E-mail: “Torture achieves little except the demeanment of the torturer. Why do you vaguely allude to torture as the means to capturing wanted terrorists, and do not give a specific example?”

ME: First, I don’t endorse torture. Second, here is a specific instance of a coerced interrogation producing valuable information. Bush critics should tell us whether they would be willing to forgo this kind of information, and the resulting captures, or not. From the June 27, 20004 Washington Post: “In March 2002, Abu Zubaida was captured, and the interrogation debate between

the CIA and FBI began anew. This time, when FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III

decided to withhold FBI involvement, it was a signal that the tug of war was

over. “Once the CIA was given the green light . . . they had the lead role,”

said a senior FBI counterterrorism official.

Abu Zubaida was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan. U.S.

national security officials have suggested that painkillers were used

selectively in the beginning of his captivity until he agreed to cooperate more

fully. His information led to the apprehension of other al Qaeda members,

including Ramzi Binalshibh, also in Pakistan. The capture of Binalshibh and

other al Qaeda leaders — Omar al-Faruq in Indonesia, Rahim al-Nashiri in Kuwait

and Muhammad al Darbi in Yemen — were all partly the result of information

gained during interrogations, according to U.S. intelligence and national

security officials. All four remain under CIA control.”