It's pretty clearly not the spin the author (who lionizes--but also reveals the identity of--an investigator who didn't lay a hand on suspects) wants to emphasize, but this New York Times article strongly suggests that harsh interrogation techniques, including waterboarding, helped U.S. investigators get some very important information out of some very high-level Al Qaeda detainees.

That would not surprise me. Whatever one thinks about the morality, legality, or political widsom of using such interrogation techniques, the oft-heard (at least by me) trope that harsh interrogation techniques, including things we would all acknowledge to be torture, are completely ineffective, is nonsense. Whether other techniques might be even more effective, and under what circumstances, is a separate question.