From this morning's New York Times, we have former FBI agent Ali Soufan:

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

There was an AP article yesterday (I'm pretty sure it was from Pamela Hess) stating as fact that Zubaydah was not responding to conventional interrogation. I'm so glad Soufan spoke up. This takes away one of Cheney's major lies. Zubaydah's interrogation is at the very early stages of the torture story, and it shows just how wrong torture was on him.

Full column linked at my name.

They probably preferred towels, and the longer the better. The speed, and therefore the momentum, with which the prisoner hit the wall increased with the square of the length of towel between the interrogator's hand and the prisoner's neck (assuming the prisoner is swung in a circle with the center point at the interrogator). Longer towel, higher force of impact.

proves, in the SASC report, that torture was carried out with the express aim of getting a link between Saddam and 9/11. He also was telling everyone, but nobody would listen, that torture produces false information.

The only conclusion from his information is that torture was carried out expressly to get a false confession of an Iraq-al Qaeda link.

Oxdown linked at my name.

It wasn't a transcription mistake. I was listening to a live feed. As RMP points out, Gibbs was really squirming and misspoke under all that pressure.

will file suit on behalf of Jane any day now. It's one thing to criminalize policy differences, but wiretapping a Blue Dog is just more than any good villager can stand. She should be able to negotiate her bribes from foreign governments in private, dontcha know?

I think it's the prospect of returning to that proper functioning of DOJ that has the press so "hysterical" about Obama's statement today. If political considerations disappear, then the reporters will have to depend on hard analysis of facts and interpretation of the law to write stories on potential prosecutions, rather than pick up the phone and talk to their favorite insider.

This is also a jarring dose of reality for the pundit class. If the Obama DOJ doesn't "just walk on by" on torture, poor little Peggy Noonan's world is going to come crashing down around her.

I would think that DOJ should make the determination on prosecutions for carrying out torture, as well. However, many people, including Marty Lederman, who now is in OLC, have made the argument that OLC opinions are binding on the government and so they can claim that their actions were "legal". This puts the OLC position directly in opposition to multiple international treaties that state there are absolutely no exceptions for torture. That would seem to be a point to be worked out in court.

Obama just pushed back on Rahm's statement about not prosecuting those who authorized torture. He said prosecution decisions should be the Attorney General's.

Oxdown at my name.

Why not run a half or quarter page ad in the Times congratulating Barstow and challenging the TV networks to say something, anything, about this story? For example, list the networks, the propagandists still shilling there and the complete absence of any acknowledgment of the networks' complicity.

Bill Clinton could be punished because Monica was looking forward.

It all makes so much sense now.

Awesome job on the David Gregory bit. Thanks for sharing it.

While driving this afternoon, I thought of you and your talents. I had been thinking of Congresscritters and how odious many of them have become when I happened to see a truck from "Critter Control".

What we need is someone to provide "Congresscritter Control". I'm sure you could work wonders with the concept...Of course, humane catch and relocation only...