive was to not go back to enhanced techniques. Period. Love it or hate it, thats the way it worked. Go back and take a look at the difference between Candidate Obamas characterizations of the efficacy of the interrogation program versus President Obamas version. Candidate Obama repeatedly stated that enhanced interrogation was not only immoral and un-American, but it didnt work. People will say anything to make it stop. Every leading interrogator and intelligence professional will tell you that torture never works it produces bad intelligence. That was Candidate Obama.

President Obama told a slightly different story. During his 100-day press conference in April 2009, President Obama used an entirely different construct when responding to a question about shutting down the interrogation program: I am absolutely convinced it was the right thing to do -- not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways, in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are. He went on to say, But here's what I can tell you -- that the public reports and the public justifications for these techniques -- which is that we got information from these individuals that were subjected to these techniques -- doesn't answer the core question, which is: Could we have gotten that same information without resorting to these techniques? And it doesn't answer the broader question: Are we safer as a consequence of having used these techniques? Finally, this: And so I will do whatever is required to keep the American people safe, but I am absolutely convinced that the best way I can do that is to make sure that we are not taking

shortcuts that undermine who we are. Note the difference its important. After being briefed by serious people using actual intelligence information gained from the EIT interrogation program, President Obama knew that he could not continue with the it never works campaign rhetoric as President to do so would have been insulting and objectionable to the national security team who briefed him, and would be a lie. Sowe dont know if we could have collected the same information using standard techniques

became the talking point for every administration official on the subject of EITs. I know. I know that we couldnt have collected the same information using standard techniques because I was an expert in using standard techniques I used them thousands of times over two decades and the notion that I could have convinced the detainees -------------------------------------- to provide closely-held information without the use of EITs is laughable. There is zero chance. Zero. But lets indulge those who use the same construct as the President (we dont know..) for a moment. Lets assume that to be the truth that we really dont know if we could have collected the same information using standard techniques. Were that to be the standard for assessment of the viability or effectiveness of the program, or of any venture, than the following must be similarly considered: Although we may have gained some benefit by dropping

atomic bombs on Japan to bring about the end of WWII, we dont know that we couldnt have saved the world using different tactics, so history should show that this was a mistake. We understand that those who developed and implemented the plan were under enormous pressure we didnt know at the time if we were going to be able to win the war but, in retrospect, it was unnecessary and un-American. We should have continued to fight using conventional warfare. The character of our country has to be measured in part not by what we do when things are easy but what we do when things are hard.

While the operation by the Navy Seals to kill Bin Laden was a success, we dont know that the Pakistanis wouldnt have conducted an equally successful raid with less risk to our forces, so, in retrospect, it was probably a bad call to violate the sovereign borders of another country to accomplish our objective. Consequently, were discontinuing the use of the Navy Seals in such operations, and well let the Pakistanis take care of raiding High Value targets from now on.

While we deployed our Air Force to attack targets in

Libya in response to Qaddafis threat to attack civilians in Ben Ghazi, we dont know that he would have actually done so, nor do we know that NATO couldnt have accomplished the mission on their own, so, in retrospect, conducting military air strikes on a sovereign country without the approval of congress was probably a bad call. The hard way would have been to go to congress and obtain their consent.

I realize that at least half of the people reading above will immediately point out that the alternatives noted dont include actions as controversial and, in their minds, immoral, as the interrogation program, but the fact remains that no matter how you look at it, it was legal as legal as each of the operations described above. If it werent, the President would have included that rather substantial marker in his explanation for closing it down it was immoral, maybe occasionally effective, but illegal, so Im shutting it down. He never said that although he and the Attorney General both stated that they believed water boarding to be torture. Yet they never charged anyone or passed a law banning

water boarding or any of the other techniques when they had control of all three branches of government. Why not? Either because they didnt have a case, or because they didnt want to either way it would have been a hard choice. The easy choice was to simply call it torture, declare it ineffective, and count on the media and the public to simply believe it. They waited until March of 2008 to pass a bill banning the techniques, fully aware that President Bush would veto such a bill. Which he did. Consequently, the program has never been declared illegal by either a US court of law or through congressional legislation signed into law by a president. Rather, the program was shut down through President Obamas executive order in January 2009 an order that the next President could rescind with the stroke of a pen. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So in lieu of bringing charges or holding court proceedings to officially determine the legality of actions taken by anyone associated with the program, which they were aware that they would lose, they decided that the appropriate venue for criminal allegations and indictments of character and honor was through official statements and

public denunciations of the despicable nature of these un-American acts, and those immoral un-Americans who carried them out. Its easy to call enhanced interrogation torture without having to prove it, and easier still to attack the character and competence of those who used them, particularly when secure in the knowledge that they cannot publicly defend themselves. Not because those un-American torturers dont want to defend themselves, but because those un-American torturers are not allowed to defend themselves. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Entire Page Redacted

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone should ask that FBI interrogator if he would fall for his own approach techniques if he were a detainee. If his answer is no, what are we prepared to risk in the hopes that anyone else would?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------