What an idiotic argument. The enemies know what we've been doing, as released detainees have been talking about it for years now. As far as letting people know we don't torture... that shouldn't be a problem either. The argument makes little sense.
Obama, politicising Intelligence. [rquoter]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." 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 "interrogations 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 writer, a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, served in senior positions in the Pentagon and the White House from 2001 to 2009, most recently as chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush. [/rquoter]
^ pretty sick when you think that torturing somebody is doing them a favor by helping somebody get to heaven. only a complete f-king sadist or sociopath would actually cite this as a valid rationalization for torturing somebody. And basso.
Of course information from the military and FBI shows why the CIA would make the claim, and that it isn't accurate. Information from Zubaydah also admits that he just started making stuff up once he was tortured. Thanks to the information from people who were interrogating prior to the waterboarding, we know that this information was already known without using waterboarding. They probably pulled out the black marker because we know that claims to attaining information from these two suspects using waterboarding was false, and didn't want to release false information. It is not surprise that the CIA would claim this successes as would a speech writer for Bush. Because what we know actually happened is that the information was gained without using waterboarding. The CIA and Bush administration pushed the harsher techniques, and the information stopped. Then the CIA and Bush administration claimed whatever intel gained as reasons to support waterboarding. There is nothing knew in the article you posted, and only leads back to information which doesn't support your claim.
silly boy. the article cites the very memos Obama released. meaning, if your implication is correct, then the entire docs are false, including the claim of 183 KSM waterboardings. is this what you meant?
so who's playing politics here? Cheney Spox Refuses To Explain His “Formal” Request For CIA Torture Intel This is getting downright Kafkaesque: I just reached a spokesperson for former Veep Dick Cheney, and she categorically refused to explain what Cheney meant when he claimed on Fox News last night that he had “formally asked” the CIA to release intelligence allegedly proving that torture works. As I noted below, Cheney claimed he’d asked the CIA to release intel reports he’d read detailing info successfully collected via torture. But an intelligence source familiar with the situation told me that the CIA has received no such request from Cheney. So I asked a spokesperson for Cheney at his transitional office in McLean, Virginia, to explain Cheney’s formal request. “He made the request at the end of March,” the spokesperson replied. “It was a formal request that the CIA declassify specific documents.” I told the spokesperson about the intelligence source’s denial, and asked how procedurally this formal request had been made. The reply: “We have no comment.” Ah, well. Amazingly, Cheney’s claim is being treated with no skepticism whatsoever. Today’s Times, for instance, noted uncritically that Cheney went on Fox to “announce” that he’d asked the CIA to declassify these reports. MSNBC just wrapped up a segment on Cheney’s demand, too. Let’s be as clear as possible about this: If what Cheney did is merely ask for the release of these documents on TV, that doesn’t count as a formal request, because it won’t result in anything. If news orgs are going to reproduce Cheney’s claim, why not try to determine whether it’s true or not? Is it possible that maybe Cheney doesn’t really mean it when he says he wants the CIA to release this alleged info? http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/t...ain-his-formal-request-for-cia-torture-intel/
No it is possible to document the times waterboarded correctly and still not put the proper results that come from it. Even if they are in the same memo that doesn't make everything in that memo correct or incorrect. What I do know from the interrogators that were present is what has already been reported, about the effectiveness of other methods vs. the ineffectiveness of waterboarding. We also know that the CIA was determined to use waterboarding, and publically lied about the results. It wouldn't be surprising that the memo also contains similar false information.
Obama: putting politics ahead of national security. [rquoter]Goss: Obama Decision "Crossed a Red Line" Porter Goss, former CIA Director and past chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, blasted the Obama administration for releasing Justice Department memos on harsh interrogation techniques. “For the first time in my experience we’ve crossed the red line of properly protecting our national security in order to gain partisan political advantage,” Goss said in an interview. Goss, a former CIA operative, has made few public comments since leaving his post as DCI in September 2006. In December 2007, he told a Washington Post reporter that members of Congress had been fully briefed on the CIA’s special interrogation program. “Among those being briefed, there was a pretty full understanding of what the CIA was doing,” Goss told the Post. “And the reaction in the room was not just approval, but encouragement.” In a letter to his intelligence community colleagues last Thursday, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair described those briefings. “From 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Executive Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.” That passage from Blair’s letter – along with another confirming that the interrogations produced “high-value information” that provided a “deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization attacking this country” – was dropped when language from the letter was released publicly. A spokesman for Blair attributed to the omission to normal editing procedures. In an interview this morning, senior Bush administration official accused the DNI of “politicizing intelligence” by attempting to hide his judgment that the program had produced valuable results. This official also accused the Obama administration of double standards, citing its professed belief in transparency and its unwillingness – at least so far – to declassify memos that demonstrate the value of the interrogation techniques Obama has banned. Other Republicans have pointed out that with the exception of Blair, the Obama administration has defended the policies using political figures – like Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod – rather than top national security advisers. “You can imagine what it would have looked like, if on a sensitive intelligence matter involving the CIA and this controversy, if we sent Karl Rove out to do this briefing. And that’s in effect what’s happened here,” says a high-ranking official from the Bush White House. “And I assume that’s because they saw it primarily as a political issue – because it’s being debated inside as a political issue –because it’s about appeasing the left, whose support they sought during the campaign. And Axelrod is more of an expert on that crowd that anybody else. It also says to me he was in all the meetings where they were debating this question – whether or not Obama had better go forward with some kind of investigation.” The official was referring to an article by Politico’s Mike Allen, in which Axelrod characterized Obama’s move as “a weighty decision.” Axelrod added: “He thought very long and hard about it, consulted widely. … He’s been thinking about this for four weeks, really.” Allen later reported that Axelrod made the comments during an interview he and others at Politico conducted for another article. Axelrod, Allen wrote, gave he and his colleagues a “preview of the decision on the memos.”[/rquoter]
So, you're quoting the Weekly Standard quoting Porter Goss? Please tell me what passages in those released memos weaken our national security standing... and why? (Hint: It's a trick question, but you won't get it.)
Funny you should mention putting politics above national security or even national principles since Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld ordered torture to get false confessions. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30372454/ More to come...
"I call on all governments to join with the United States and the community of law-abiding nations in prohibiting, investigating, and prosecuting all acts of torture..." -- Official proclamation by President Bush, June 26, 2003. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/04/quote-for-the-day-19.html