https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...480384702368&tid=ss_fb&utm_term=.ecf549ae43db What is it like to stare into the face of evil? James E. Mitchell knows. In his gripping new memoir, “Enhanced Interrogation: Inside the Minds and Motives of the Islamic Terrorists Trying To Destroy America,” Mitchell describes the day he was questioning Khalid Sheik Mohammed, when the 9/11 mastermind announced he had something important to say. “KSM then launched into a gory and detailed description of how he beheaded Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl,” Mitchell writes. Up to that moment, the CIA did not know KSM had personally carried out the murder. When asked whether it was “hard to do” (meaning emotionally difficult), KSM misunderstood the question. “Oh, no, no problem,” KSM said, “I had very sharp knives. Just like slaughtering sheep.” To confirm his story, the CIA had KSM reenact the beheading so that it could compare the features of his hands and forearms to those in the video of Pearl’s murder. “Throughout the reenactment, KSM smiled and mugged for the cameras. Sometimes he preened,” Mitchell writes. When informed that the CIA had confirmed that he was telling the truth, KSM smiled. “See, I told you,” KSM said. “I cut Daniel’s throat with these blessed hands.” This is the pure evil Mitchell and his colleagues confronted each day at CIA “black sites.” “I have looked into the eyes of the worst people on the planet,” Mitchell writes. “I have sat with them and felt their passion as they described what they see as their holy duty to destroy our way of life.” Brennan: We've 'learned a lot' since 9/11 Play Video1:00 On the 15th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, CIA Director John Brennan told CBS's "Face the Nation," that the U.S. is safer than it was 15 years ago and that U.S. intelligence agencies have become better at assessing threats. (Reuters) The world has heard almost nothing from KSM in the 15 years since the 9/11 attacks, but Mitchell has spent thousands of hours with him and other captured al-Qaeda leaders. Now, for the first time, Mitchell is sharing what he says KSM told him. Mitchell is an American patriot who has been unjustly persecuted for his role in crafting an interrogation program that helped stop terrorist attacks and saved countless lives. He does not shy from the controversies and pulls no punches in describing the interrogations. If anything, readers may be surprised by the compassion he showed these mass murderers. But the real news in his book is what happened after enhanced interrogations ended and the terrorists began cooperating. Once their resistance had been broken, enhanced interrogation techniques stopped and KSM and other detainees became what Mitchell calls a “Terrorist Think Tank,” identifying voices in phone calls, deciphering encrypted messages and providing valuable information that led the CIA to other terrorists. Mitchell devotes an entire chapter to the critical role KSM and other detainees played in finding Osama bin Laden. KSM held classes where he lectured CIA officials on jihadist ideology, terrorist recruiting and attack planning. He was so cooperative, Mitchell writes, KSM “told me I should be on the FBI’s Most Wanted List because I am now a ‘known associate’ of KSM and a ‘graduate’ of his training camp.” KSM also described for Mitchell many of his as yet unconsummated ideas for future attacks, the terrifying details of which Mitchell does not reveal for fear they might be implemented. “If we ever allow him to communicate unmonitored with the outside world,” Mitchell writes, “he could easily spread his deviously simple but potentially deadly ideas.” But perhaps the most riveting part of the book is what KSM told Mitchell about what inspired al-Qaeda to attack the United States — and the U.S. response he expected. Today, some on both the left and the right argue that al-Qaeda wanted to draw us into a quagmire in Afghanistan — and now the Islamic State wants to do the same in Iraq and Syria. KSM said this is dead wrong. Far from trying to draw us in, KSM said that al-Qaeda expected the United States to respond to 9/11 as we had the 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut — when, KSM told Mitchell, the United States “turned tail and ran.” He also said he thought we would treat 9/11 as a law enforcement matter, just as we had the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and the USS Cole in Yemen — arresting some operatives and firing a few missiles into empty tents, but otherwise leaving him free to plan the next attack. “Then he looked at me and said, ‘How was I supposed to know that cowboy George Bush would announce he wanted us ‘dead or alive’ and then invade Afghanistan to hunt us down?’” Mitchell writes. “KSM explained that if the United States had treated 9/11 like a law enforcement matter, he would have had time to launch a second wave of attacks.” He was not able to do so because al-Qaeda was stunned “by the ferocity and swiftness of George W. Bush’s response.” But KSM said something else that was prophetic. In the end, he told Mitchell, “We will win because Americans don’t realize . . . we do not need to defeat you militarily; we only need to fight long enough for you to defeat yourself by quitting.” Opinions newsletter Thought-provoking opinions and commentary, in your inbox daily. KSM explained that large-scale attacks such as 9/11 were “nice, but not necessary” and that a series of “low-tech attacks could bring down America the same way ‘enough disease-infected fleas can fell an elephant.’ ” KSM “said jihadi-minded brothers would immigrate into the United States” and “wrap themselves in America’s rights and laws” until they were strong enough to rise up and attack us. “He said the brothers would relentlessly continue their attacks and the American people would eventually become so tired, so frightened, and so weary of war that they would just want it to end.” “Eventually,” KSM said, “America will expose her neck for us to slaughter.” KSM was right. For the past eight years, our leaders have told us that we are weary of war and need to focus on “nation building at home.” We have been defeating ourselves by quitting — just as KSM predicted. But quitting will not bring us peace, KSM told Mitchell. He explained that “it does not matter that we do not want to fight them,” Mitchell writes, adding that KSM explained “America may not be in a religious war with him, but he and other True Muslims are in a religious war with America” and “he and his brothers will not stop until the entire world lives under Sharia law.”
I think most agree the initial invasion into Afghanistan was a just and correct approach. 3000 American civilians died. Yes, we are going to hunt down those down that are responsible and those that harbor them. If this is a real account of KSM, he should of went deeper into history and realized that the last time American civilian casualty numbers from a attack on domestic soil were as high as what KSM desired and what he unfortunately achieved, the United States nuked the culprits.
Yeah, you can ALWAYS believe people who worked for the CIA. Those guys never lie. Especially the torturers. It's surprising: I thought Mitchell would put out a book saying that "enhanced interrogation" was unnecessary. But he put out a book showing how useful it was. Imagine that. We should give this guy a medal. Can we just attempt not to serve as a megaphone for CIA employees on this board? Especially torturers. They're scum.
he sure did not save any on 9/11. too bad he did not pay attention to the 8/6/01 briefing which said "bin laden determined to strike in the u.s." or all the other warnings that came out before the attacks. now we have president elect trump choosing to ignore the daily briefings he is getting. very dangerous.
Do Americans, besides us liberal pansies, care that torture is used on the evil doers, aka Muzzlims? Do you think the average Trump voter is for or against torture in the name of "protection"? We know what message won the day in the name of kicking A and taking names--MAGA
Even "liberal pansies" will agree to it for the most part when there is real danger, in fact even being a "liberal pansy" in the first place is a luxury afforded by peace and security.
Where are you getting that, that most would disagree with it being called torture? Do the international courts disagree? Does the Geneva conventions disagree? Did the American POWs that were waterboarded by the Japanese in WWII disagree that it was torture? Did the trials of Japanese generals that were found guilty of waterboarding and executed for it after WWII disagree that it was torture?
I'd imagine if you saw someone being REALLY tortured and then saw someone being waterboarded, you'd see the difference. Something being horrific doesn't mean that it's actual torture. That said, I'm against using waterboarding except in the most extreme circumstances. Of course once you allow something like that, it'll be overused, so it's better to ban it outright. There's tons of other fun and incredibly awful ways for interrogators to break captives, taking waterboarding off the table doesn't prevent them from doing their job unless they aren't any good at it. Of course, full disclosure, I'm not a big fan of intelligence gathered via interrogation to begin with. It's generally the least accurate information you'll gather.....but interrogators are prima donnas, so don't tell them that unless you want an argument.
is it better than no information? I would never act on information coming from interrogation alone, but once you have the information you can go vet it out and confirm its authenticity. My understanding is they condition prisoners for long periods of time asking them questions they know the answer to and punishing them when they lie. once this is done to the point where they are consistently getting true answers, they ask them questions they don't know the answer to. Then set out to confirm the information. seems like a perfectly reasonable technique to get valid information to me.
In a lot of instances, it is worse than having no information.....even if it was true at one point or was intended to be the truth. Sometimes that type of thing can set you back quite a while due to looking in the wrong places. That said, your argument is pretty much what you'd hear from an interrogator when confronted by the fact that what they do is the least important intelligence gathering operation. They'd hype up the few successes they've had and downplay the failures. It's just how it goes.
You've staked your positions, we simply disagree that torture keeps us safe. I use "liberal pansy" in the ironic sense to illustrate that Speaking as a caricature of one, I completely agree: peace and security are maintained though the right mix of diplomacy, laws and force. We all have the luxury to be who we want because of said peace and security. My point was that if torture is the means for maintaining it then we are flawed on more than one level. Reading your later response, seems that you might agree on more than one level as well.
I certainly see your point of view on the issue and for me it's a grey area. Would I approve of waterboarding IF it was the one thing that could keep society safe? Absolutely.....but I don't believe that to be the case. Hell I'd approve of outright torture if it was the only thing that would keep society safe. The problem is that you end up creating more problems than you solve even if the intelligence you gather is accurate, and it often isn't remotely accurate. So really you are just torturing people for no reason far too often (or scaring the hell out of them if it's waterboarding). Even worse, when word gets around that you are torturing people, it leads to your people being treated even worse if/when they are captured. If for only that reason, you have to hold yourself to a higher standard. All you are doing is creating propaganda that will be used against you when you treat POW's too harshly.....or too softly. If you are seen as weak, it emboldens your enemies, if you are seen as bloodthirsty or evil it does the same thing.
If Al Qaeda leadership really expected a limited response to 911 they were very foolish. There is no way an attack on US soil with thousands of casualties wouldn't have merited a massive response. It's the main reason why there was nearly universal support for going after Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That said Al Qaeda leadership has said on several occasions that they wanted to draw the US into a conflict in the Middle East. That could be a rationalization on their part but I would take what KSM is saying with more than a grain of salt. If this is from torture "enhanced interrogation" techniques or whatever you want to call it this could be KSM simply trying to say what he thinks his interrogators want to hear. To the second point of that the US is war weary, that is correct. Consider that we just elected a candidate who spent a good part of the election criticizing the decision to go into Iraq and one of the main points of contention was whether he was originally for or against it. The last two presidents that have been elected have done so with a public position critical of the one taken by GW Bush. Trump certainly didn't campaign on using more military might and much of his rhetoric was isolationist regarding existing alliances and even with leaving much of the fighting in the Middle East to Russia.
