All this did (releasing the interrogation papers) was to weaken the country's security.

This waterboarding got information outta that evil Shalik Kalidi (or whatever his f'n name is) that thwarted a plot against L.A. (another airplane hijack into a building). The former Vice President Cheney has formally requested that the INFORMATION that was produced by this interrogation be released. Obama just released the one side of the story. Every story has at least two sides, and this information that was garnered from it should be made public as well.

Why aren't all of the Obama apologizers jumping on this? Where in the f is the media on this? Oh yeah.... I forgot. In the tank.

If we're afraid that the disclosure of our activities will have negative ramifications due to public outcry and international outrage, perhaps we ought not be doing those things.

Perceptions do matter here. Perception costs American lives and is at least partially to blame for the spread of terrorism as American "oppression" is one of the many reasons terrorists use to justify their craven actions. I fully support Obama's actions here. It shows he's ready to try something different -- to be engaging and humble rather than unilateral and inflexible. I further hope that the Attorney General or some non-partisan commission (hopefully the later as I think the former is pretty derned partisan) takes a serious look at whether the memos of John Yoo or any other actions by the executive or justice department constituted criminal activity, and if those things do constitute criminal activity, those individuals ought to be punished.

I take a very dim view of lawyers who apparently don't value their Oath. I've read one of the notorious memos. The legal reasoning was specious as heck. I obviously haven't read it enough to form a really solid and supportable conclusion other than to say while reading it, I had some "WTF?" moments. That's not too unusual for me though. Conduct a non-partisan investigation, see if there's a crime. If there is, prosecute. Why should Yoo or anyone else be treated any differently than any other criminal defendant?

ETA: I don't particularly care how useful the interrogation techniques are or whether it has ever saved American lives or garnered any information. It's illegal under domestic and international law. The President is bound by the laws and the Constitution -- and if he doesn't prosecute his people for violating those rules, the next guy might. I also think the CIA interrogators probably should be looking at some sort of penalty for not resisting unlawful orders. That not one of them did so is something I find disturbing.

Compared to the alternatives such as Bozo the VP (aka biden), BO, the House
Madame, the majority of democrats and 3 Republicans, I'd say it was a very
appropriate and well thought out answer.

But I'm glad it made you laugh.

Back to the topic of my post:

McCain gave and opinion about torture or aggressive interrogation. Cheney
says there is documentation that says aggressive interrogation provided
valuable information.

This has nothing to do with trusting one over the other. It does have much
to do about getting to the bottom to see what's there.

I know. Read my later post.

The Falling Man

Do you remember this photograph? In the United States, people have taken pains to banish it from the record of September 11, 2001. The story behind it, though, and the search for the man pictured in it, are our most intimate connection to the horror of that day.

By Tom Junod


They began jumping not long after the first plane hit the North Tower, not long after the fire started. They kept jumping until the tower fell. They jumped through windows already broken and then, later, through windows they broke themselves. They jumped to escape the smoke and the fire; they jumped when the ceilings fell and the floors collapsed; they jumped just to breathe once more before they died. They jumped continually, from all four sides of the building, and from all floors above and around the building's fatal wound. They jumped from the offices of Marsh & McLennan, the insurance company; from the offices of Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond-trading company; from Windows on the World, the restaurant on the 106th and 107th floors -- the top. For more than an hour and a half, they streamed from the building, one after another, consecutively rather than en masse, as if each individual required the sight of another individual jumping before mustering the courage to jump himself or herself. One photograph, taken at a distance, shows people jumping in perfect sequence, like parachutists, forming an arc composed of three plummeting people, evenly spaced. Indeed, there were reports that some tried parachuting, before the force generated by their fall ripped the drapes, the tablecloths, the desperately gathered fabric, from their hands. They were all, obviously, very much alive on their way down, and their way down lasted an approximate count of ten seconds. They were all, obviously, not just killed when they landed but destroyed, in body though not, one prays, in soul. One hit a fireman on the ground and killed him; the fireman's body was anointed by Father Mychal Judge, whose own death, shortly thereafter, was embraced as an example of martyrdom after the photograph -- the redemptive tableau -- of firefighters carrying his body from the rubble made its way around the world.
Esquire Magazine

Would this be considered torture?

This event took place after eight years of a democrat administration and nine months of a republican administration.
Could someone please explain to me how the Bush administration's foreign policy activities from Jan 2001 - Oct 2001, contributed to the worst terrorist act in our nation's history.
As long as our priority is having "the world" and the "international community" respect us and "like" us, these events will take place.
I guess 3000 is not enough. Wonder how many it will be next time?

The CIA's Questioning Worked


By Marc A. Thiessen
Tuesday, April 21, 2009

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."
ad_icon

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.

All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those interrogations achieved.

Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report," which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.

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.

This is the secret to the program's success. And the Obama administration's decision to share this secret with the terrorists threatens our national security. Al-Qaeda will use this information and other details in the memos to train its operatives to resist questioning and withhold information on planned attacks. CIA Director Leon Panetta said during his confirmation hearings that even the Obama administration might use some of the enhanced techniques in a "ticking time bomb" scenario. What will the administration do now that it has shared the limits of our interrogation techniques with the enemy? President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

The memos you noted were from 2005. The memos that folks are talking about now, from 2008 and 2009, say that although KSH talked, pretty much everything he said turned out to be pure bunk and was just an attempt to get the torture to stop.

What's the truth? We will not know until an honest investigation is launched into all of this.

I never thought we would forget that day. Some of us have. Get mad all you want but it is true. Back in safe, secure Oklahoma or wherever it is easy to forget. I thank god for the people who did what they could to try to keep this from happening again. Hind sight is 20/20 and in those days, we just didn't know what was coming, next. These people weren't "interrogated" to simply hurt them. It was done in an attempt to avoid another devastating attack. Obama said he wasn't going to prosecute when he visited the CIA but that has been thrown out the window on advisors just the next day.

Hell, go after all of them. Go after Cheny. Go after Bush. If people can sleep at night to go after a lawyer who gave an opinion - and from the position of high horse, just go after all of them. Give our enemies our methods. Throw ourselves on the dirt and beg the world's forgiveness. Safely from a distance. The next time is happens, don't dare act like you are enraged at our attackers. In another ten years, you'll be over it. Don't even bother going through the motions and don't be a hypocrit and express sorrow for the victims and their families. Yeah, I know this is harsh. So are the terrorists.

The New York Times printed an article reporting that the White House released a memo to the media and edited it so that certain parts weren't included. They suggest that it was edited in the normal process but I don't believe it. It was pure politics and morally bankrupt. They deliberately attempted to mislead the public that the interrogations yielded no valuable information and also wanted to sidestep the issue of defending those acts. This topic was front row center when the memo was released. It was no accident that thses material statements were omitted.

If I sound angry, it is because I am. People died horrible deaths. Other people engaged in behavior that most of us find distasteful, even horrifying, but they did it to try to keep us safe. Released memos that outline our methods with little redaction was an act of political expediency. To issue a private memo released at the same time - while redacting politically sensitive statements that are directly on point - with the net effect of leaving the public with a distorted view of the techniques makes me sick.

It is bad enough that we are in this situation. It is worse that we are lied to in an effort to maniputate the facts. These are highly relevant facts and I think we should be given them in order to reach a moral/ethical decision about the underlying issue.

It is easy to say that torture is wrong and morally reprehensible when you believe it doesn't do any good, anyway. It is a far harder call when you wonder if the results could actually result in the saving of lives from a horrible death. Many have engaged in finger wagging with a puffed out chest and sanctimonioius comments that "it doesn't do any good, anyway." It is no wonder that they say that since this administration has encouraged them to believe that. That is a distortion of facts, people.

This is a hard moral question. Perhaps the hardest. We can't make ethical decisions if we aren't given the facts. It may make the analysis more difficult but distorting the facts to manipulate us into reaching a prefered conclusion infuriates me. Plenty of us won't change our positions even if we learn that these harsh techniquest work. Fine. I understand that. That is a matter of conscience. But don't withhold information to ensure that we reach a certain conclusion. It worries me that this administration seems willing to do this. Perhaps all adminsitrations do it but this one has been shown to have done it not to protect us, but to reach a certain political victory regardless of whether it makes us less safe. It is a breach of trust.

Here is the link: NYT: Harsh techniques worked, intel chief says - White House- msnbc.com

Here are some pertinent parts:

WASHINGTON - President Obama’s 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.

“High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country,” Adm. Dennis C. Blair, the intelligence director, wrote in a memo to his staff last Thursday.

Admiral Blair sent his memo on the same day the administration publicly released secret Bush administration legal memos authorizing the use of interrogation methods that the Obama White House has deemed to be illegal torture. Among other things, the Bush administration memos revealed that two captured Qaeda operatives were subjected to a form of near-drowning known as waterboarding a total of 266 times.

Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

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

A spokeswoman for Admiral Blair said the lines were cut in the normal editing process of shortening an internal memo into a media statement emphasizing his concern that the public understand the context of the decisions made in the past and the fact that they followed legal orders.

"The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means,” Admiral Blair said in a written statement issued last night. “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security."

It goes on.

I'm embarrassed by the chickenshi7s and *****'s that claim to be running the show now.

Sickened actually. To release this information publically, and to hint of prosecuting officials that allowed it. What are we? A third world country who terminates it's predecessors?

Apologize some more, Obama. Bow to the mideasterners, shake hands with Socialists in Venezuala, take it like a good boy from Ortega. Dismiss Cuba's communism and announce disarmament while NK launches missile tests over Japan....

GROW A PAIR AND STICK UP FOR AMERICA GOD DAMMIT!

Come on, Dave, tell us how you really feel.

I never thought I'd say this, it's too bad Hillary didn't win (if it had to be a democrat that is). I really don't think she would have done the things Obama has done to embarrass our nation. Who would have ever thought we'd have a "president" who'd embarrass us more than Jimmy Carter? Disgusting, truly disgusting.

I agree. Hillary would have been a better choice from the Democratic candidates.

I bet you were crying like Beck while writing this. You probably even took it a step further and caved your chest in while pounding it so hard.

Naw, I've got pretty thick hide. And my chest doesn't cave easily either.

Oh wow, all of a sudden we forgot about 9/11 because Obama was elected. Get a grip people. We're going to be attacked now because these docs were unclassified.

We aren't safe anymore are we? Maybe you should all move to Canada like the liberals threatened in 04.

Not according to one world leftists. Why? Because that's an American
falling and NOT an enemy.

To be realistic about this, hard-liners and some who honestly and truly want
to thought of as moderate, but aren't, are more concerned about our
enemies and their welfare than that an attack on Los Angeles was
thwarted and that thousands were saved because of non-life threatening
aggressive interrogation techniques.

Of course if an American is honestly and truly tortured by those who hate
us and want us dead, that's quite alright.

That was a very good editorial.

The NYT is yellow dog journalism at it's best.

The wife of Bill Clinton wouldn't be any better. She's as bad as BO and
jimma. Of course, I'd rather that McCain would have won. At least there'd be
an administration with a modicum of integrity and not ashamed of the USA.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/op...r=1&ref=global

Even though the above is an intelligent, important report many will discount it because 1) it appeared in the NY Times 2) the author has an Arabic name 3) some people just love torture.

You know, I seem to remember all of us living through a terrorist attack right here in OKC 14 years ago. I still remember the horrible sound the explosion made. I also remember the vast amounts of good that happened afterwards. And I remember that we didn't lose our collective minds and did not start passing any ridiculous laws that allowed us to illegally spy on separatist groups that are present right here in Oklahoma, we didn't go rounding people up, we didn't ban fertilizer sales, and we didn't torture the crap out of McVeigh to find out who else was involved.

What has happened the last few years just blows my mind.

uh.. you remember incorrectly

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was arrested in March 2003, yet the "hijacking plot" was twarted in February 2002. How did torturing him in 2003 prevent his plot a year earlier? Sorry, but the timeline doesn't add up. Of course you probably think Dick Cheney built a time machine I'm sure.

Nice try though.

Explain.