In looking at the tons of declassified documents from the CIA, two things were noticed.
First,
TRADITIONAL FORMS OF INTERROGATION WERE TRIED FIRST.
Part of the criteria put forth in determining who, when, how, and why Enhanced Interrogation Techniques would be used was the REQUIREMENT that traditional interrogation methods had to be tried first, and had to have failed. Only after that had been determined (according to the declassified documents, could the process for getting authorization to use EIJ’s be pursued. If you’re lazy, just look at the table of contents and you’ll see that this was not a case of, “Woo hoo! We got so-and-so! Get a bucket!”
http://tinyurl.com/dal9ty
or
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/04/24/17/IG_s_2004_report__as_released_to_ACLU.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf
Second,
IT WORKED; ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE WAS GAINED
from using EIJs.
7/15/04
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_090507_eitbriefings.html
(Gosh, looks like they got something from the interrogations/”torture” after all. )
Supposedly…
September 11, 2002: Ramzi bin al-Shibh captured, purportedly as a result of intelligence gained through “torturing” Abu Zubaydah.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?hpid=topnews
Now, was it worth it? We don’t know because the Obama Admin (despite claiming that it wasn’t) refuses to release the documents from this date and others (as requested by VP Cheney, the Washington Post, and the New York Times) which allegedly show that yes…attacks were thwarted by the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.
What are Obama and the Democrats hiding?
Olby was arguing that tonight too-based on some Vanity Fair gig. I have yet to read the Vanity Fair piece, but it’s more likely that (given the CIA’s inability/refusal to form a conclusion re regime ties in 2002 because they had no humint for 4yrs in Iraq) the admin wanted to know IF there was a tie rather than to just make one up. If they wanted to make one up…they’d have just said they had an NSA intercept, created some fuzzy audio tape, and played that as proof. Look at the number of intel reports re regime ties from the CIA in 2002. You’ll be surprised what they said:
‘we don’t know’
‘could be’
‘might not be’
‘we have no information ’cause we haven’t looked at the possibility since the 1998 UBL indictment said there was a tie (sec4)’
@MataHarley: I’m stating this because you wanted a potential explanation for why Sufan would be taken off even though his interrogation worked. Obviously neither of us know what happened and all of the underlying motivation – you claim that the only way Sufan was taken off was because he was ineffective, I claim that he was taken off because he wasn’t getting the information the White House wanted to get.
When it comes down to it, you’re assuming that that the people at the top were acting out of complete benevolence; my point is that there are now several high-level first hand accounts refuting this. Again, would you ever give this much benefit of the doubt to Obama in a similar situation?
No, no and no, triz. Soufan was taken off because he was not obtaining whatever specific and in depth info the CIA needed. He was “effective” to a point. But as I have repeated here many times here… like crumbs off a breadstick, or day old appetizers. Zubaydah was talking… just not giving up the main course, which is what the CIA was looking for.
Obama is a receiver of intel, not an interrogator. And I give Obama considerable latitude on keeping info classified for our national security, just as I did Bush. I applaud his decision to withhold the photos, however it does not negate the damage he did by voluntarily releasing the memos without holding it up and away from the ACLU and public… as it should have been… thru litigation. He caved for poll points. He then realized the error of his ways. Good… just wish he’d done it before screwing it up the first time.
@MataHarley: Soufan could not say what that information was because it remains classified. Unless you’re privy to something the public is not, your claims are based on assumptions and half-classified reports that are suspect. While the executive is meant to be the receiver of intel, it now looks like Cheney was intricately involved in deciding the kinds of interrogations should be carried out. I have and still agree with you that these documents should be classified; but if high level FBI and CIA officials were accusing Obama/Biden of impeding an interrogation to bolster their own political agenda, would you give him the same deference you are now giving Bush/Cheney? Would you not, at least, be in support of an investigation?
Let me get this straight, twiz. You’re telling me that my claims that the primary objective for interrogation is to get intel on future attacks is “assumption”, yet you say to me:
Spare me the assumptions lecture and apply your own “privvy to something the public is not” to yourself. Or perhaps, as Scott pointed out, you were inspired by Keith O’s diatribe this eve.
The same applies… the “it now looks like” is an assumption, but one with a twist. Cheney as VP is #2 guy to the CIC. They have a direct and legit say in what is being done for interrogation policy. However, that still makes the executive branch a RECEIVER of intel once that interrogation is complete. Methods and results are two different aspects.
But it’s good to find some… any… common ground that we both believe documents and details on our operatives methods and results should remain classified. Ultimately, my bottom line still remains the populous is not a “need to know” security cleared class.
Which then leads me to your other question. You do seem to be adamant to try and get some ODS out of me. No… I do not support airing our internal intel/executive branch battles of who knew what, when, what happened. I am not partisan about our military, our national security, or classified intel.
@MataHarley: Yes, this is what I’ve been trying to say – both my claims about the improper use of interrogation and yours about proper use are based on assumptions we’ve made from partially classified memos and documents written by self-interested parties. Obviously we can’t just keep selectively releasing this stuff into the open, so let’s have a special investigation to put these claims to rest.
Obviously you and I have fundamentally different views on what warrants an investigation rather than trusting it to work itself out through protocol. I’ll admit that I didn’t expect you to be consistent on this, but for that you have a lot of my respect.
IRONY ALERT
Obama Admin IS blocking efforts to find truth by blocking Cheney request to show (even redacted) docs that would show interrogations worked & saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
This line about assuming benevolence is wrong-not because of a political bias, but because at the time this was happening there is a historical, extremely well-documented case of lack of intel-a lack of which specifically led to the 911 attacks, was causing concern about other attacks, and later would lead to intel failures re Iraq. Recall that the Joint House/Sen intel committee inquiry into the 911 attacks revealed that between 1998 and 911, no more than 4 to 40 people in the entire intel community were tracking the entire AQ network, and from 1998-2003….there were ZERO human intel assets inside Iraq. That’s a bi-partisan investigation that says this, and I can point to three others that say it as well. There was almost no intel, and as such freaking out over concerns of a lack of intel isn’t pushing for a story (while the Olby’s of the world like to assume), but a very realistic matter. Like I said, if they wanted a false story…they could have just made one up.
To Mata:
Something to add to dabate:
I know waterboarding is torture – because I did it myself
By MALCOLM NANCE
Wednesday, October 31st 2007, 10:52 PM
Last week, attorney general nominee Judge Michael Mukasey dodged the question of whether waterboarding terror suspects is necessarily torture. Americans can disagree as to whether or not this should disqualify him for the top job in the Justice Department. But they should be under no illusions about what waterboarding is.
As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.
I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.
Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique – without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.
In the media, waterboarding is called “simulated drowning,” but that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia – meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.
The lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threatened with its use again and again. Call it “Chinese water torture,” “the barrel,” or “the waterfall.” It is all the same.
One has to overcome basic human decency to endure causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you questioning the meaning of what it is to be an American.
Is there a place for the waterboard? Yes. It must go back to the realm of training our operatives, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines – to prepare for its uncontrolled use by our future enemies. Brutal interrogation, flash murder and extreme humiliation of Americans may now be guaranteed because we have mindlessly, but happily, broken the seal on the Pandora’s box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name ofprotecting America.
Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured.
Our own missteps have already created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own virtual school for terrorists.
I agree with Sen. John McCain. Waterboarding should never be used as an interrogation tool. It is beneath our values.
Nance is a counterterrorism consultant for the government’s special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies. A longer version of this essay appeared on http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog.
@ trizzlor
Wait. You’re saying that by going to SERE school I was consenting to torture? I knew I should have read that contract.
Just like everyone else that served, I knew what I was getting into when I joined. And when I decided to become a member of the flight crew, I knew I would have to go to SERE. Just like I knew when I joined ParaRescue I knew I’d have to run until I puked up a lung. But if you think SERE is like a classroom where they show you interrogation techniques and then ask for volunteers, you’re sadly mistaken.
Once you join the military, that’s the end of your volunteering. Once the uniform is on, your butt belongs to Uncle Sugar. I read that contract and they don’t put that in the fine print. It’s right up front where you can read it. If I had to do it all over again, I’d do it all over again.
One more thing and I really have to get back to work. Trizzlor, you should really listen to Old Trooper. I’m sure you think you’re much more enlightened than he is, but just give it a shot. He said it best when he said, “torture is relative.” Get off your high horse for a minute and think about that. We’ll wait……
When I was younger and screwed up, my dad would whack me on the but with a belt. I thought that was the worse thing in the world. When I got older, he started giving me lectures. I was wrong about the belt. I actually asked him to whack me and get it over with so I could go back to what I was doing. Torture is relative.
Oh and I didn’t consent to a spanking, so, does that meet your definition of torture?
@Ron:
Malcolm Nance? His story has been in question and, I believe, refuted, found not credible by men who trained, took the training and served in the SEALs:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015994.php
FWIW:
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015900.php#comment-39605
@Aqua:
Tis’ an honor to have you here with us and thank you for your service. I’m not surprised that you did not go into an indepth explanation about your training to refute Ron’s post. True patriot and man of honor.
@ Ron
OK I lied, last one. Ron, I don’t know Mr. Nance, never heard of him. I’m afraid he is misrepresenting the techniques of Waterboarding though. No water enters the lungs, so that’s clearly BS. The whole idea is to simulate drowning, not actually drown the person. Your gag reflex kicks in immediately and most people pass out rather quickly. They say KSM went over two minutes. You think he did that with water in his lungs? You ever get water in your lungs. Drink something and have it go down the wrong way? Yeah….over two minutes with water in his lungs. I smell something a bit fishy with Mr. Nance.
To all:
I just threw it up to liven up the discussion. I don’t know Mr. Nance personally nor can I verify his claims.
I just wanted to get some reactions.
Ron
To Missy:
I read your links and I must say that it does not entirely refute Mr. Nance’s claims but merely questions some of his accusations. And then there is the one comment by a David Wiles. Who is he and what proof does he have to back up his claim?
As far as individuals who have been waterboarded, there are some on record who have said they think it’s torture and some who have not.
Ron
Missy:
Ooops.
David Wiles does say who he is in the comment. I was speed reading and missed it.
Thanks for the link
Ron
Hi Missy, thanks for the kind words. I don’t think you will find many folks that have gone through any specialized training in the military that will publically disclose what actually takes place. We still have brothers and sisters serving that deserve our silence for their protection. Doesn’t mean we wouldn’t necessarily tell you some of what happened over a cold beer, as long as we didn’t suspect you of being a commie.
My brother is a retired Senior Chief. The stuff he had to do for initiation into the “Chief’s Club” makes Gitmo look like a holiday in Maui.
Pingback: Flopping Aces » Blog Archive » Broadcasting Our Playbook to the Enemy
Pingback: McCain’s WaPo Op-Ed on the Tortured Debate Over EITs | Flopping Aces