Waterboarding - it worked!!!
I'm sure everyone has flipped through the Inspector General's report released Monday, although much was redacted. http://documents.nytimes.com/c-i-a-reports-on-interrogation-methods#p=1
Interesting that on page 91, it says that "Khalid Shaykh Muhammad, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete."
Yet in another section KSM is described as a "prolific" source of information. To quote the report - "He provided information that helped lead to the arrests of terrorists including Sayfullah Paracha and his son Uzair Paracha, businessmen who Khalid Shaykh Muhammad planned to use to smuggle explosives into the United States; Saleh Almari, a sleeper operative in New York; and Majid Khan, an operative who could enter the United States easily and was tasked to research attacks [redacted]. Khalid Shaykh Muhammad's information also led to the investigation and prosecution of Iyman Faris, the truck driver arrested in early 2003 in Ohio."
Much is redacted but it sure seems that since the use of the waterboard KSM was more cooperative. And the report says that definitively with respect to Abu Zubaydah
Go waterboard yourself.
August 26, 2009 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah waterboarding worked...only in the sense that it was the torture it was intended to be.
Other than that not really...
August 26, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Torture is illegal. Like it or not. There is no conclusive evidence that waterboarding produced any actionable intelligence or prevented any harm to the US.
The CIA has had a directive apparently that they should not use information from any nation derived from torture because it is considered unreliable.
Torture is illegal. We have agreed with other nations not to torture captured combatants and that such behavior is illegal and that it would be prosecuted under international law. We insisted that it be prosecuted when it was done to our soldiers.
August 26, 2009 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Didn't produce any good intelligence? Did you read the report? The report says that KSM provided (among other things) information that led to the arrest of other terrorists.
August 26, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is some more reporting on how the docs didn't prove what you suggest.
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/torture/top-bush-terrorism-adviser-admits-cia-docs-didnt-prove-torture-worked/
I think you must be listening to the masters of distortion on
Fox 'Lies R Us''News?' With An Agenda,
you can't expect to get truth or facts from a source like that.
August 26, 2009 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't suggest anything - just quoted the report
August 26, 2009 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And let me reiterate.
The very CIA that acted out this 'torture' that was illegal and that they were not equipped or trained to carry out,
they had to follow a directive prior to Cheney et al, that they were never to use information from any source that was gained through
'torture'
because it is considered not only illegal but
UNRELIABLE!
This was a directive the CIA had to follow.
August 26, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waterboarding worked for KSM and Abu Zubaydah, according to the report
August 26, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have any substantive comments to my point that waterboarding was effective, I'd be happy to respond
August 26, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is a deduction that the overall information provided does not actually support. But I get that this is your deduction
August 26, 2009 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
How can you reasonably argue that? The report says that the information KSM provided before waterboarding was inaccurate, outdated and incomplete.
The report also says that KSM was "prolific" and provided information that helped lead to arrests.
Very little needs to be deduced. It's pretty straightforward.
August 26, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Some reporting to debunk your claim suggesting that 'illegal torture' 'worked'. Which is as false as it would be irrelevant.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/213620
August 26, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am reading your links but they provide some pretty weak arguments.
Newsweek, for example, says the following - "The documents also don't address the question of whether, under the stress and pain of intense interrogation, detainees gave false information that they thought their questioners wanted to hear. The CIA documents offer no evidence that the agency made any effort to assess whether the "enhanced" interrogations may have, in fact, produced more bad information than good. Nor do the documents address the question, recently raised by the CIA's current director, Leon Panetta, of whether the same information could have been obtained through nonviolent interrogation tactics."
Well I'm sorry if it's not all spelled out perfectly on a silver platter for Newsweek. But the report is pretty clear that prior to waterboarding, KSM provided little information. Later on, he became "prolific". It also says that the information provided let to arrests. So I don't see how Newsweek would say that KSM's information was false. Could it have been obtained another way, maybe. But that's not that point of my post. Others on here have said that waterboarding didn't work. This memo shows that it did for interrogating KSM.
August 26, 2009 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The useful info was given without torture.
August 26, 2009 7:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what the report says. As I quoted above, the report says that KSM did NOT provide any useful information prior to waterboarding.
August 26, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
It also does not say that any of the supposed useful information he gave was given in response to waterboarding. You have to stretch the conjecture pretty far to get such a conclusion.
Meanwhile, the intelligence experts continue to insist that the real world exists beyond cheap TV shows and dimestore novels and Dick Cheney's fetid wet dreams inasmuch as torture does NOT provide reliable information.
But what's your point?
We don't torture. Torture is illegal and immoral. There are laws prohibiting torture that proscribe serious penalties for any violations. Period. End of story.
You infer that we might just be able to somehow retroactively overlook violations of the laws against torture (or any laws for that matter) with an "ends justifies means" argument. That is dangerous nonsense to promote for reasons that should be obvious to anyone.
The most damning evidence against Cheney that begs for him to be called to account for his despicable actions is the fact that he - as a VP sworn to uphold the Constitution - chooses not to deny his alleged violations of law, but rather tries to justify them by promoting this cowardly and despicable and wholly irresponsible argument that "torture works."
Let's see how that criminal defense works for Cheney in Court.
August 27, 2009 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stretch the conjecture pretty far? C'mon. It says prior to waterboarding he didn't give much good information. He said he was waterboarded out the wazu. Then it says that he gave lots of information that led to lots of arrests. Doesn't seem like any "stretch" that waterboarding was effective.
August 27, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whether it did or did not is irrelevant ( and whether it worked is still in question) it is illegal, against the Geneva Conventions. And according to all the experts unnecessary.
And if you read the report more carefully most of the useful info we got Khalid was before torture was applied.
August 26, 2009 1:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Were does it say that most of the info we got from KSM was pre-waterboarding?
August 26, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
MiddleClassBill, his next post:
The George W. Bush Administration, It Worked!
The IG report shows that the CIA can write a report implying anything they did was 'worth it'.
August 26, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
ad hominem
August 26, 2009 2:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
You would have to be a lot more of a man for the term "ad hominem" to apply here.
August 26, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you have any substantive comments to my point that waterboarding was effective, I'd be happy to respond
August 26, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then don't respond, punk. My comments are meant to disparage you. Your "post" such as is was warrants nothing other.
Again, go waterboard yourself, you pathetic loser.
August 26, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the report said that waterboarding wasn't effective, people would certainly be writing about it on here. So I don't understand why it's so offensive that I wrote about the report's discussion on waterboarding.
August 26, 2009 4:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
It said waterboarding was not effective, troll. You simply choose to ignore reality to make your misbegotten point.
Fuck off and die.
August 26, 2009 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where did the report say that waterboarding wasn't effective?
Did you read the part that said that KSM didn't provide useful information prior to waterboarding? Did you read the part which said that KSM became "prolific" and gave information that lead to the arrest of other terrorists?
August 26, 2009 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waterboarding is entirely effective...
at distroying the honor of those who employ it.
August 26, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, Billo, IF torture worked once in a great while but in the bigger picture was counter-productive every single time and therefore a stupid thing to do, as well as being illegal and immoral, would you either endorse or excuse its use or would you think it is more important that our government operate at a higher standard which would include obaying national and international laws.
August 26, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
My comment should have ended with a question mark. I'd like an honest answer if you are capable of it.
August 26, 2009 2:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waterboarding was only used on a few people and seemed to be effective
August 26, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS - why the hostility? "Billo" and "if you're capable of it"??
August 26, 2009 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
I called you Billo because you remind me of someone with that nickname. I said, "If you are capable of it", to try to coax you to answer my question, which you did not do. Maybe you couldn't.
August 26, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Waterboarding might be considered torture, but a lot of the other stuff really wasn't. And like I said, waterboarding was only used for a select few people. So I disagree about the rampant torturing your question implied.
August 26, 2009 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
You only answered, or at least demonstrated, why I questioned whether or not you could give an honest answer.
August 26, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Quite a wordy answer by you. Try asking the question another way if you think I didn't answer it.
I don't think we should torture people except in very rare circumstances where it's warranted. Most of what we did was lawful and appropriate.
August 26, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
This does seem to be an honest answer to my question so I will accept it as such.
So, it would have to follow that you believe that our government should have a policy in place for those times when they decide that torture is warranted. You are obviously not alone. A lot of Americans think that torture is sometimes warranted. Many other people, including me, think that torture is a sick, twisted, and disgusting thing to support.
It is not against the law to have sick twisted ideas of how to treat other humans who are in your control and to whom you can do anything your twisted mind conjures up, but to act on some of those twisted ideas is, in fact, against the law.
The "we" that you belong with can try to change the law so that when you think it is appropriate to torture that it will then be legal, but until the law is changed the "we" that I belong to thinks the sick bastards that authorized torture should go to jail with the sick bastards that carried out their policy. Even if the law is changed and they legally torture and so don't go to jail, they should still go to hell.
Just my opinion.
August 26, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What we did wasn't torture. The CIA's interrogation practices were lawful, they were necessary and they were effective.
Sure there were isolated abuses, but the abuses were described as deviations from approved procedure. The Inspector General concluded that "the CTC did a commendable job in directing the interrogation of high value detainees...Agency personnel - with one notable exception described in this review - followed guidance and procedures and documented their activities well...Numerous agency components and individuals invested immense time and effort to implement the CTC program quickly, effectively, and within the law."
August 26, 2009 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
MOST OF?
Pretty high standards for a Bush/Cheney apologist. Those two words undermine any credibility you might have had in arguing the obscene point that "Torture works!"
August 27, 2009 5:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure what this adds to or subtracts from the debate. Don't think the anti-torture crowd would be surprised people talked after torture, nor that some of the things said were true.
The interesting question is
1. is torture legal
2. should torture be made legal if it isn't already
3. should the US withdraw from the Geneva Conventions if that is what would be required?
4. what are the criteria to determine whether to make it legal or not? moral criteria? criteria of efficacy? Relative efficacy compared to non-torture interrogation methods? Broader prudential criteria as Lulu above alludes to?
Bill, you're just not being serious with this post, sorry.
August 26, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is being serious - being a serious troll, as he always is.
August 26, 2009 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
How am I being a troll?
If there was a report published that said waterboarding DIDN'T work, and somebody wrote a blog about that, would that be considered "trolling"?
August 26, 2009 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obey - lots of people on here have said in the past that waterboarding didn't work. I was trying to address their misconceptions.
August 26, 2009 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Think you've got a problem understanding what people mean by 'work'. They mean it doesn't work as a policy, just as betting 'red' at the roulette table doesn't work as a policy. Though it may 'work' in some instances - provide info that happens to be true, you're losing overall.
Now you can debate THAT thesis, but this extract you're offering is neither here nor there frankly...
August 26, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, there were people on here who claimed that waterboarding wasn't effective in extracting good information. Sorry if I wasn't clear with the use of the word "work" before.
August 26, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just out of interest: do we know this information IS true? Sure, it was used to arrest and indict people, but that just begs the question, doesn't it? I haven't read the report, so that isn't a rhetorical question...
August 26, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ordinary citizens like us will never have perfect information. But I don't think they would have provide a long list of people that he helped give information on if those people turned out to be "innocent". I think they would have said that in the report.
August 26, 2009 4:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Ordinary citizens like us will never have perfect information".
Not sure what you're thinking of here Bill. If they're guilty, that means they've been tried in a court of law and found guilty. That should be openly verifiable. Even for 'ordinary citizens'. If they haven't been found guilty, they're to be presumed innocent. There isn't a lot of room for confusion here...
August 26, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
What I meant is that a lot of these trials are still underway. As an example, Iyman Faris is one of the people that KSM gave us info on and we were able to arrest him. In 2003 Faris was sentenced to 20 years for providing support to Al Qaeda.
Now, I'm sure you'll ask, was he really guilty? Hell if I know but most things I've read would say yes. He pleaded guilty. Is there some alternative theory out there that says he was framed and innocent? I'm sure you can find something.
August 26, 2009 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
So for most of these cases, we still don't know whether they are guilty as charged. So we don't know whether the information in these cases was true. Or do you have reason to think ALL the people ever arrested on terrorism charges are necessarily guilty?
Meanwhile we've got other CIA sources saying 90% of what KSM provided was BS. (see Vanity Fair article)
And we haven't even gotten close to the actual relevant questions I started out with...
August 27, 2009 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bill why do you want our heroic servicemen/women to be tortured when captured?
August 26, 2009 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't. But the crazy people we are fighting in the Middle East will decapitate our captured soldiers whether we waterboarded KSM or not.
August 26, 2009 6:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then go volunteer, chickenshit. And when they cut your fucking head off, they can send it to me, I need some soccer practice - it's been too damn long.
August 26, 2009 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
We are both too old to volunteer.
August 26, 2009 8:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bill, I respect your right to be completely wrong.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/08/26/townsend-cheney-cia/
August 26, 2009 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon - you're quoting Think Progress? What's your view other than just saying I'm wrong and pointing to a link?
The report says that after the waterboarding, KSM became "prolific" and that prior to the waterboarding he only provided pieces of information that were outdated, incomplete and/or inaccurate.
To me, that says that the waterboarding was effective.
August 26, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Middleclassbill: "Waterboarding Worked".
"MiddleClassBill, It's very difficult to draw a cause and effect because it's not clear when techniques were applied versus when information was received,...it SEEMS that we got the information when the techniques were applied, but the CIA report doesn't say that. Now Bill, I'm just the Bush Administration's homeland security and terrorism advisor Fran Townsend, you may know better."
Bill, we love you, don't ever leave TPM!!
August 26, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gary - you're still just quoting somebody else's opinion.
If the report says that we got little useful information from KSM prior to waterboarding, then why do you think that waterboarding wasn't effective?
The report also says that "since the use of the waterboard, however, Abu Zubaydah has appeared to be cooperative". That would imply that he wasn't cooperative prior to waterboarding.
So why do you take the position that waterboarding wasn't effective?
August 26, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I believe her opinion weighs a little more heavily than yours or mine in this case, Middleclass.
If I had to choose between "WATERBOARD WORKED" according to some anonymous avatar on a blog that calls himself Middleclassbill, and "It's very difficult to draw a cause and effect because it's not clear when techniques were applied versus when information was received," according to Fran Townsend, former Bush homeland security and terrorism advisor, I'm going to have to go with Fran's opinion on the matter.
I know, call me crazy:)
August 26, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is entitled to say whatever she wants but I think the report is pretty clear. You don't seem to have an opinion but just jump on the bandwagon of others.
Did you also believe Fran when she wrote that the CIA program is legal and made us safer?
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2007/10/opposing-view-1.html
August 26, 2009 8:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She is entitled to say whatever she wants but I think the report is pretty clear."
Bill, even after you've given your own opinion more credibility than Bush's own homeland security and terrorism advisor, and virtually every ex-interrogator that has spoken publicly on the matter, I will respect your opinion.
You are entitled to your own opinion.
You are also entitled to ride your own unicorn on Jupiter after work tomorrow.
August 26, 2009 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you believe her when she said that the CIA program was legal and made us safer?
August 26, 2009 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
How dare you post this unadulterated crap today! Fuck you, Bill (and I don't believe for one nano-second that you are middle-class -- you don't even know the meaning of it!)
August 26, 2009 6:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Why such hostility? Like I said above, if a report got published which said waterboarding was ineffective, I'm sure someone on here would write a blog about it. So I don't see what's wrong with my writing about the recent report by the Inspector General which clearly shows that waterboarding was effective
August 26, 2009 8:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no clearly about it Bill. That's the real point here. It's your deduction and nothing more.
August 26, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's no deduction. I am just reading what the report says: 1) KSM didn't provide any useful information prior to his waterboarding; 2) KSM was "prolific" with his information which led to arrests of other terrorists. Since we know he was waterboarded extensively, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to say that waterboarding helped get information out of KSM.
August 26, 2009 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. I'll bet it would work to hold a prisoner's baby over a fire until he told all he knows. \
PEOPLE LIKE YOU, MCB ARE A DANGER TO OUR COUNTRY BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING AND YOU PROFIT BY IT IT IS FINE! YOU ABSOLUTELY SICKEN ME!
August 26, 2009 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS, That is not an acknowledgement that torture works -- it gets lots of information -- so what? If someone thinks he is dying, why not give false information? Some give true information? Gee. Who can figure it all out?
I guess the answer is to go with the real experts who say that torture does NOT work to get reliable information, and it is also illegal.
You know, it works to rob banks if you don't get caught. You can get really, really rich that way. It works to cheat on your taxes if you don't get caught. You can keep tons of your money that way. It works to shoplift if you don't get caught -- you can add TONS of stuff to your home that way.
MCB, your point is indefensible.
August 26, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Is the all caps really necessary? Reasonable people can and do disagree about the morality of waterboarding. But many people on TPM in the past have dug their heels in and said that waterboarding didn't actually help us get any useful information. If it sickens you that waterboarding actually helped get information, I'm sorry.
August 26, 2009 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE LOVE YOU BILL!!
August 26, 2009 8:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did you believe Fran when she said that the CIA methods were legal and made us safer?
August 26, 2009 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
NO!
Peace.
August 26, 2009 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks AS. I'm not sure why Gary won't share his perspective.
August 26, 2009 11:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH! MY! GOD! CAPS! THAT IS SURELY TORTURE!
................for pussies
Grow the EF up, Bill!
And next time, pick a day that doesn't coincide with the death of someone who unselfishly fought your desire to screw everyone but the rich, as you desire to make your lame point.
August 26, 2009 9:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
There were other people today who posted blogs about the CIA interrogation methods. Did you make similar comments on their pages? I am grown up - I seem to be the calm one who isn't throwing the f-bomb all over the place.
August 26, 2009 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
MCB - what if you held a person's feet on live coals, telling them that they would only get relief if they told what they know.
THAT IS TORTURE! Have you absolutely no sense of morality? No, you don't, by the title of your blog, which is basically:
TORTURE! IT WORKS!
And the next thing that you and your ilk post is how wonderful AMERICA is. How we are better than everyone else. You are
August 26, 2009 9:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no problem using the methods that we did on people that attacked us.
PS - why are you so outraged and so convinced that I am not "middle class". Why can't a middle class American be in favor of the interrogation techniques that the CIA used against KSM and other lunatics like him
August 27, 2009 12:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder what you think about the fact that there are some detainees, not tried and convicted men, have been tortured to the point that they are now mentally ill and cannot stand trial?
August 26, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Save your fingertips, dolphin girl...he doesn't care.
August 26, 2009 10:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Despite what stillidealistic says, I do care that some detainees may have become mentally ill.
But even assuming that is true, I don't think it would change my mind that waterboarding was an appropriate and effective interrogation technique for KSM and the other two Al Qaeda members that we used it on.
August 27, 2009 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love this...We are working with our 4 year old on taking responsibility for her actions...the milk didn't spill, you spilled it. They didn't "become" mentally ill. Our government or agents of our government (and by extension "we") caused them to be mentally ill.
The 4 year old grasps the concept...
August 27, 2009 11:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many of them did we make mentally ill? I'm not trying to be argumentative on that point but I just don't know.
But if we made someone like KSM mentally ill, I don't really care. The fact that we sometimes used arguably harsh methods to break our enemies sucks but its part of the war we're fighting. Just like I'm also upset that innocent people are getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But those interrogation methods resulted in us getting new intelligence which helped protect Americans. It helped us identify Jose Padilla and Binyam Muhammed who planned to detonate a dirty bomb. It also made us aware of plots to attack the US consulate in Karachi, hijack aircraft to fly into Heathrow and blow up US gas stations, just to name a few.
So I'm sorry if KSM is now mentally ill, but he wasn't a very nice guy to begin with.
August 27, 2009 2:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
...which was my point from the beginning.
August 27, 2009 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
I guess we agree that he deserved to be waterboarded
August 28, 2009 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, no...But nice try...My point was you don't care, which you finally admitted.
August 28, 2009 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point is I do care, but it's unfortunately a casualty of the war we are fighting.
Lots of innocent people die in a war.
But people like KSM aren't innocent. For people who are actively fighting a war against us and bombed the World Trade Center, they should be killed, or at the very least become mentally ill.
August 28, 2009 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink