CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11- LA Attack

[hokie4redskins]

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

[ACW]

The CIA told CNS? Why not a more reliable source, like FoxNews?

[Titaw]

True story.

[JMS]

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=46949

CIA officials told ABC news in 2007 that Zubaydah was waterboarded for less than 40 seconds and broke his silence after that.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=3978231

In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

....

"From that day on, he answered every question," Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks."

Then again Bush Cheney told us they only used waterboarding on the very worst prisoners.. we know know Zubaydah was just a clerk in a training camp and not the high level Al Quada target Bush represented him as.

We also know they were lieing and that Zubaydah was actually tortured more than 80 times over a number of weeks... and no specifics have ever been discussed about what attacks his admissions did avert.

I don't believe them when they claim they got valuable information out of him and even foiled a 9/11 style attack. How can you believe them, when you know for a fact they were lieing to you in the same sentence.. I think If bush had actually accomplished something that useful he would have been shouting it to the heavens. As he publisized his less sucessful anti terror "triumphs"..... The homeless men in miamia arrested and prosecuted for being an AlQuada cell, The carpet merchant in Minniapolis who was arrested and prosecuted for selling stinger missiles, and finally the army clerik who was threatenned with a death sentence if he didn't take a plea agreement for time served for being a terrorist informant...

So here is what else the newly released memo's said about the Water boarding practices which the CIA "authorized".

"...where authorized, it may be used for two "sessions" per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water application. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period."

So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you'd need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you've waterboarded 90 times–still just half of what they did to [Khalid Sheikh Mohamed].

Only in the Bush administration interogation notes, the CIA interogators exceeded their own policy... more than 80 waterboarding sessions ON a low level Al quada operative!!!..

And I love this narative..

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0420/p99s01-duts.html

Last week, The New York Times made a similar claim in an article on the interrogation of Zubaydah, who was mistakenly believed to be a high ranking "lieutenant" in Al Qaeda before interrogators realized he was just "a helpful training camp personnel clerk," the Times reported.

Interrogators, who spoke to the Times on condition of anonymity, said they believed Zubaydah told them everything he knew before waterboarding began. They communicated this to agency higher-ups in Washington, who nonetheless insisted on the use of the practice, and asked to watch it take place.

"You get a ton of information, but headquarters says, 'There must be more,' " recalled one intelligence officer who was involved in the case. As described in the footnote to the memo, the use of repeated waterboarding against Abu Zubaydah was ordered "at the direction of C.I.A. headquarters," and officials were dispatched from headquarters "to watch the last waterboard session."

[NavyDave]

The CIA told CNS? Why not a more reliable source, like FoxNews?

Because liberals will bash it and snivel why its not on MSNBC, CNN, NY Times,NBC,Comedy Network the DailyKos or Mediamatters. Those "fair" non agenda driven "progressive" media outlets that are so pro America (cough cough gag).

[ACW]

Because liberals will bash it and snivel why its not on MSNBC, CNN, NY Times,NBC,Comedy Network the DailyKos or Mediamatters. Those "fair" non agenda driven "progressive" media outlets that are so pro America (cough cough gag).

And CNS is so reliable? Hell, these guys make Fox News look like the Huffington Post.

[The Brave Little Toaster Oven]

America - **** Yeah!

Good story!

[hokie4redskins]

I'm more concerned that this information is suddenly being released. Unless of course it's disinformation.

Obama is essentially forcing the CIA's hand with the numerous (and unnecessarily) declassified memos in circulation. And unless there is an outright denial of this story coming from Langley, this seems to undermine the CiC. What is Panetta trying to do?

Regardless, Chinese and Russian intelligence services gotta be astounded that we're doing this. Accomplishes absolutely nothing.

[NavyDave]

And CNS is so reliable? Hell, these guys make Fox News look like the Huffington Post.

One compared to more than a dozen outlets?????

[Larry]

From the article:

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

Assuming all this is true, it makes me object to waterboarding a lot less.

I can see a slippery slope, here. ("Well, we only use torture on people who don't do what we want them to do voluntarily.") But still.

I don't have a problem with all-out torture. When the situation demands it. (For example, the often-used hypothetical about a nuclear bomb in a US city.)

I just think there need to be clear limits, and checks, on the people who decide whether the situation demands it.

(I think that, ideally, the person making that decision should be from the Judicial branch. But I'll grant the possibility that there may arise situations where somebody will have to "act now and get permission later". I just don't approve of "act now, and then cover it all up".)

[greenspandan]

my response to this (if it were true) would be that there's no point fighting terrorists if our government is just as evil.

[NavyDave]

I'm more concerned that this information is suddenly being released. Unless of course it's disinformation.

Obama is essentially forcing the CIA's hand with the numerous (and unnecessarily) declassified memos in circulation.

Regardless, Chinese and Russian intelligence services gotta be astounded that we're doing this. Accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Yeah I'm highly disappointed Obama decided to declassify the Top Secret Documents.

I expected the borderline socialist agenda in progressive clothing but hoped he would not go down this path.

Now I can ignore the smooth talk and look directly at his intentions, inactions and actions

[greenspandan]

hahaha what does releasing those memos have to do with socialism?

[JMS]

I'm more concerned that this information is suddenly being released. Unless of course it's disinformation.

Obama is essentially forcing the CIA's hand with the numerous (and unnecessarily) declassified memos in circulation. And unless there is a outright denial of this story coming from Langley, this seems to undermine the CiC. What is Panetta trying to do?

Regardless, Chinese and Russian intelligence services gotta be astounded that we're doing this. Accomplishes absolutely nothing.

Obama has already stated he would not be in favor or prosecuting the interogators or the CIA folks. They were following orders, Obama left the door open to prosecuting the folks who wrote the legal justification for torture, while they were writing their legal defense from prosecution for their justification in other memos at the same time.

This is about smoke cover for Bush higher ups, who frankly should have known better.

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

my response to this (if it were true) would be that there's no point fighting terrorists if our government is just as evil.

I'd only call our government evil in this situation if they knew KSM had information and did not do everything possible to get it out of him and another attack occurred.

[JMS]

Assuming all this is true, it makes me object to waterboarding a lot less.

It might be policy, problem is they were writing policy with one hand and breaking it with the other..

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/world/middleeast/18zubaydah.html?_r=1&ref=global-home

WASHINGTON — The first use of waterboarding and other rough treatment against a prisoner from Al Qaeda was ordered by senior Central Intelligence Agency officials despite the belief of interrogators that the prisoner had already told them all he knew, according to former intelligence officials and a footnote in a newly released legal memorandum.

The escalation to especially brutal interrogation tactics against the prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, including confining him in boxes and slamming him against the wall, was ordered by officials at C.I.A. headquarters based on a highly inflated assessment of his importance, interviews and a review of newly released documents show.

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case.

Remember Abu Zubaydah, is now known to not have been a high value target. He was a clerk in a training camp, not one of the masterminds behind Al quada. They waterboarded him more than 80 times, over the objections of his interogators.... Where is that written in their "policy".

[NavyDave]

Now imagine if they took the liberal approach and didn't waterboard and scare the terrorist with a maneating cricket.

LA would have been 9-11 part two right after the Anthrax scare and the DC Sniper but before the Animal rights bomber.

On the bright side lefties out there would have real life brought to their front door but unfortunately in the form of casualties and daily fear but the Blame Bush for not protecting us sniveling would have been ear splitting.

I still believe terrorists targeting the Golden Gate Bridge and TransAmerica Tower would have been more damaging to the psyche on the West Coast especially if the 8 years later the bridge wasn't rebuilt as we see with the WTC.

[armstrong001]

From the article:

Assuming all this is true, it makes me object to waterboarding a lot less.

I can see a slippery slope, here. ("Well, we only use torture on people who don't do what we want them to do voluntarily.") But still.

I don't have a problem with all-out torture. When the situation demands it. (For example, the often-used hypothetical about a nuclear bomb in a US city.)

I just think there need to be clear limits, and checks, on the people who decide whether the situation demands it.

(I think that, ideally, the person making that decision should be from the Judicial branch. But I'll grant the possibility that there may arise situations where somebody will have to "act now and get permission later". I just don't approve of "act now, and then cover it all up".)

I agree with this. If there is a need for certain information that a suspect has and is unwilling to give up, I have no problem forcing the information out of them. Should it be left open for scrutiny after the fact? Yes. I don't want indiscriminant torture of every suspect because they "might know something".

From Marc Thiessen's opinion piece in the Washington Post:

Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.

So, why not use a technique that demoralizes a suspect to the point that they feel no moral obligation to hold back any more?

[GoSkins561]

From the article:

Assuming all this is true, it makes me object to waterboarding a lot less.

I can see a slippery slope, here. ("Well, we only use torture on people who don't do what we want them to do voluntarily.") But still.

I don't have a problem with all-out torture. When the situation demands it. (For example, the often-used hypothetical about a nuclear bomb in a US city.)

I just think there need to be clear limits, and checks, on the people who decide whether the situation demands it.

(I think that, ideally, the person making that decision should be from the Judicial branch. But I'll grant the possibility that there may arise situations where somebody will have to "act now and get permission later". I just don't approve of "act now, and then cover it all up".)

I am starting to find this odd, I am almost in complete agreement with Larry on two different topics in the same number of days.

[#98QBKiller]

I don't have a problem with all-out torture. When the situation demands it. (For example, the often-used hypothetical about a nuclear bomb in a US city.)

I just think there need to be clear limits, and checks, on the people who decide whether the situation demands it.

(I think that, ideally, the person making that decision should be from the Judicial branch. But I'll grant the possibility that there may arise situations where somebody will have to "act now and get permission later". I just don't approve of "act now, and then cover it all up".)

Very good points Larry. I agree with them all.

[Duncan]

From the article:

Assuming all this is true, it makes me object to waterboarding a lot less.

I can see a slippery slope, here. ("Well, we only use torture on people who don't do what we want them to do voluntarily.") But still.

I don't have a problem with all-out torture. When the situation demands it. (For example, the often-used hypothetical about a nuclear bomb in a US city.)

I just think there need to be clear limits, and checks, on the people who decide whether the situation demands it.

(I think that, ideally, the person making that decision should be from the Judicial branch. But I'll grant the possibility that there may arise situations where somebody will have to "act now and get permission later". I just don't approve of "act now, and then cover it all up".)

Very good points but the tough part is determining "when the situation demands it". If you hear chatter about a bomb going off in a mall does that justify it? What is the death threshold? 10 citizens? 100?

What if it was a mall in your city and your family might be shopping that day? I doubt many would object to a forced bobbing for apples session.

[@DCGoldPants]

I think most people would agree with Larry here.

Its a tough situation. Who do you trust to make these decisions? Obviously not a Dick Cheney type. Maybe the person who makes the final call only sees a set of information on the person without knowing info that would sway them into a yes or no. Almost like you're making a decision based on numbers on a page, and not a video of a guy screaming about his religion or whatever.

And what if our guys are caught, tortured, etc? Of course we'd be mad. But if they used the same process as us. Does that make it less barbaric?

[Popeman38]

From the article:

Assuming all this is true, it makes me object to waterboarding a lot less.

I can see a slippery slope, here. ("Well, we only use torture on people who don't do what we want them to do voluntarily.") But still.

I don't have a problem with all-out torture. When the situation demands it. (For example, the often-used hypothetical about a nuclear bomb in a US city.)

I just think there need to be clear limits, and checks, on the people who decide whether the situation demands it.

(I think that, ideally, the person making that decision should be from the Judicial branch. But I'll grant the possibility that there may arise situations where somebody will have to "act now and get permission later". I just don't approve of "act now, and then cover it all up".)

The problem is, messageboard members will demand unfettered access to proof or accuse you of manufacturing the threat to suit your desires. The general public has no idea what our intelligence angencies are doing. If they knew how many credible plots existed and were thwarted they would be astounded. It would probably cause mass panic, wgich is why the information is not released to teh public.

[Popeman38]

I think most people would agree with Larry here.

Its a tough situation. Who do you trust to make these decisions? Obviously not a Dick Cheney type. Maybe the person who makes the final call only sees a set of information on the person without knowing info that would sway them into a yes or no. Almost like you're making a decision based on numbers on a page, and not a video of a guy screaming about his religion or whatever.

And what if our guys are caught, tortured, etc? Of course we'd be mad. But if they used the same process as us. Does that make it less barbaric?

Our guys are captured and tortured. REAL torture. Like being burned alive. Legs broken. Arms amputated. Decapitated while alive. Have acid poured in their eyes. Electrocuted. Things that would mortify the general public.

[JMS]

I think most people would agree with Larry here.

I don't see how any rational person can either believe the original CBN article, or represent as valid Abu Zubaydah's claim he was more forthcoming after being tortured....

We got the Christian Science Monitor, and the NY Times saying the exact opposite and quoting the recently released memos proving those facts.

Zubaydah didn't give more useful informaiton after being water boarded 88 times. Dude was a low level "clerk" who Bush / Cheney represented to be a top Al Quada Gun. Even Zubaydah's interogators didn't want to use water boarding on him cause they didn't think he knew anything.

They were required to by Washington top officials who wanted to watch!!!...

It's a farse.