Scarborough ignores experts who say torture undermines national security

On the May 14 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough framed the debate over the use of harsh interrogation techniques -- which he has repeatedly defended -- simply as "national security versus American values," adding: "Just because I fall on the side of national security doesn't mean that I don't, you know, have morals or -- it's not that I'm immoral or that I love torture. There's been a lot of shorthand talk. And just because somebody feels so strongly about certain American values that they're willing to sacrifice on national security doesn't mean they don't want the country to be safe." However, contrary to Scarborough's suggestion that those who oppose torture are "willing to sacrifice on national security," officials at the State Department and FBI -- including a former agent who interrogated Al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah -- have testified that such interrogation techniques are ineffective and actually detrimental to U.S. security.

In May 13 written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, former FBI agent Ali Soufan, who interrogated Zubaydah, stated: "I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation." Soufan criticized these techniques as "ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda." He also stated that the techniques "play directly into the enemy's handbook" and went on to assert that their use "taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world."

From Soufan's written testimony:

From my experience -- and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence -- I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the "enhanced interrogation techniques," a position shared by many professional operatives, including the CIA officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)

[...]

In summary, the Informed Interrogation Approach outlined in the Army Field Manual is the most effective, reliable, and speedy approach we have for interrogating terrorists. It is legal and has worked time and again.

It was a mistake to abandon it in favor of harsh interrogation methods that are harmful, shameful, slower, unreliable, ineffective, and play directly into the enemy's handbook. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that was working and naively replace it with an untested method. It was a mistake to abandon an approach that is based on the cumulative wisdom and successful tradition of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement community, in favor of techniques advocated by contractors with no relevant experience.

The mistake was so costly precisely because the situation was, and remains, too risky to allow someone to experiment with amateurish, Hollywood style interrogation methods- that in reality- taints sources, risks outcomes, ignores the end game, and diminishes our moral high ground in a battle that is impossible to win without first capturing the hearts and minds around the world. It was one of the worst and most harmful decisions made in our efforts against al Qaeda.

In his May 13 written testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Philip Zelikow, counsel to former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, similarly called the use of harsh interrogation techniques "a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one." Zelikow also stated that abandoning these techniques could ultimately benefit the United States' efforts against Al Qaeda: "For several years our government has been fighting terrorism without using these extreme methods. ... But our decision to respect basic international standards does not appear to be a big hindrance [to] us in the fight. In fact, if the U.S. regains some higher ground in the wider struggle of ideas, our prospects in a long conflict will be better."

From Zelikow's written testimony:

The U.S. government adopted an unprecedented program of coolly calculated dehumanizing abuse and physical torment to extract information. This was a mistake, perhaps a disastrous one. It was a collective failure, in which a number of officials and members of Congress (and staffers), of both parties played a part, endorsing a CIA program of physical coercion even after the McCain amendment was passed and after the Hamdan decision . Precisely because this was a collective failure it is all the more important to comprehend it, and learn from it.

For several years our government has been fighting terrorism without using these extreme methods. We face some serious obstacles in defeating al Qaeda and its allies. We could be hit again, hit hard. But our decision to respect basic international standards does not appear to be a big hindrance us in the fight. In fact, if the U.S. regains some higher ground in the wider struggle of ideas, our prospects in a long conflict will be better.

Others may disagree. They may believe that recent history, even since 2005, shows that America needs an elaborate program of indefinite secret detention and physical coercion in order to protect the nation. The government, and the country, needs to decide whether they are right. If they are right, our laws must change and our country must change. I think they are wrong.

As Media Matters for America has previously noted, under the pseudonym Matthew Alexander, an Air Force senior interrogator who was in Iraq in 2006, wrote in a November 30, 2008, Washington Post op-ed: "I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse." Alexander, along with Air Force interrogator Steven Kleinman, also wrote in a March 10 New York Times op-ed that Obama's ban on torture "will enhance the country's security by undermining Al Qaeda's most effective recruiting theme."

Additionally, in prepared testimony for a June 10, 2008, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on "coercive interrogation techniques," retired FBI special agent John Cloonan -- who stated he has interrogated members of Al Qaeda -- asserted that such techniques are "not effective" and have "helped to recruit a new generation of jihadist martyrs."

From the May 14 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe:

SCARBOROUGH: You know what I found about this? We've been talking about this for some time, and I think we're starting to get there, I think, as a country, because you notice the discussion around the table, including from me, is becoming a little more rational. Fifty percent of Americans support the program and being really tough on terrorists when you have them and you interrogate them, and 50 percent of Americans are more concerned about what they consider morality and American values, traditional -- so it's national security versus American values.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI (co-host): What we are.

SCARBOROUGH: And -- but, see, the thing is we've gotta be careful about? Just because I fall on the side of national security doesn't mean that I don't, you know, have morals or -- it's not that I'm immoral or that I love torture.

There's been a lot of shorthand talk. And just because somebody feels so strongly about certain American values that they're willing to sacrifice on national security doesn't mean they don't want the country to be safe, you know.