Posted by Tina
Leslie Stahl interviewed Jose Rodrigues on 60 Minutes yesterday. Mr. Rodrigues was totally unapologetic as he defended the policy of waterboarding. How refreshing to hear someone speak about this technique without attempting to make it palatable to as many people as possible or pandering to the peacenik crowd:
Rodriguez regrets the cancellation of his enhanced interrogation program by the current administration, accusing the White House of tying America’s hands in the war on terror. “We don’t capture anyone anymore Lesley…the default option of this administration has been to kill all prisoners. Take no prisoners,” he tells Stahl. “The drones. How could it be more ethical to kill people rather than capture them?”
More Rodriguez quotes:
“This is an individual who probably didn’t give a rat’s ass about having water poured on his face.”
“This program was about instilling a sense of hopelessness and despair in the terrorist, in the detainee so that he would conclude that he was better off cooperating with us.”
Stahl made the usual comment about how we don’t treat people like that and he replied, “yes we do.” I wish we had the entire thing on You Tube.
Three cheers for Jose Rodriguez!
“Waterboarding is torture.” –John McCain, former torture victim
Rejecting John McCain’s comment on waterboarding, other North Vietnamese POWs did not consider waterboarding as much torture, as they thought it a scare tactic that extracted information verse the use of more physical and painful methods such as mutilation of one’s body to accomplish the same.
Can you cite any of these people, Harold?
Comparing waterboarding under the extreme restriction placed on the method by the administration to the beatings and starvation that led to a broken body (John McCain) at the hands of the North Vietnamese is ridiculous. The men that were waterboarded for 10 seconds at a time (they counted during the process because they knew we don’t torture) were healthier after being in our custody than they were before capture! The uncomfortable process, along with listing to the Barney song for hours on end resulted in information that saved American lives.
And let us not forget Nancy Pelosi was fully informed and did not object to this procedure. Turning on President Bush over this method was absolutely POLITICAL! As has been pointed out, Obama avoids this political problem by taking no prisoners…he just kills them all instead. Because of this cover his own ass policy we get ZERO information.
Thanks for recalling this Harold! I posted the thoughts of these men before when this subject was discussed on Post Scripts:
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/05/17/mccains-fellow-vietnam-pows-support-waterboarding-al-qaeda-operatives-say-it-is-not-torture/
(WaPo) In his speech on the Senate floor last week dismissing the role of enhanced interrogations in the operation that got Osama bin Laden, Sen. John McCain declared that waterboarding is indisputably torture. His claim has indeed been disputed by several of McCains fellow prisoners of war. McCain served our nation with courage and honor in Vietnam. But some of those who served beside him, and experienced horrific torture at the hands of the North Vietnamese, vehemently disagree with his assertion that waterboarding, as practiced by the CIA, even remotely constitutes torture.
When I was researching my book, Courting Disaster, I interviewed many of them, including Col. Bud Day, who received our nations highest award for valor, the Medal of Honor, for his heroic escape from a North Vietnamese prison camp. When Day was returned to the prison, his right arm was broken in three places and he had been shot in the hand and thigh during his capture. But he continued to resist interrogation and provide false information suffering such excruciating torture that he became totally physically debilitated and unable to perform even the simplest task for himself. In short, Day is an expert on the subject of torture. Here is what he says about CIA waterboarding:
I am a supporter of waterboarding. It is not torture. Torture is really hurting someone. Waterboarding is just scaring someone, with no long-term injurious effects. It is a scare tactic that works.
I asked Day in an e-mail what he would say to the CIA officer who waterboarded Khalid Sheik Mohammed, if he had the chance to speak with him. Day replied immediately: YOU DID THE RIGHT THING.
Like Day, Col. Leo Thorsness was awarded the Medal of Honor for extraordinary heroism during the Vietnam War. He experienced excruciating torture during his captivity his back broken, his body wrenched apart. He says what the CIA did to al-Qaeda terrorists in its custody was not torture:
To me, waterboarding is intensive interrogation. It is not torture. Torture involves extreme, brutal pain breaking bones, passing out from pain, beatings so severe that blood spatters the walls … when you pop shoulders out of joints. … In my mind, theres a difference, and in most POWs minds theres a difference. … I would not hesitate a second to use enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding, if it would save the lives of innocent people.
Another torture victim who supports waterboarding is Adm. Jeremiah Denton the POW who famously winked the word T-O-R-T-U-R-E in Morse code during a North Vietnamese propaganda interview. It was the first message to the outside world that American prisoners were being tortured. Denton later received the Navy Cross for this courageous and costly act of defiance, for which he paid dearly when his captors figured out what he had done. I asked Denton if he thought waterboarding was torture. He told me:
No, I think its persuasive. … The big, monstrous difference here is that the gentlemen we are waterboarding are people who swore to kill Americans. They will wreak any kind of torture just for the hell of it on anybody. When they are captured by the U.S., and we know or have reason to believe that they know of a subsequent event after 9/11, if you dont interrogate them, more misery will take place. … Waterboarding is not an evil. Some of the things they did to us were torture. I passed out a dozen times from torture. Were not exerting that kind of excruciation.
Keep reading (at the link above)
Thank you Tina, I don ‘t need to add anything else to aid Chris’s request for linkage to the articles. As with all things in life opinions vary on most anything, Chris does a good job of posting those things he believes, but he has a habit of trying to curtail those opinions that would differ from his ideals. That in itself is not a concern and sometimes helps, as long as he does it with a degree of civility.
Tina and Harold, thanks for that information.
Tina: “Comparing waterboarding under the extreme restriction placed on the method by the administration to the beatings and starvation that led to a broken body (John McCain) at the hands of the North Vietnamese is ridiculous.”
I never made that comparison. All I posted were John McCain’s own words.
While I do think the opinions of the rest of the former POWS you cited should be given a lot of weight, I still think the conclusions they are drawing are wrong.
For example, Col. Thorsness says that “Torture involves extreme, brutal pain,” but goes on to say that he does not consider waterboarding torture. Does he not think that waterboarding causes extreme, brutal pain? It does, and the physical and psychological effects can be long-lasting according to many medical experts.
http://news.nurse.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080225/NATIONAL02/80222032/-1/frontpage
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892721,00.html
Col. Day also downplays the pain caused by waterboarding, saying that “Torture is really hurting someone.” I have to wonder if he was ever waterboarded as part of his torture. How does he know that waterboarding isn’t “really hurting someone?”
The article also mentions that Day provided false information to his captors. But does he not realize that many detainees in American prisons have done the same thing to stop from being tortured?
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is often used as the one and only example of a case where waterboarding has been effective, but no concrete evidence has ever been presented showing that this technique was successful in obtaining useful info from him. In fact, KSM has said that he lied to interrogators just to get them to stop.
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/16/nation/na-cia-detainee16
This is a common response from torture victims, which is why most experts agree that torture provides bad information.
Another victim of waterboarding, Ramon Navarro, also reported giving false information to his captors during WWII. It should be noted that the man responsible, Chinsaku Yuki, was convicted as a war criminal, and his waterboarding techniques were used as evidence to convict him.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15900592
Apparently the pain was so “extreme” that one of the terrorists (described as a cold blooded killer) was able to count, using his fingers, the number of seconds (seconds!!!) he would have to endure this “extreme” pain that cause zero physical damage.
The left used words like “torture” and “extreme” for only one reason, to politically discredit George W Bush. The techniques were carefully crafted so as to NOT do any physical damage or be classified torture. A physician was present at all times.
The procedures used were given the green light by members of Congress, including Nancy Pelosi, and the Justice Department as well as the President. All three branches of government agreed!!!
Giving false information to the enemy is part of the game in war. All prisoners of war, including our own, are trained to give BS information. This argument is meaningless. It is the job of interrogators to work toward obtaining accurate information.
Waterboarding did result in information that saved lives. That is a fact!
Those interested can read Jose Rodriguez’s new book, “Hard measures”.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2012/0430/In-Hard-Measures-former-CIA-official-Jose-Rodriquez-defends-waterboarding
Hmmm…successful, legal and safe. Sounds so much like the argument for abortion (safe, legal rare) there’s no need to continue!
“Another victim of waterboarding, Ramon Navarro, also reported giving false information to his captors during WWII. It should be noted that the man responsible, Chinsaku Yuki, was convicted as a war criminal, and his waterboarding techniques were used as evidence to convict him.”
Part of the testimony of Ramon Navarro reveals a big difference:
“…poured until I became unconscious” is much more extreme than ten seconds at a time used by American interrogators to wear the enemy combatant down.
America doesn’t torture…period.
Tina: “Waterboarding did result in information that saved lives. That is a fact!”
Now this is funny. You’re telling me that the words of a government official who has admitted to destroying evidence are to be taken as “fact.”
And yet, yesterday, you complained that I was being irrational for expecting you to take the words of several different officials in the Hawaiian government, as well as official statements put out by Hawaiian hospitals, as fact when it came to the matter of what constitutes a legal, valid and official Hawaiian birth certificate.
Unlike Jose Rodriguez, none of the people I cited have admitted to destroying evidence, nor have they defended such practice. And unlike Jose Rodriguez, whatever personal benefit these officials would get from distorting the truth is not entirely clear. And yet, you chose to take Rodriguez’ statements as fact, but not the statements of any of the officials I cited in our birth certificate debate.
So what gives? Could it be that you are much more willing to accept something as a “fact” when it favors your political party?
Tina: “”…poured until I became unconscious” is much more extreme than ten seconds at a time used by American interrogators to wear the enemy combatant down.”
Is this another “fact,” Tina? You trust that this information, which comes solely from government officials directly involved in the waterboarding process, is accurate?
You trust this information even though some of these officials, like Jose Rodriguez, have admitted to destroying evidence?
You trust them even though you know that there have been instances such as Abu Ghraib, where a culture of dehumanization of the enemy led directly to acts of torture and rape of prisoners by men and women who fancied themselves true American patriots?
It’s just amazing to me that you claim to distrust big government, yet your trust in the enforcers of that government–those who are actually given license to hurt and kill–is nothing less than absolute. You don’t give a second’s thought to the consequences of expanding government power for those people; you only complain about “big government” when you think it might affect your pocket book.
Abu Ghraib did not represent in any way, shape, or form the policies of the United States of America under ANY president.
Democrats shamelessly used the incident to target, isolate, and destroy President Bush…per the Saul Alinsky method. It is despicable that they would play into the hands of the terrorists in opposition to our country, just for their own political ends. I don’t think it gets any lower than this!
Democrats likewise used the “waterboarding is torture” line for the same purpose. Nancy Pelosi lied about being advised in detail about it to create the illusion that the Bush administration had acted in a clandestine manner. This accusation isn’t a result of the word of Mr. Rodriguez alone. Others who were at the meeting also say Pelosi was fuly informed and there is a memo or notation that places her in the meeting. One account also has her saying something like, “Do whatever it takes”.
As far as destroying tapes goes it isn’t surprising at all given that the Democrats were willing to politicize an issue for which their leadership had already given the big thumbs up. The hostility of Democrats toward our president in a time of war was blatant and activist in nature. They even threatened to take the Bush administration to trial for “war crimes”.
This activist rhetoric has not tainted the annointed Obama even though he has not closed Gitmo or changed rendition practices. (Instead of capturing the enemy for interrogation he simply kills them or leaves them in the hands of Afghanistan or Pakistan where whatever torture they might receive can’t be attributed to him).
Passing the buck, covering your own a**, and avoiding responsibility is not leadership; it is the mark of a purely political animal.
By the way, “poured until I became unconscious” were not the words of an American official under Bush. They were the words Chris cited by a man, Navarro, that had been tortured with waterboarding during WWII.
America did not use this technique in the extreme which is how the left wants to portray what we did just to discredit Bush.
Yes I do trust these men, rodrigues, Bush and Cheney, much more than I would trust Nancy Pelosi or those activist Democrats who follow the Alinsky method for political purposes. During a time of war, under a rational and truthful state of conscience, such activities would be seen as treasonous against The United States of America.
Tina: “Abu Ghraib did not represent in any way, shape, or form the policies of the United States of America under ANY president.”
It’s called a slippery slope, Tina.
When you dehumanize a person, when your goal is to break their spirits and their minds, incidents like Abu Ghraib are almost inevitable.
I know that the worst of their actions were not direct orders–I don’t think that was ever the argument. The argument was that the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques”–a psuedoconcept used to make a distinction without a difference between those tactics and “real torture”–inveitably lead to atrocities such as were committed by Abu Ghraib.
“I don’t think it gets any lower than this!”
Except, uh…actually torturing and raping people might be a little lower.
You bring up Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama, but I’ve never tried to justify their actions. I think the abuse of human rights under the guise of “national security” has been a bipartisan problem, and I’ve vocally criticized Obama for his extension of most of Bush’s policies in this regard. Whatever credit I gave him for ending waterboarding is erased by his decision to allow assassinations of American citizens and his decision not to close Guantanamo, a place which has imprisoned innocent people for years and destroyed their lives.
“As far as destroying tapes goes it isn’t surprising at all given that the Democrats were willing to politicize an issue for which their leadership had already given the big thumbs up.”
Are you sh!tting me with this? So destroying evidence is fine, because the mean Democrats might use it against you?
“By the way, “poured until I became unconscious” were not the words of an American official under Bush. They were the words Chris cited by a man, Navarro, that had been tortured with waterboarding during WWII.”
I know that, Tina. What I was asking you is, how do you know that Rodriguez is telling the truth when he says that waterboarding wasn’t used to the extent it was used on Navarro.
You know that some soldiers have abused their power and committed excessive violence on prisoners. How can you say it’s a “fact” that this wasn’t done to waterboarded prisoners, when the government won’t let us see the evidence?
“America did not use this technique in the extreme”
Again, how do you know this? Because the government says so? That is deeply ironic.
“Yes I do trust these men, rodrigues, Bush and Cheney, much more than I would trust Nancy Pelosi or those activist Democrats who follow the Alinsky method for political purposes.”
It wasn’t an either/or between the two. I did ask you why you trusted Rodriguez in this case, and not Hawaiian government officials and Hawaiian hospitals in the birth certificate case…a question which you did not answer.
I think crashing a large aircraft into buildings in America could be said to be dehumanizing. The goal was to crush our buildings, kill and frighten the American people (and freedom loving people across the planet). The goal was to ruin our economy and crush our spirit. The decapitation of Daniel Pearl on January 23, 2002 is another example of dehumanizing the enemy. Another horrible example:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3585765.stm
Tina, according to a report by the CIA inspector general, you are wrong about both the effectiveness and the severity of waterboarding.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2009/04/24/v-print/66895/cia-official-no-proof-harsh-techniques.html
From the article:
The IG also cites the CIA’s Office of Medical Services (OMS) in saying that the “the expertise of the SERE psychologists/interrogators … was probably misrepresented.” The IG concluded: “Consequently, according to OMS, there was no a priori reason to believe that applying the waterboard with the frequency and intensity with which it was used … was either efficacious or medically safe.” In fact, the IG report also hints that the CIA didn’t consult the OMS on waterboarding until quite late: “OMS was neither consulted nor involved in the initial analysis of the risk and benefits of [enhanced interrogation techniques].”
Tina, you also point to guidelines for the proper use of waterboarding to show how humane you believe this procedure was. But memos prove that these guidelines were ignored. One of the guidelines clearly stated that waterboarding is “not be used with substantial repetition.” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month.
“I think crashing a large aircraft into buildings in America could be said to be dehumanizing.”
Oh, for God’s sake. I can’t think of another argument that is both this shallow and useless, and also this over-used. “The terrorists are worse” is not something that is under debate by anyone, so you can ditch the implied strawman argument. It is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on what we are discussing. The fact that what they do is worse does not make everything we do automatically OK.
“Information gleaned from the two prisoners stopped an attack in LA that would have cost a lot of lives and led to the eventual capture/kill of many terrorists including Bin laden.”
You keep making this claim and providing zero evidence for it.
“The only reason the waterboarding technique, or the Abu Ghraib criminal event, went public is because some a-hole decided to leak the information to the press. This wouldn’t have happened during WWII because the press had a sense of loyalty to America. They also had a firm grasp of the importance of the mission and an appreciation for the high ethics of our country and our military.”
I’m having trouble articulating any response to this paragraph other than, “F*ck that nonsense.” Seriously, Tina, you honestly see it as a sign of patriotism to cover up evidence that your own government is participating in the rape and torture of prisoners? That is disgusting. Your idea of “loyalty to America” is sick and wrong. It requires us to ask no questions of our armed forces or our police…but of course you make special exceptions when people like Rush Limbaugh make up false accusations toward our soldiers. Other than that, we should just shut up and let the soldier class get away with murder. They’re our betters, right?
“The inference that waterboarding led to Abu Ghraib is absurd”
Why is it absurd? Are you really naive enough to believe that “enhanced interrogation techniques” could never lead to “real torture?”
“Destroying evidence isn’t “fine” (quit assigning thoughts and beliefs)!”
I didn’t. You explicitly defended Rodriguez’s actions and still have not demonstrated that you think he did anything wrong whatsoever, because you’re too busy blaming liberals for his actions. Not two paragraphs after you lectured me about “personal responsibility,” ironically enough. When I asked if you thought what he did was “fine,” I was drawing the only logical conclusion from what you’ve written about the incident.
“I used it because the Bush administration was a bigger enemy to the extreme progressive left than Al Qaeda or the Taliban were.”
Which is why President Obama is currently taking so much credit for the assassination of George W. Bush one year ago.
Sometimes your hyperbole is just too much.
“Politics was the reason behind the leak.”
It sounds like you are the one assigning motives to people. Have you ever considered that maybe the person who leaked the Abu Ghraib photos did so because they thought it was the right thing to do?
Are you as outraged at the soldiers who raped prisoners as you are about the person who made their crimes public?
“I trust Rodrigues because Pelosi…”
This is completely incoherent. What do Pelosi’s actions have to do with Rodriguez’s actions?
“I believe Rodriguez because of the lengths the administration took to ensure what they were doing was legal.”
As I showed you, leaked memos prove that the legal guidelines were ignored. I’ll also add that just because something is “legal” does not make it constitutional or right.
“I did answer the question about trusting the Hawaiian officials.”
No, you really didn’t.
“I accept that the officials in Hawaii attested to what they know. I don’t know about what they might not know.”
Do you think they don’t know what an official Hawaiian birth certificate is? You made claims about the COLB that are completely contradicted by the officials you now say you trust. You said that the COLB wasn’t a legal, valid, or official birth certificate. The officials I cited disproved all of this. And instead of admitting that you were wrong, you’re actually saying they might not know what they’re talking about? Are you kidding me?
“I am not convinced that the long form that was released, or the registration certificate were not altered and then shown to officials.”
Wow, you really don’t know anything about how this works, do you? Where do you think the long form came from, Tina? It came from the Hawaiian Department of Health! Obama’s people, or George Soros or Bill Ayers or whoever the hell you suspect might have produced a forged long form certificate, couldn’t have “shown” a long form birth certificate to Hawaiian officials. The Hawaiian officials are the ones who had the form in the first place. I showed you the correspondence letters between the Health Department and Obama’s people. If there was some kind of conspiracy, the Hawaiian government would have to be in on it. The idea you just presented–that someone altered/forged the birth certificate and then showed it to Hawaiian officials–is literally impossible. It couldn’t have happened.
You’re all over the map, Tina. Your arguments are not logical or rational. You let your gut reactions cloud your mental judgment to such a degree that any argument with you quickly becomes an exercise in futility.
I realize there are differences of opinion among those at the top in government and government agencies. You should too.
You are entitled to your opinion as well.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz…night all.
OK! Properly rested, I can now address an absurd argument that the left holds up with such righteous indignation that their sniffing sucks coffee from their cups.
“The terrorists are worse” is not something that is under debate by anyone, so you can ditch the implied strawman argument.”
The argument isn’t that terrorists are worse. The argument is that you cannot defeat terrorists with kind words, redistribution, free health care and whispering swet nothings in their ears. OUR ENEMY IS IDEOLOGICALLY COMMITTED, GROUNDED AND DETERMINED TO KILL AMERICANS.
If I took your argument, that America must adhere to the highest possible moral example, to it’s logical conclusion America would not be able to stand a single soldier because guns hurt people. We could not extract information from detainees even by interrogation over many long hours, sleep deprivation, or mind altering drugs because it might be detrimental to their mental or emotional well-being…and besides it’s not nice. We wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves, period, under your stringent rules.
Events at Abu Ghraib were not actions taken by our government!!!!!!!!!
Portraying it as such is treasonous and political. The event was already being investigated by our government and those responsible would be (and were) punished. This would have happened without leftist anti-Bush activists making it an internationally sensational story in the middle of war. Diplomatic apologies to the leadership in Iraq were also made by our government and that would have happened without the anti-Bush leftist leaking the story. Giving George Bush a black eye was more important to these A**holes than the ability of our nation to conduct the war and it was bigger than the safety of our tropops and those Iraqis that were helping us…and probably their families as well. Don’t you dare preach about ethics!
These same anti-Bush activists have been proven to not give a rats ass about the Constitution or the ethics involved in these two uncontroversial drummed up controversies. Obama has been in office nearly three years and has trashed the constitution and engaged in what you would call unethical war behavior while leftist activists remain mute and the media that protects him and cheers him on provide positive spin and damage control.
Tina: “The argument isn’t that terrorists are worse. The argument is that you cannot defeat terrorists with kind words, redistribution, free health care and whispering swet nothings in their ears.”
If that’s your argument, then who in tarnation are you arguing with? NO ONE of prominence on the left has suggested anything of the sort. Do you think what you just wrote is an honest characterization of how Obama has handled the pursuit of terrorists? Do you think it’s an honest characterization of anything I have ever said on this website?
You are arguing with a strawman.
“If I took your argument, that America must adhere to the highest possible moral example, to it’s logical conclusion America would not be able to stand a single soldier because guns hurt people. We could not extract information from detainees even by interrogation over many long hours,”
This is complete bullsh!t. You’re not even trying to understand my position, or the position of any of the millions of Americans who believe that waterboarding is torture.
For your information, I believe that sometimes war is justified. I also believe that there are certain measures in war that cross a line. Here in America, we have laws about cruel and unusual punishment, rights to a fair trial…you know, all that stuff from that little document you pretend to love called the Constitution.
I can’t imagine you are too stupid to understand that I think some measures are appropriate and effective in capturing terrorists and getting information from them, but that others aren’t, and are in fact unconstitutional. I can’t imagine you are too stupid to understand why someone would think that torture crosses a line in warfare. So why are you pretending to be? You’re making a fool out of yourself.
“sleep deprivation,”
I do not support this tactic. I am in agreement with the UN that it is a form of torture.
“mind altering drugs”
Depends on the drug and how much is used.
“because it might be detrimental to their mental or emotional well-being…and besides it’s not nice. We wouldn’t be able to defend ourselves, period, under your stringent rules.”
Your notion that we cannot defend ourselves without resorting to torture is ridiculous and un-American.
“Events at Abu Ghraib were not actions taken by our government!!!!!!!!!”
Please.
“The event was already being investigated by our government and those responsible would be (and were) punished. This would have happened without leftist anti-Bush activists making it an internationally sensational story in the middle of war. Diplomatic apologies to the leadership in Iraq were also made by our government and that would have happened without the anti-Bush leftist leaking the story. Giving George Bush a black eye was more important to these A**holes than the ability of our nation to conduct the war and it was bigger than the safety of our tropops and those Iraqis that were helping us…and probably their families as well. Don’t you dare preach about ethics!”
The people have a right to know, Tina. When our government decides to send our men and women overseas to die for us, then we deserve to know what exactly it is they’re dying for. We deserve to know what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. Because they’re doing it in OUR NAME.
People need to see the reality of what happens in war. We need to see the atrocities committed by both sides. When the Iraq War first started it had widespread support. The more people became informed about the war, the more they turned against it.
Maybe that’s what this is all about for you. Maybe you don’t want people to know what really goes on in war, because you know that if they do, they won’t support it as much.
BUll pucky…you are arguing by avoiding my argument and assigning your twisted interpretations to what I say.
The highest level of morality is achievable only by GOD! You place this higest level of morality on America (under Bush) when deciding what is acceptable and what is not in times of war. You do not allow that moral men have done their best to defend the nation and still sought to deal with the terrorists that plotted, strategized, and carried out the murders of 3,000 people with intentions to do even more, with the utmost consideration as to the moral and legal authority they had.
Pathetic.
Torture Did Not Lead the U.S. to Bin Laden
by David Danzig
Four leading former interrogators and intelligence officials argue today that, “The use of waterboarding and other so-called ‘enhanced’ interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information.” Matthew Alexander, Colonel (ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, Joe Navarro and Ken Robinson are members of an ad hoc working group of former high-ranking interrogation and intelligence officials who have devised a set of principles to guide effective interrogation practices and have advocated for its adoption across U.S. agencies.
“Torture Did Not Lead the U.S. to bin Laden, It Almost Certainly Prolonged the Hunt
We are concerned about the suggestion by some that the use of waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques led U.S. forces to Osama bin Laden’s compound.
The use of waterboarding and other so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques almost certainly prolonged the hunt for Bin Laden and complicated the jobs of professional U.S. interrogators who were trying to develop useful information from unwilling sources like Khalid Sheik Muhammed.
Reports say that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and Abu Faraq al-Libi did not divulge the nom de guerre of a courier during torture, but rather several months later, when they were questioned by interrogators who did not use abusive techniques.
This is not surprising. Our experience is that torture is a poor way to develop useful, accurate information.
We know from experience that it is very difficult to elicit information from a detainee who has been abused. The abuse often only strengthens their resolve and makes it that much harder for an interrogator to find a way to elicit useful information.
We believe that the U.S. would have learned more from Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other high value detainees if, from the beginning, professional interrogators had a chance to question them using the sophisticated, yet humane, approaches approved by U.S. law.
We are convinced that the record shows that abusive questioning techniques did not help, but only hindered, the United States’ efforts to find bin Laden.”
Bios
Matthew Alexander
Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym) has spent more than 18 years in the U.S. Air Force and Air Force Reserves. He personally conducted more than 300 interrogations in Iraq and supervised more than a thousand. Alexander was awarded the Bronze Star Medal for his achievements in Iraq, including leading the team of interrogators that located Abu Musab al Zarqawi, who was subsequently killed in an airstrike. Alexander has conducted missions in over 30 countries, has two advanced degrees, and speaks three languages. He is the author of How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq (Free Press, 2008) and Kill or Capture: How a Special Operations Task Force Took Down a Notorious al Qaeda Terrorist (St. Martin’s Press, 2011).
Colonel (Ret.) Stuart A. Herrington, U.S. Army
Stu Herrington served 30 years as an Army intelligence officer, specializing in human intelligence/counterintelligence. He has extensive interrogation experience from service in Vietnam, Panama, and Operation Desert Storm. He has traveled to Guantanamo and Iraq at the behest of the Army to evaluate detainee exploitation operations, and he taught a seminar on humane interrogation practices to the Army’s 201st MI Battalion–Interrogation, during its activation at Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
Joe Navarro
For 25 years, Joe Navarro worked as an FBI special agent in the area of counterintelligence and behavioral assessment. A founding member of the National Security Division’s Behavioral Analysis Program, he is on the adjunct faculty at Florida’s Saint Leo University and the University of Tampa and remains a consultant to the intelligence community. Mr. Navarro is the author of a number of books about interviewing techniques and practice including Advanced Interviewing, which he co-wrote with Jack Schafer, and Hunting Terrorists: A Look at the Psychopathology of Terror. He currently teaches the Advanced Terrorism Interview course at the FBI.
Ken Robinson
Ken Robinson served a 20-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units. His experience includes service with the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency and the Central Intelligence Agency. Ken has extensive experience in CIA and Israeli interrogation methods and is a member of the U.S. Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-danzig/torture-did-not-lead-the-_b_857708.html
Experts have information that adds to the discussion about the effectiveness of interrogation techniques. HOWEVER, unless they were present during the interrogations of the three detainees in question, they cannot speak specifically about how effective the techniques were used in this instance.
Summation following review of the IG report – The Weekly Standard:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/08/did_they_work.asp?page=2
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/25/waterboarding-saved-la/?page=all#pagebreak
http://www.warriorsfortruth.com/obama-releases-CIA-secret-techniques.html
CIA Terrorist Interrogations Revealed
Obama is playing politics with National Security again.
Immediately after VP Cheney issued his assessment about CIA interrogation techniques and asked CIA to disclose successful memos. Obama strikes back at Cheney and threatens retaliation.
As of today – The White House will not address the question of whether the tactics have been effective
4-24-09 – The Obama administration announced that the Pentagon would turn over to the American Civil Liberties Union 44 photographs showing detainee abuse of prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq during the Bush administration. Some experts say the move could have a chilling effect on the CIA even beyond President Obama’s decision last week to release the so-called “torture memos.
Dr. Mark M. Lowenthal, former Assistant Director of Central Intelligence for Analysis and Production, says the ACLU push to release the photographs is reprehensible, “There’s nothing to be gained from it. There’s no substantive reason why those photos have to be released. The Obama administration should have taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court. They should have fought it all the way,”
4-21-09 Obama now says he will leave the door open to prosecution of Bush administration officials who devised harsh terrorism-era interrogation tactics. )
4- 21-09 Admiral Blair, President Obamas national intelligence director told colleagues in a private memo last week that the harsh interrogation techniques banned by the White House did produce significant information that helped the nation in its struggle with terrorists. That specific information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday.
4-21-09 CIA Confirms: Water boarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles using East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles. See Full Story Below
4-20-09 Former Vice President Dick Cheney sets up a showdown between the president who believes the CIA’s techniques amounted to unwise and immoral torture and the former vice president who believes the interrogations saved lives. Cheney shared his thoughts on the CIA memos that were recently declassified and also revealed his request to the CIA to declassify additional memos that confirm the success of the Bush administrations interrogation tactics
CHENEY: One of the things that I find a little bit disturbing about this recent disclosure is they put out the legal memos, the memos that the CIA got from the Office of Legal Counsel, but they didn’t put out the memos that showed the success of the effort. And there are reports that show specifically what we gained as a result of this activity. They have not been declassified.
I formally asked that they be declassified now. I’ve asked the CIA to take steps to declassify those memos so we can lay them out there and the American people have a chance to see what we obtained and what we learned and how good the intelligence was, as well as to see this debate over the legal opinions.
———————————————————————————————————–
4-15-09 Obama Releases CIA interrogation techniques
White House senior adviser David Axelrod says President Barack Obama pondering whether to release Bush-era memos about CIA interrogation techniques because there were two principles at stake,One is the sanctity of covert operations and keeping faith with the people who do them, and the impact on national security, on the one hand. And the other was the law and his belief in transparency. (Warrior Note – During his campaigning, Obama said his Administration would have transparency. Quote “Any bill that comes before me. I want the public to have 5 days to review it online.” The public got 10 hours beginning around midnight Thursday to the Friday Vote. The thousand page bill written mostly behind closed doors by the Democrats. Republicans Cry Foul Video News )
A former top official in the administration of President George W. Bush called the publication of the memos unbelievable. It’s damaging because these are techniques that work and by Obama’s action, we are telling the terrorists what they are, We have laid it all out for our enemies. Publicizing the techniques does grave damage to our national security by ensuring they can never be used again even in a ticking time bomb scenario where thousands or millions of American lives are at stake.”
4-15-09 Dennis Blair, Obama’s Top National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair privately told employees that “high value information” was obtained in interrogations that included harsh techniques approved by former President George W. Bush. “A deeper understanding of the al-Qaida network” resulted. The Associated Press obtained a copy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/us/politics/23detain.html
That written in the New York Times!!!
From my perspective the Bush administration was interested in defending America and saving lives. The Obama administration is ONLY interested in covering their own asses and doing what is politically expedient!
Tina: “The highest level of morality is achievable only by GOD! You place this higest level of morality on America (under Bush) when deciding what is acceptable and what is not in times of war.”
And you say I’m twisting your words? It is ridiculous to claim that I am placing the “highest level of morality” on anyone. Not torturing people is kind of a minimum moral standard.
When you describe something as torture that clearly did not harm the person involved, that is ridiculous. Arbitrarily tossing out the word torture was a political decision designed to make equal the terrible injuries and starvation that men who actually endured barbarous torture at the hands of ruthless governments with those who simply had to endure a carefully administered procedure, in the presence of a physician, to scare and intimidate them. Ridiculous….no matter how many times you scream that’s torture! Excusing, denying, ignoring or dismissing the fact that Nancy Pelosi, a ranking member of your parties oversight in such matters, approved the technique…ridiculous. Trotting out experts to discredit the approved procedure is both ridiculous and political. Trotting out people to claim nothing was gained from these techniques, when they were not present to know, just to muddy the waters, is also political and ridiculous.
These men suffered zero damage. They were healthier under the care of our government than they were when they were picked up on the battlefield. the conditions under which they lived were much better than the dirty caves they hid in.
In terms of morality, placing politics above the defense of the nation, is disgustingly low.
Your party leadership is a shameless bunch of power hungry, self-serving, covetous miscreants who only pretend to care about people and this country and who will stoop to any dirty trick to hold or increase their power.
America does not torture…period.
Tina: “When you describe something as torture that clearly did not harm the person involved,”
What on earth are you talking about? How can you possibly know that no one was harmed from waterboarding? I have already shown you testimony from medical and interrogation experts showing that waterboarding IS extremely harmful to the person involved.
“Arbitrarily tossing out the word torture”
It’s not arbitrary when we’re talking about a technique that HAS been recognized as torture by the U.S. in the past, when it’s been used as evidence to convict war criminals, and when almost every other industrialized nation in the world recognizes the tactic as a form torture.
“was a political decision”
Do you honestly believe that John McCain said that waterboarding was torture for political reasons? What could he possibly have to gain from that, Tina?
“Excusing, denying, ignoring or dismissing the fact that Nancy Pelosi…”
I haven’t excused or denied anything Pelosi has done. I also haven’t spent much time condemning any specific person for their role in waterboarding, so it’s not like I’m employing a double standard. I have said that the extreme and counterproductive national security measures taken after 9/11 have been a bipartisan problem, and that President Obama has been a part of this problem. I haven’t had time to research whether your Pelosi claim is true, but I wouldn’t be at all surprised if it is.
I’m not one who thinks that those responsible for waterboarding should be tried for war crimes or anything else. Though it may surprise you, I do understand that most of these people were doing what they thought was right. However I also think it’s clear that the tactic itself has been discredited, and that it should never be used again. We need to learn from our mistakes. But given that you’re a person who still believes the Vietnam War was justified and we only lost because of those meddling journalists, I don’t know if that’s an ability you possess.
“Trotting out experts to discredit the approved procedure is both ridiculous and political.”
That’s just silly. Echoes of the infamous creationist line, “Someone has to stand up to the experts!”
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/413074/april-23-2012/don-mcleroy?xrs=share_copy
You like to “trot out experts,” too, Tina. Although I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but most of the time when you do so, the “experts” you cite are part of the fringe minority of whatever field they’re a part of.
“In terms of morality, placing politics above the defense of the nation, is disgustingly low.”
I do not oppose waterboarding out of “politics,” you cynical partisan. I oppose it because it’s wrong, it’s immoral, and it’s unconstitutional.
Typical leftist tactic. Trot out an expert that will testify about the most extreme (and unrelated) case and then say, “See, see, we told you”.
It is arbitrary when it has been made clear that every branch of the government approved of the carefully crafted and limited perameters of the technique and agreed it had to be used because of the urgency involved. The accusation was political.
Yes I believe that John McCain might have said that for political reasons. I also think he was both deeply traumatized and severly injured by torturers who were sadistically determined to physically harm and mentally and emotionally break him. If I have my facts straight they were particularly hard on him because they knew his father was an admiral in the Navy.
I’d think I was crazy for thinking we had actually won the war in Vietnam if I were the only one who thought so. I don’t think I am the only one and I was there when the press and the hippies (sanctimoneous and listening to the same destroy America Marxist a**holes that run your party today) set out to defeat America. I witnessed the bullcrap first hand. They demoralized the troops and they played the same political games that they do now in the press.
Experts are a dime a dozen…just ask them! You can always find at least one who will say what you want him to say. (Look at all the thouroughly discredited scientists on global warming!)
The difference I see is this. Trotting out an expert to make a point in a discussion is one thing. Trotting out an expert to discredit a political adversary is another…especially when it comes to international matters or times of war. When I personally trot out an expert it is to lend weight to my position. I expect you to do the same. I accept the fact that we disagree; I don’t think you do. You insist that unless I agree with you my experts are fringe, my sources lie, I’m delusional, or I’m a racist. I can forgive when you say I’m delusional…we all get heated at times and say such things…but the others show deep disrespect and I resent it.
I am not part of the “fringe minority”. I have given you polling data that suggests it’s more likely that, generally speaking, you are part of the fringe minority:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/152021/Conservatives-Remain-Largest-Ideological-Group.aspx
I have made the case that waterboarding, BY THE CONTROLLED STANDARD WE DEVISED, is not torture. Whether or not it will ever again be used depends a lot on what circumstances befall us. Let us hope that our government will do everything in their power to prevent another terrible event like 911 because those who would be forced to endure 10 seconds on a waterboard at a time certainly don’t care how many people die or are permanently damaged, burned, or mutilated as they go about conducting the procedures of their chosen lifes work.
I understand why you oppose it. You think it’s wrong. The political leadership and support system that instigated the WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE TACTIC and made it front page news only cared about politics and discrediting the Bush administration. They didn’t care abourt winning the war and they certainly gave zero thought to the men and women fighting and dying in the Middle East and around the world.
I think they are a fringe group that needs to be blasted back into their radical caves.
Thanks for sharing this great content, I really enjoyed the insign you bring to the topic, awesome stuff!
It is our pleasure. Please feel free to comment at Post Scripts any time.