Neither do "enhanced interrogation techniques" or whatever other euphamistic bullshit you want to use to describe torture. In a Washington Post Op-Ed today, Ali Soufan, a supervisory special agent with the FBI describes the lies and deceptions of the torture apologists with actual evidence of the failures of torture as official state policy.
Got that? THIS IS FALSE. It's a lie. But not only that, torture has other consequences...
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.Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.
One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I.This was because the FBI were explicitly forbidden from using torture to get information. They could not be present when the CIA were waterboarding or using other torture techniques.
An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.