Charlie Savage and James Risen in The New York Times:

‘But in page after page of previously classified evidence, the Senate Intelligence Committee report on C.I.A. torture, released on Tuesday, rejects the notion that the agency would not have found Bin Laden if it had not tortured detainees.’

(…)

‘But the report emphasizes that Mr. Ghul provided all the important information about the courier before he was subjected to any torture techniques and spoke freely to his interrogators. During that two-day period in January 2004, it said, the C.I.A. produced 21 intelligence reports from Mr. Ghul, who one officer said “sang like a Tweety Bird.” “He opened up right away and was cooperative from the outset,” the officer added.
In those initial interrogations, Mr. Ghul portrayed Mr. Kuwaiti as Bin Laden’s “closest assistant” and said he was always with him, identifying him as a likely courier who ran messages between Bin Laden and other leaders of Al Qaeda. He listed him as one of three people most likely to be with Bin Laden, who he speculated was living in a house in Pakistan, with Mr. Kuwaiti handling his needs.’

(…)

‘Nevertheless, the C.I.A. then decided to torture Mr. Ghul to see if he would say more. He was transferred to a “black site” prison, where he was shaved, placed in a “hanging” stress position, and subjected to 59 hours of sleep deprivation, after which he began hallucinating; his back and abdomen began spasming; his arms, legs and feet began experiencing “mild paralysis”; and he began having “premature” heart beats. During and after that treatment, he provided “no actionable threat information” that resulted in the capture of any leaders of Al Qaeda, the report said.’

Read the article here.

Perhaps we should watch Kathryn Bigelow’s movie “Zero Dark Thirty” again. If I remember well, this movie suggests that torture played a crucial role in finding Bin Laden.

The question remains, why did the C.I.A. decide to torture Mr. Ghul? Because they could do it with impunity? A sense of entitlement – we are entitled to torture our enemies? Lust? Revenge? Just following orders? But why were these orders given? Stupidity and moral decay often go hand in hand.

The necessary condition of a government to engage in killing or torture is the belief that the enemy is so powerful and dangerous that exceptional steps are needed to keep its citizens safe. The torturer should not lose his or her sense of decency, he is doing the right thing, it’s not easy, but it’s an important job to keep the country safe, to keep mankind alive et cetera.