At times, Mr. Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the bare floor, sometimes with air-conditioning adjusted so that, one official said, Mr. Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

The rift between the agencies widened:

F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

The FBI says Zubaydah was forthcoming until the CIA took over. The CIA claims Zubaydah was playing the FBI agents, and that drastic action was necessary to force his disclosure of terrorist plots. The administration backs the torturers:

The agents appealed to their superiors but were told that the intelligence agency was in charge, the officials said. One law enforcement official who was aware of events as they occurred reacted with chagrin. "When you rough these guys up, all you do is fulfill their fantasies about what to expect from us," the official said.

The CIA was wrong about Zubaydah's unwillingness to divulge plans of future attacks: "it later became apparent he had no such knowledge."

Here's the problem:

[A government] official added, "When you are concerned that a hard-core terrorist has information about an imminent threat that could put innocent lives at risk, rapport-building and stroking aren't the top things on your agenda."

In other words, if you think a prisoner has important information, don't use interrogation techniques that have a history of producing reliable answers. Instead, use techniques that assure the prisoner will say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear -- and in the process, destroy the reputation of the United States as a guardian of human rights.