More transparency on the part of the Obama administration?

We now learn that the techniques recently banned by the Obama administration "yielded 'high value information'" according to a memo written by the present national security director, Dennis C. Blair. Of course, a condensed version of the memo deleted that conclusion when it was released to the press by the administration. Is this some of the transparency Obama promised during the campaign?

Blair wrote, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.”

“I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.”

Both of these statements were deleted from the version released to the press. According to the Times report, "A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders."

Where "normal editing process of shortening an internal memo" means "deleting anything that would embarrass Obama" then the statement is correct. However, the American people need to know whether the enhanced interrogation techniques provided useful information or not.

The importance of that question can be seen in this from the Times' report:

Several news accounts, including one in the New York Times last week, have
quoted former intelligence officials saying the harsh interrogation of Abu
Zubaydah, a Qaeda operative who was waterboarded 83 times, did not produce
information that foiled terror plots. The Bush administration has long argued
that harsh questioning of Qaeda operatives like Zubaydah helped prevent a
planned attack on Los Angeles and cited passages in the memos released last week
to bolster that conclusion.

Mr. Obama’s team has cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations, but in a visit to the C.I.A. this week, the president did not directly question that. Instead, he said, that any sacrifice from banning those tactics was worth it to uphold the nation’s belief in rule of law.

Even as the Obama team publicly "cast doubt on the effectiveness of the harsh interrogations," Blair was acknowledging their effectiveness in an internal communication within the CIA. No wonder Blair's comments were deleted.

The American people may reasonably accept Obama's decision if the tactics are ineffective, but question his judgment if they provide information that saves thousands of American lives. They have a right to that information.