Damned the facts.
Damned the intel.
Damned the statements from the people that were “actually”involved in all of this.

I also find it incredible that you have the balls to say this about me when you were just completely wrong in saying that Abu Zubaydah provided info on KSM and Padilla because of waterboarding.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1240745939-xZHQ6ogYXObng7Hx36D6/Q

You’re the one who is just flat wrong on the facts.

Really? Planes were off the table after 9/11? That would come as a surprise to every passenger in the past three years who had their liquids confiscated in an airport security line. Those security measures were instituted because in 2006 we foiled an al-Qaeda plot to hijack airplanes leaving London’s Heathrow airport and blow them up over the Atlantic (a plot our intelligence community says was just weeks from execution). Apparently al-Qaeda didn’t get Noah’s memo explaining that hijacking airplanes for terrorist attacks is “no longer viable al Qaeda strategy.”

Well, two things. I never said aircraft were not susceptible to attacks. I said plots that involved hijacking planes and flying them into buildings were, in my opinion, not a priority for al qaeda after what happened with flight 93. This is important because the specific plans of the Library Tower plot were to hijack the plane and fly it into the Tower.

Now, this Heathrow plot. I’ve read a couple stories about it. I didn’t see one mention of the men trying to hijack the plane as part of the plot. As I understand it, they were going to bring explosives onto the plane and blow them (and the plane) up. No one accuses of them of trying to hijack the plane. And, with that sort of plot, there’s no need to hijack the plane. You just detonate the explosives and the rest is history.

To back up that point, here’s page recounting the arrest and trial of the plotters. And here’s a summary of their plot:

* The group purchased a flat in north-east London in July 2006 for £138,000 ($275,558 US dollars at today’s exchange rate.) in cash and transformed it into an alleged “bomb factory.”
* Searches of the property produced many components with the ability to create liquid improvised explosive devices that could be assembled and detonated on an aircraft.
* The woods near one suspect’s home contained a suitcase filled with syringes and chemicals.
* The main ingredient of the explosives mixture was hydrogen peroxide mixed with other organic materials.
* The terrorists would inject the liquid explosive into sealed 500 milliliter plastic bottles of soft drinks “Oasis” and “Lucozade” prior to boarding the plane.
* Tang, a sugary drink, would be mixed with the hydrogen peroxide solution for a more powerful explosion.
* The liquid explosives would be detonated using a substance called HMTD (hexamethylene triperoxide diamine) concealed in AA 1.5-volt batteries.
* Pages from one of the suspect’s (Mr. Ali) handwritten diary make apparent references to how the bomb materials would have been taken onto the aircraft.
* The bombers would have used a syringe to insert the explosive material into the base of the bottles, without breaking the seal on the cap.
* The detonator would have been ignited using a metal wire, a small bulb or the flash from a disposable camera.
* Pornographic magazines were to be placed in carry-on luggage to distract security personnel and indicate that the men were not religious zealots.
* Each man intended to carry two bottled explosives through security in case one of them was taken away.
* The allegedly targeted flights included aircraft bound for Montreal, Toronto, San Francisco, Chicago, New York, and Washington, DC.

http://www.tsa.gov/press/happenings/terror_plot_hearing.shtm

Through the use of enhanced interrogation,we derived intel that stopped attacks.period.

Both the CIA and FBI director have said that no attacks were prevented because of the use of waterboarding. That’s a fact.

Again, I don’t buy that CSN news story about the “Central Intelligence Agency” claiming waterboarding KSM helped stop the Library Tower plot because it’s a weak attribute and President Bush claims the plot was foiled nearly a year prior to KSM spilling the beans about. Plus, my other reasonings.

Again, that’s the only specific evidence anyone has trotted out to prove waterboarding prevented an attack. As I said, if that’s the best defenders have, it’s pretty weak tea.

Now, I have shown an internal CIA memo from 2004 that said there’s no conclusive evidence that waterboarding prevented an attack. That clashes with your CSN story as well.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Selective release. Redacted paragraphs. Waffled comments. SNAFU for the current crew.

When Chaney gets access to the documents he’s filed FOA on, we’ll see what happens.

(via hotair)

The West Coast Plot: An “Inconvenient Truth”
[Marc Thiessen]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YTNmZTg5OWUyOTlkMGUxOTk3OGMxY2I4ZDQ4YWQ=

Here are some relevant quotes:

Really? Planes were off the table after 9/11? That would come as a surprise to every passenger in the past three years who had their liquids confiscated in an airport security line. Those security measures were instituted because in 2006 we foiled an al-Qaeda plot to hijack airplanes leaving London’s Heathrow airport and blow them up over the Atlantic (a plot our intelligence community says was just weeks from execution). Apparently al-Qaeda didn’t get Noah’s memo explaining that hijacking airplanes for terrorist attacks is “no longer viable al Qaeda strategy.”

Dam#,now where have I heard this before.
Ohhh yea,pretty much what I have been posting on this thread
that Tom’s “opinion” is supposed to refute.

What these two fail to appreciate is that the story of how enhanced interrogation broke up the West Coast plot is not my story — it is the official position of the intelligence community.

In my Washington Post piece, I was citing the very documents which President Obama released, which quote the CIA saying that 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.” The memo released by Obama goes on the explain 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.’ ”

Again, those are not my words. That is the position of our intelligence community.

And not just in the released memos. In his September 2006 speech revealing the existence of the CIA program, President Bush described specifically how the interrogation of KSM led to the capture of the key operatives in this attack.

This was the most carefully vetted speech in presidential history — reviewed by all the key players from the individuals who ran the program all the way up to the director of national intelligence, who personally attested to the accuracy of the speech in a memo to the president. And just last week on Fox News, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said he went back and checked with the agency as to the accuracy of that speech and reported: “We stand by our story.”

But none of this matters to Tom,because he and his liberal friends “opinion” is that this can’t be.
Damned the facts.
Damned the intel.
Damned the statements from the people that were “actually”involved in all of this.

Tom doesn’t think it is so,so it must not be so.
I guess next Tom is going to heal the world with just the raise of his hand like Obama.

Reality does not seem to be a strong point for Tom and his liberal friends so they might as well believe this too.

Blair also concludes that he cannot say if the intell gained through waterboarding could not have been gained through traditional interrogation techniques.

Tom_Shipley on April 26, 2009 at 7:59 AM

You keep stating this as somehow proof that the enhanced interrogation did not work.
In your mind maybe so.
In the real world,the fact that something elese might have worked does not refute the fact that after these policies were enacted,they achieved intel that stopped attacks.

Again,
Through the use of enhanced interrogation,we derived intel that stopped attacks.period.
You have not been able tp refute or shot down this simple fact in any way.

Your analogy is like :the man weighed 100 lbs.
After we feed him steak and potatoes everyday for 3 months,he weighed 150 lbs.

The fact that he “may” have gained the weight eating beans and rice does not change the fact that eating the steak and potatoes helped him gain weight.

Tom,dealing with you is really like talking to some 6 yr. old kid that just jumps up in the middle of the room yelling and screaming because he can’t get his way.

Facts don’t matter to you,
Results don’t matter to you,
You can’t refute the facts that don’t agree with your agenda,
So you just repeat the same thing over and over no matter how stupid it is.

You really need to grow up if you won’t to quit making such a fool out of yourself.

But let’s see what the CIA actually believed:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
Tom_Shipley on April 26, 2009 at 7:59 AM

Tom,the CIA as of 2009,stands firmly behind the use of enhanced interrogation:
CIA: We stand behind our actions — and the results
posted at 2:45 pm on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/21/cia-we-stand-behind-our-actions-and-the-results/

This is the third time I have linked this because you seem to think if you keep saying the samething,like the 2004 quote you keep citing,that somehow this inconvenient fact will go away for you.

The “vague” comments are direct statements from some of the nations leading intel agencies and are backed up by actual results,all of which I have listed.

The fact that you cannot accept or prove that the LA plot is not credible is simply your problem,not the problem of our intel agencies that confirm it and HAVE HAD NO ONE ABLE TO REFUTE IT.

Two cells were broken up (1 cosisted of 4 people and the other of 17)that were working on carrying this plot out.
The intel provided through enhanced interrogation stopped this plot.
period.end of story.No intel source including the Obama administration has come forth and stated “This information is incorrect”.
The only people stating this are liberal activists like yourself who ignore any and all facts and information that does not fit your talking points and agenda,then continue to repeat the same things over and over and over trying to convince yourself and anyone dumb enough to listen to you that they are true.
This works in liberal echo chambers like huffington post and Kos,but not in the real world.

But I am going to simplify it for you one more time because
reality and comprehension are such a problem for you:

Terrorist caught + interrogation methods used + Intel derived from terrorist = terrorist attacks stopped

Tom,all of your posting and conspiracy theories have not debunked these simple chain of facts.

Get it.
What do you think they made us safer from Tom.
delivering Ice Cream,music lessons,planning field trips.
No,they made us safer from BEING ATTACKED.

First of all, this is what I asked for:

First of all, you haven’t shown one item in which Hayden, Tenet or Goss have said that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation has disrupted any plots.

You have yet to provide this. You just cite vague quotes like “enhanced interrogation has made us safer…” You assume that means IE led to intel that disrupted actionable plots, but you don’t cite any specifics from these men.

the only “specifics” you cite is the CNS story that quotes the “Central Intelligence Agency” as saying IE led to the disruption of the Library Towers plot in 2003, when Bush has said that plot was disrupted in 2002. Again, as I said, if that’s the best proponents of IE can come up with in defense of its usefulness, then that’s pretty weak tea.

As for Tenet’s claim, he seems to be talking about the Tower Plot as well:

Then-CIA director George Tenet, in his 2007 memoir, says that tough interrogation of al-Qaeda members – and documents found on them, he is careful to add - thwarted more than 20 plots “against U.S. infrastructure targets, including communications nodes, nuclear power plants, dams, bridges, and tunnels.” A “future airborne attack on America’s West Coast” was likely foiled only because the CIA didn’t have “to treat KSM like a white collar criminal.”

I put the part about documents in bold because it seems to back up Blair’s assessment that, though valuable information was gained through IE, he’s not sure it wouldn’t have been gained through traditional interrogation methods.

Now, back the the Tower Plot. The fact the Sheikh Mohommad spilled the beans about it AFTER it had been foiled in 2002, seems to back up the assertion that waterboarding and other IE methods yield unreliable intel:

But the JPRA’s two-page attachment, titled “Operational Issues Pertaining to the Use of Physical/Psychological Coercion in Interrogation,” questioned the effectiveness of employing extreme duress to gain intelligence.

“The requirement to obtain information from an uncooperative source as quickly as possible — in time to prevent, for example, an impending terrorist attack that could result in loss of life — has been forwarded as a compelling argument for the use of torture,” the document said. “In essence, physical and/or psychological duress are viewed as an alternative to the more time-consuming conventional interrogation process. The error inherent in this line of thinking is the assumption that, through torture, the interrogator can extract reliable and accurate information. History and a consideration of human behavior would appear to refute this assumption.”

Doesn’t seem like KSM knew they wanted something big out of him, so he gave him the details of this plot, which he already knew was dead in the water? Shaky intell indeed.

Now, on to Abu Zubaydah. You imply that waterboarding or IE led to the discovery that Shaikh Mohommad was “muktar” and to the arrest of Padilla. But according to the person who actually interrogated him, that is not the case:

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1240745939-xZHQ6ogYXObng7Hx36D6/Q

Now onto this quote:

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.’ .

Now, we all know how credible Gonzo and company are (/sarc). Gonazalez in this memo claims the CIA believes intelligence gained from waterboarding, etc… is key to why no attack has occurred since 9/11.

But let’s see what the CIA actually believed:

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.html

Mind you, this is after the “Tower Plot” was thwarted in 2002.

For all the talk of enhanced interrogation yielding “critical data” that “saved lives” the only specific plot people claim it disrupted was the Library Tower plot, which Bush and company said was disrupted in 2002 prior to KSM’s capture.

Blair also concludes that he cannot say if the intell gained through waterboarding could not have been gained through traditional interrogation techniques.

The War on Terror is similar to the barbarian assaults suffered by ancient civilizations, with attacks coming unpredictably, without diplomacy preceding them, or any laws of war to govern the conduct of the enemy. It is a simple fact of war that it continues until one side is unwilling or unable to fight, and the techniques available to break the barbarian’s will to fight are much more limited, and necessarily brutal. The barbarian has no cities to defend, no vulnerable infrastructure to protect, no unhappy electorates who will grow weary of battle and vote out the leadership. The only thing that breaks his will to fight is unrelenting, deadly force, reducing his numbers until the leadership is deposed or captured. The only way to deter the barbarian from attacking in the first place is to make him believe the costs outweigh the benefits, by demonstrating strength and resolve. This is as true of al-Qaeda and the Somali pirates as it was of the Barbary pirates, the Visigoths, and every other uncivilized enemy, all the way back to the days of the first walled cities and uniformed armies.

Incredible insight.
Thanks.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

But, since you asked, here are two people who have said IE have not led to the disruption of any plots:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

Here is what I posted:

If the Obama administration will back up their campaign rhetoric of transparency and full disclosure we will surely get many more examples of the effectiveness of these procedures.
Cheney has asked for 2 specific documents to be de-classified that will add to the already large amount of statements and testimony to the success of these programs.

You still have not produced one item that refutes or shoots down the statements and testimony of Hayden,Tenet,Goss and the other people and articles that testify to the success of
enhanced interrogation.

Total discloser is what we need here and the Obama administration is afraid to do that.
They released memos after redacting information that they knew would hurt their agenda (politicizing national security) and are stalling in releasing information that top intel people have stated shows that this program worked.

Full Transparency,release the memos and transcripts of intel meetings showing the democrats 100% support and approval of enhanced interrogation.

As for Mueller,he is certainly more credible than your opinion,but how does his opinion refute or debunk :

You still have not produced one item that refutes or shoots down the statements and testimony of Hayden,Tenet,Goss

As of 2009, The CIA stands behind the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation and the results:

CIA: We stand behind our actions — and the results
posted at 2:45 pm on April 21, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
http://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/21/cia-we-stand-behind-our-actions-and-the-results/

When Mueller comes out and states “Tenet said this”…
I know that is not true because of this……

Goss said this……….I know this is not true because of this……..

Hayden said this…………I know this is not true because of this………….

We are getting somewhere.
These statements merely show a disagreement in policy or a lack of knowledge concerning these policies.

The FBI and CIA have a history of conflict and disagreement .

This one stands out:

Levels Of Enhancement
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2009/04/levels-of-enhancement.html

Well. One hopes the actual interrogations were done in compliance with FBI guidelines, even if the treatment of the prisoner was “enhanced” a bit on an extra-curricular basis outside of the interrogation room. From the May 30 2005 memo (p. 94 of 124) I infer that the proponents of enhanced techniques scored this as a win for their techniques. And since per the DoJ IG report the FBI withdrew its agents in May and June because of the harsh CIA techniques, we are left wondering just what sort of “traditional” FBI interrogation Mr. Soufan normally conducts.

F.B.I. agents on the scene angrily protested the more aggressive approach, arguing that persuasion rather than coercion had succeeded. But leaders of the C.I.A. interrogation team were convinced that tougher tactics were warranted and said that the methods had been authorized by senior lawyers at the White House.

Pissing matches between agencies are pretty common.
This however does not in any way change the overwhelming consensus from many intel leaders that the policies that the Bush administration employed have shown to be very successful:

Empirically, however, it seems beyond dispute that something has made us safer since 2001. Over the course of the Bush administration, successful attacks on the United States and its interests overseas have dwindled to virtually nothing.

2004
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2005
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2006
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2007
There were no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.
2008
So far, there have been no successful attacks inside the United States or against American interests abroad.

The library plot was specific about hijacking the plane and crashing it into the tower. But after the two planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11, the opportunity to have passengers sit idly by during a hijacking was lost forever, as flight 93 quickly showed.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:56 PM

No Tom,you are the one that is dense.
Please cite the information you have that proves that in the process of carrying out the plot to blow up planes,that they had no intention of trying to take over the planes.
You have no way of knowing what or how they wanted to carry out there plan.

But to the larger point,what does the fact that your “opinion” is that they would not try this have any bearing or show any proof that they would not.

The fact that they did try other attacks involving using planes as weapons goes a whole lot further to debunking your factless and baseless opinion than it goes to help it.

You conspiracy theory about the time line was wrong and you want us to dismiss the whole plot because you don’t think it was plausible,after being shown that in fact,the jihadist did try to use planes as weapons.

This reasoning of yours is a joke right,I mean you must have lost a bet or something and are having to post impersonating Rosi Oddonell with this.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 8:51 PM

Then why did you edit out those words? You altered the quote. Why?

Are you paranoid or what.
I pasted and addressed part of your post.No conspiracy,no nefariousness,your quote is derived from the same thread for crying out loud. What was there to hide.

First of all, you haven’t shown one item in which Hayden, Tenet or Goss have said that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation has disrupted any plots.

Tom,I have shown over and over and over that our leaders in the intel business have stated that these techniques provided information that revealed the operations of al-qaeda and prevention of attacks.
What do you think the terrorist are trying to do?
Can you tell us what this information that our intel agencies gain is used for except to plan attacks.
Is al-qaeda in any other business that we don’t know about Tom.
Please enlighten us what this information that is obtained is for except plotting and carrying out attacks.
Since you seem to have a major reading and comprehension problem,I will post some more examples for you:

Techniques ‘made us safer’
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency under Mr. Bush, said on Fox News Sunday last weekend that “the use of these techniques against these terrorists made us safer. It really did work.”

Made us safer Tom.
Get it.
What do you think they made us safer from Tom.
delivering Ice Cream,music lessons,planning field trips.
No,they made us safer from BEING ATTACKED.

“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.

Blair,deeper understanding …..attacking this country.
Once again,what would this understanding we gained benefit except to prevent attacks.

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.”

6,000 intelligence reports….more than half of our intel against al-qaeda….all gained using enhanced interrogation
for what Tom,what would all of this information be obtained for except to thwart attacks.

Here is your specific incident:

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.

Justice Dept. states:
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.’ .

CAN YOU COMPREHEND :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

FAILED TO LAUNCH ATTACKS.
just read it real slow Tom,maybe out loud to yourself,and it will get through.
Here,one word at a time: FAILED….TO…..LAUNCH…..ATTACKS.

Here is President Bill Clinton endorses “torture” as a way of ….here it is again Tom.
say it real slow for you: STOPPING …..AN…..ATTACK.

Audio: Clinton endorses “torture” in special cases; Update: World opinion opposes “torture”
posted at 12:30 am on October 19, 2006 by Allahpundit
http://hotair.com/archives/2006/10/19/audio-clinton-endorses-torture-in-special-cases/

Three minutes. The best part is at the very end, where Billy Jeff chuckles at the notion that anyone would oppose torture in a true ticking bomb situation. Reality-based, our BJ is.

More from Tenet:

As for waterboarding, it is mostly a political sideshow. The CIA’s view seems to be that some version of waterboarding is effective in breaking especially tough cases quickly. Press reports say it has been used only against a few high-value al Qaeda operatives like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Zubaydah. As former CIA Director George Tenet points out in his book “At the Center of the Storm,” KSM and others never would have talked about “imminent threats against the American people” had they not been dealt with harshly. “I believe that none of these success would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal,” he writes.

More from the Washington Post

The Post and Abu Zubaydah
[Marc Thiessen]
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTEzMjc3YWU3ZmJiNzA3NThhNjdiMmY4MDkzNjRlMDY=

In fact, what Abu Zubaydah disclosed to the CIA during this period was that the fact that KSM was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks and that his code name was “Muktar” — something Zubaydah thought we already knew, but in fact we did not. Intelligence officials had been trying for months to figure out who “Muktar” was. This information provided by Zubaydah was a critical piece of the puzzle that allowed them to pursue and eventually capture KSM. This fact, in and of itself, discredits the premise of the Post story — to suggest that the capture of KSM was not information that “foiled plots” to attack America is absurd on the face of it.

The Post also acknowledges that Zubaydah’s “interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla” but dismisses Padilla as the man behind a fanciful “dirty bomb” plot and notes that Padilla was never charged in any such plot. In fact, Padilla was a hardened terrorist who had trained in al Qaeda camps in Afghanistan, and was a protégé of al Qaeda’s third in command, Mohammed Atef. And when he was captured, Padilla was being prepared for a much more sinister and realistic attack on America.

In June of 2001, Padilla met in Afghanistan with Atef, who asked him if he was willing to undertake a mission to blow up apartment buildings in the United States using natural gas. He agreed, and was sent to a training site near the Kandahar airport to prepare for the attack under close supervision of an al Qaeda explosives expert, who taught him about switches, circuits, and timers needed to carry it out. He was training in Afghanistan when Coalition forces launched Operation Enduring Freedom. Atef was killed by a Coalition airstrike, and Padilla joined the other al Qaeda operatives fleeing Afghanistan.

But no Tom,keep on moving the goalposts or playing word games while the facts and reality of the success brought by NSA wiretapping,bank tracking,and enhanced interrogation stares you right in the face.

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.

From the terrorist own mouth they state that when it gets to be to much,it is alright to talk.
This is where enhanced interrogation comes in Tom.
and it has worked.
The facts on the ground and the testimony of our intel people prove this.

I think this is a sociological issue working here. The reasoning whether to torture or not to torture should be driven by this question : if we torture enemy soldier A, will we want to be tortured by the exact same methods if we are in A’s shoes?

This can be better discussed in the context of the prisoner’s dilemma in game theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoners_Dilemma). Not trusting the enemy and torturing is an excellent strategy when there is a *finite* number of rounds. On the other hand, *evolutionarily* (where number of rounds is infinite), it is better to adopt a “tit-for-tat” policy where, we torture soldiers captured in enemy camp A, only when we know for a fact that A has tortured soldiers in our camp.

This is not to support or denounce torture, I just wanted to add some perspective to the argument.

peter_griffin on April 24, 2009 at 12:34 PM

I don’t think the nature of modern warfare, particularly with regard to terrorism and the coming age of nuclear/biological/chemical terrorism, can support the concept of a slow escalation of aggression. In earlier eras, this was seen as a moral structure for conducting warfare: responding to a minor incursion with a comparable level of force, and treating enemy soldiers the same way ours are treated.

The War on Terror is similar to the barbarian assaults suffered by ancient civilizations, with attacks coming unpredictably, without diplomacy preceding them, or any laws of war to govern the conduct of the enemy. It is a simple fact of war that it continues until one side is unwilling or unable to fight, and the techniques available to break the barbarian’s will to fight are much more limited, and necessarily brutal. The barbarian has no cities to defend, no vulnerable infrastructure to protect, no unhappy electorates who will grow weary of battle and vote out the leadership. The only thing that breaks his will to fight is unrelenting, deadly force, reducing his numbers until the leadership is deposed or captured. The only way to deter the barbarian from attacking in the first place is to make him believe the costs outweigh the benefits, by demonstrating strength and resolve. This is as true of al-Qaeda and the Somali pirates as it was of the Barbary pirates, the Visigoths, and every other uncivilized enemy, all the way back to the days of the first walled cities and uniformed armies.

I believe the political infighting and second-guessing over coercive interrogation techniques is dangerous because it weakens the resolve necessary to both combat and deter terrorists. I wrote earlier that every aspect of war is painful and unpleasant. Against a barbaric enemy, a mature society should express its heartfelt reluctance to employ *any* of the bloody tools of warfare… and its equally heartfelt determination to use *all* of them to safeguard its citizens. It makes no positive impression on the enemy to pick a few things we’re especially squeamish about and advertise that we become paralyzed with indecision when we’re forced to confront them. It’s not ethical, or efficient, to lead our soldiers and intelligence agents to believe they’ll be second-guessed and scapegoated by civilian back-biters after the danger is past. It will lead them to hesitate in dangerous situations, and it further distances civilian and military societies that have already become too far apart – too much of civilian America seems to regard its military as unstable, unruly mercenaries from an alien culture they don’t understand.

It’s one thing to appropriately investigate and punish insubordinate, criminal behavior, such as what occurred at Abu Ghraib. It’s another thing to stage politically motivated witch hunts after eight remarkable years of domestic safety, against the people who helped secure that safety… knowing, as I wrote earlier, that none of them were psychotic sadists dancing with glee at the thought of having some Arabs to torture. No one at Guantanamo Bay suffered any more than the Serbians who died under Bill Clinton’s bombing runs.

The correct approach is to make it clear to both our soldiers, and the enemy, that we do not seek violent conflict, but are prepared to respond with overwhelming force and resolve if conflict is forced upon us. We will extend every benefit of the doubt to our own people, working as they do under intense pressure against an enemy whose tactics are always shifting, and whose methods include the targeting of civilians and use of indiscriminate weapons as a matter of course. No enemy willing to murder civilians in vast numbers should ever think they’re one American presidential election away from obtaining concessions through terrorist violence, or having a friendly environment to build cells and plan operations, thanks to a U.S. intelligence community that is afraid to do what needs to be done. Proceeding down the road Obama is contemplating signals a provocative lack of resolve, and a dangerous lack of respect for those who fought the first battles in the War on Terror… and yes, liberals, it is extremely important that Obama show appropriate respect for George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, for the continuity and legitimacy of a democratic republic depends on each new administration displaying proper respect for its predecessors.

(1) Actually, I meant tit-for-tat in the enemy A v/s enemy B context, so in this case America v/s terrorists. I was in no way suggesting one-for-one in terms of personnel ratio.

I’m not clear on the scale you are addressing.

(2) I used the word “torture” not to propose that people have been tortured, but as an “even if” case.

Okay. But the issue is really over “interrogation techniques”, not torture. When we talk about torture, it should be understood to mean cutting off limbs, fingernails, etc. Slapping someone around is not torture, even though the thought of it seems to make many pretend to cringe in moral revulsion. Heh. And then they run off to watch the next Tarantino Bloodfest and proclaim what an artistic genius the moron is. Funny people, really. Just dangerous to have guarding us. Big time.

(3) My comment on the evolutionary success of tit-for-tat is not my own conclusion, it is a known and proven mathematical result.

The result you are probably referring to was also built on a different game.

I am all for a game-theoretic approach to the arab/persian/muslim enemies (along with their communist stooges now, too). I would like to see any analysis along those lines, but you have to be careful to model the situation properly. There are still too many variables that are essentially unknowable, such as the likelihood of an attack or the level of destruction and ancillary effects, but the analysis would still be very interesting.

As I said before, I am more given to using an evolutionary strategy against them, but that involves tactics that the naive people have declared illegal (while evolution allows everything, you know) … so all we can do with respect to the evolutionary pressures on the enemy is understand that we have assured them room to grow and develop, along with more and more detailed knowledge into our internal operations, so that they will have a decent chance to eventually evolve cells that will be able to do some city-sized destruction to us and our allies. That’s pretty clear.

(4) You are correct that the prisoners’ dilemma is not exactly applicable here. My point was: sociologically, most approaches to *not* torture are based on trust : if I don’t torture you, then you won’t torture me : and prisoners’ dilemma games solely on that trust.

That’s true. But that game was all about individual trust and individual suffering. It was about individual prisoners each saving himself, with no thought about his country or task. You are correct in that it was ana assessment of trust, but that was only the means to achieve a likely minimum in individual pain.

Personally, I am very much torn on this topic. I understand the need for this in very extreme cases, but also understand the slippery slope argument. I probably agree with Doctor Zero at the gut level on this one – I wish I never had to do it or see it, but I am glad somebody is making that decision for me.

peter_griffin on April 25, 2009 at 9:19 PM

I know what you mean. I’m not torn, myself, but I understand where you’re coming from.

Hey, if they showed normal surgical operations live on TV they’d have people puking in their living rooms. Empathy is a strong emotion, but it cannot be taken outside of its range of application. Much of the problem with liberals is that they cannot control their empathetic responses and let them run their policies.

progressoverpeace on April 25, 2009 at 1:39 PM

Thanks for taking your time to respond. As I said, normally most people on blogs either ignore such comments or try to respond without properly realizing the background.

(1) Actually, I meant tit-for-tat in the enemy A v/s enemy B context, so in this case America v/s terrorists. I was in no way suggesting one-for-one in terms of personnel ratio.

(2) I used the word “torture” not to propose that people have been tortured, but as an “even if” case.

(3) My comment on the evolutionary success of tit-for-tat is not my own conclusion, it is a known and proven mathematical result.

(4) You are correct that the prisoners’ dilemma is not exactly applicable here. My point was: sociologically, most approaches to *not* torture are based on trust : if I don’t torture you, then you won’t torture me : and prisoners’ dilemma games solely on that trust.

Personally, I am very much torn on this topic. I understand the need for this in very extreme cases, but also understand the slippery slope argument. I probably agree with Doctor Zero at the gut level on this one – I wish I never had to do it or see it, but I am glad somebody is making that decision for me.

Fixed.

No, jailing someone is torture. But putting them under extreme psychological duress, through sleep depravation of fear of dying (like waterboarding) is.

And pp, I hope you’re being willfully dense, or else I’d feel a bit of a fool for engaging is a debate for so long with such and idiot.

No, because as I said, torture is the infliction of pain or mental duress in an attempt to gain information or punish.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 7:01 PM

Okay. So, now jailing someone for committing a crime is torture, as the mental duress they are placed under by having their life so severely restricted in order to punish them is, according to you, torture. I guess we don’t even have to talk about anyone being locked in solitary confinement as a punishment, as that is also clearly torture, to you. We’d better get started on those charges against everyone involved in our penal system, including the judges who knowingly sentence people to, what falls under your definition of, torture. Great. You have brought down our entire penal system, as it is nothing but torture, by your definition.

Amazing, tom.

We can also go after Al Gore for his fear-mongering among children, intentionally placing them under extreme mental duress (as is proven by the various polls and info showing the increase of anxiety disorders in children subjected to the global warming scams) to punish their parents for not buying his global warming idiocy. Let’s arrest all of them, too.

By the time we’re finished applying your definition of torture, we should have somethign like 90% of society behind bars – except that being jailed is torture, so …

This is what liberal idiocy always leads to – chaos. Enjoy it.

Then you shift the goal posts by stating that terrorist would not be likely to try another attack by taking over a plane:

Are you dense. I explained this in an earlier post. learn to read.

I didn’t say AQ would not likely try another attack by taking over a plane. I said they were not likely to invest in a plot that would hijack a plane with the intent of flying it into a building — which is what the library tower plot was. It was actually part of the original 9/11 plan.

The plot you cite was not a plot to hijack planes and crash them into buildings, but to blow them up in midair.

The library plot was specific about hijacking the plane and crashing it into the tower. But after the two planes crashed into the twin towers on 9/11, the opportunity to have passengers sit idly by during a hijacking was lost forever, as flight 93 quickly showed.

http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=4

I don’t need to edit out the fact that these procedures produced results,Goss,Hayden,Tenet and other top intel people state emphatically that these procedures were successful.

Then why did you edit out those words? You altered the quote. Why?

First of all, you haven’t shown one item in which Hayden, Tenet or Goss have said that waterboarding or enhanced interrogation has disrupted any plots.

But, since you asked, here are two people who have said IE have not led to the disruption of any plots:

I ask Mueller: So far as he is aware, have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls “enhanced techniques”?

“I’m really reluctant to answer that,” Mueller says. He pauses, looks at an aide, and then says quietly, declining to elaborate: “I don’t believe that has been the case.”

And

The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any “specific imminent attacks,” according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.

Tom_Shipley on April 25, 2009 at 9:39 AM

Your word games and shifting the goalposts in this discussion is pathetic.

Obama’s own intelligence selection plainly states (which was conveniently omitted from the public release) that :

confirming that the interrogations produced “high-value information” that provided a “deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization attacking this country”

water boarding was part of the “enhanced interrogation” and has already been revealed to have been used on only 3 people.Other methods have already been determined by liberals to be “torture” even up to putting caterpillars in the cells with the jihadist.
These methods “combined” have produced intel that helped stop attacks.Gaining a deeper “understanding of al-qaeda” applies directly to this point.
We are not trying to stop them form baking cookies or summer camp,we are trying to stop them from killing thousands of people.

Tom originally posted that the statement from ED and our intel sources that a plot to stop an attack in La could not have happened because of the time line:

Second of all, the Bush administration claims that plot was thwarted mid-2002 according to the Bush administration — months before Sheik Mohommad was captured. Sorry, but I’m not buying the sketchy CSN story.

Tom_Shipley on April 24, 2009 at 12:14 PM

You were plainly shown that you did not know what you were posting about:

Federal counter-terrorism officials on Friday disclosed for the first time that during his interrogations, Mohammed said he hadn’t completely abandoned the prospect of a second wave of attacks, but had turned the idea over to a trusted aide named Hambali, the chief of operations for an Al Qaeda affiliate group in South Asia, Jemaah Islamiyah.

Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.

He continued to try and carry out the attack by forming another cell,networking the attack like has been done hundreds of times.This is pretty easy to understand for people that actually are familiar with how the jihadist work instead of spending all of their time on the huffington post.

The LA times article that was critical of the Bush administration plainly shows that through waterboarding and other enhanced techniques,were able to stop this plot before it was carried out.

Then you shift the goal posts by stating that terrorist would not be likely to try another attack by taking over a plane:

And, as I said in another thread, any plot to hijack a passenger plane and crash it into a building after 9/11 should be treated with a healthy dose of skepticism. On 9/11, the hijackers relied on the fact that American passengers did not think they were suicidal and crash the planes. But, as flight 93 showed, that thinking changed rather quickly after the two planes hit the twin towers.

You were wrong here also:
British,Paksitan,and the US were involved in breaking up a major plot that involved trying to blow up airplanes that had taken off from Europe over major cities in the US well after 9/11.
‘Mass murder terror plot’ uncovered
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/10/terrorism.politics

· Claims 10 planes were targeted
· 24 held following raids
· Chaos at British airports

A plot to kill thousands of people by detonating explosions on up to 10 transatlantic flights from UK airports was disrupted today.

The home secretary, John Reid, today said such an attack could have caused civilian casualties on an “unprecedented scale”.

It is believed the intention was to set off near simultaneous blasts on flights, probably bound for the US, using explosives smuggled into passenger cabins inside hand luggage.

You are left with playing word games like “I said Hijack,not blow up” as if you have some inside knowledge of how they were going to carry out this attack.
You don’t know that they were not going to attempt to get control of the flight or any other specifics.
The facts are that your premise of the jihadist probably not attempting another attack similar to 9/11 is dust.
This was a plan to use planes to inflict as much damage as possible.

Then you call me out for supposedly selective quoting:

And actually, I noticed you engaged in a little selective editing. You say:

What part of “deeper understanding of the al-aqeda organization ATTACKING this COUNTRY” don’t you understand Tom.

You take the words “that was” out. Again, I stand by my assessment of the quote (which I don’t feel the need to have to alter to fit my point). He’s saying that they gained a deeper understanding of organization that was attacking us (or plotting to attack us, I read that as).

This is hilarious since part of the whole scandal regarding the release of these memos is that the Obama administration
“EDITED OUT ” Blair’s assessment that enhanced interrogation provided valuable intel against the jihadist to twart attacks.
I don’t need to edit out the fact that these procedures produced results,Goss,Hayden,Tenet and other top intel people state emphatically that these procedures were successful.

These posts contain their statements regarding this fact:

Here is one of many coming from the head of the CIA

The former head of the CIA told FOX News last year that five years after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks, 60 percent of the knowledge of the U.S. intelligence community about Al Qaeda came from enhanced interrogation techniques.

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 1:49 PM

Baxter Greene on April 24, 2009 at 12:40 PM

add the Washington post,NYtimes and on air interviews,all of them having our top intel people stating that these policies worked.

Then you go back to word games:

Where do you quote ANYONE, aside from the CSN story quoting “The Central Intelligence Agency” (did they interview the entire agency at once?) saying waterboarding led to the foiling of any plot. That’s not a feeling or opinion of mine. It’s a fact.

Tom,I know being in that huffington post bubble makes it hard for reality to get through but,

Waterboarding was part of the whole “enhanced interrogation” methods that were used.

The foiled plot in La was a specific incident noted and has not been shown to be false. The Obama administration nor has any intel body come forward and stated:
The LA plot was a hoax.

You and your debunked conspiracy theory is the only statements saying the LA story is without merit.

Your opinions and feelings do not trump the prestige,experience,and positions of our top intel people.

What proof do you provide that disputes or shoots down the statements and testimony of some of the leading intel people in the country that have worked for democrats and Republicans:

Your opinion and a quote from an anonymous source:
“

To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines

This is simply pathetic.

If the Obama administration will back up their campaign rhetoric of transparency and full disclosure we will surely get many more examples of the effectiveness of these procedures.
Cheney has asked for 2 specific documents to be de-classified that will add to the already large amount of statements and testimony to the success of these programs.

You still have not produced one item that refutes or shoots down the statements and testimony of Hayden,Tenet,Goss and the other people and articles that testify to the success of
enhanced interrogation.

Put up or shut up Tom.