Cheney Calls for Release of Memos Showing Results of Interrogation Efforts

[coyotes_geek]

Out of solicitude for torturers and torture apologists, evidence should be declassified so they can cherry pick it for support. Bull .

No less "bull " than our government cherry picking what pieces of evidence should be declassified out of the solicitude for those who are only interested in seeing others arrive at the same conclusion they did.

Absolutely not. But when I see posters jumping to conclusions without any evidence, I'll point it out. Don't give me any of that evidence of absence is not absence of evidence crap. Back up your take.

You're really asking me to justify a desire for government to be transparent? Really? I ask again, what's the harm in releasing the info? What's the harm in letting people decide for themselves whether or not those actions were justified? You say you're not afraid of people reaching a different opinion than you did. Fair enough. So why the opposition?

The evidence may not back Cheney up.

You're right. It might not. Then again it might. We'll never know if the evidence never gets released, will we?

The threadbare inference that Obama has hidden evidence that will back Cheney up, is mischievous, indecorous and totally unsupported IMO.

Is it a threadbare inference that if the CIA is going to keep tabs on how many times they waterboarded someone that they took notes on what he said? Is it a threadbare inference that some might find that information useful in formulating an opinion, irregardless of whether or not said information would change yours?

[ElNono]

You know, coyotes_geek, you're certainly en led to your opinion. But if after centuries of tortures, disappearing people, politically motivated murders, etc you still think any of those things can be justified, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too. There are things that are universally wrong. Torture is one of those things. And we should be really pissed off a guy that had a direct hand in all that is not being prosecuted for crimes against humanity right now.

[Winehole23]

No less "bull " than our government cherry picking what pieces of evidence should be declassified out of the solicitude for those who are only interested in seeing others arrive at the same conclusion they did.

I agree, but deck stacking is one of the perks of power.

You're really asking me to justify a desire for government to be transparent? Really? I ask again, what's the harm in releasing the info?

Who knows? You're not concerned the world may regard it as admission of legal responsibility for war crimes? This seems like a reasonable concern to me.

What's the harm in letting people decide for themselves whether or not those actions were justified? You say you're not afraid of people reaching a different opinion than you did. Fair enough. So why the opposition?

I said bring it on. It's time to get it out in the open IMO. I also don't think we're ready for what's disclosure requires us to witness, but that's for another thread.

You're right. It might not. Then again it might. We'll never know if the evidence never gets released, will we?

Nope.

Regarding executive secrecy there's plenty of continuity b/w Obama and Bush. I expect that to continue.

Is it a threadbare inference that if the CIA is going to keep tabs on how many times they waterboarded someone that they took notes on what he said?

I did not say so. To whom is this directed?

Is it a threadbare inference that some might find that information useful in formulating an opinion...?

So obviously it would be absurd to protest, no. But so what? Why should peace of mind for torturers and torture apologists -- and those still sitting on the fence -- necessarily rate more highly than national security rationales for secrecy?

The argument is worth having. You can't put an absolute premium on either security or transparency. A balance always has to be struck.

[PixelPusher]

You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too.

Dark Ages? Such hyperbolic melodrama is sooo uncalled for. We aren't using any of those ancient, barbaric techniques. We're just taking a bunny hop back to Nazi Germany - much more civilized.



We have doctors on standby too!

[coyotes_geek]

You know, coyotes_geek, you're certainly en led to your opinion. But if after centuries of tortures, disappearing people, politically motivated murders, etc you still think any of those things can be justified, you really have no idea what you're talking about. You're basically telling me it's OK to go back to Nazi Germany and the Dark Ages because, well, maybe the ends did justify the means back then too. There are things that are universally wrong. Torture is one of those things. And we should be really pissed off a guy that had a direct hand in all that is not being prosecuted for crimes against humanity right now.

I'm not telling you anything. Form your own opinion. And for the record I haven't said whether or not I'm okay with what went on. I'd like to know what we're getting from these interrogations first. You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

[ElNono]

I'm not telling you anything. Form your own opinion. And for the record I haven't said whether or not I'm okay with what went on. I'd like to know what we're getting from these interrogations first. You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

Unlike murder, torture is very clear cut. Black and white. It's been codified a long time ago where the line is between interrogation and torture. There's no such thing as torture in self defense. There's either torture or interrogation. There's nothing in between. We have invaded countries with the excuse that their governments were subjecting their population to human right violations (which obviously include torture). We love to rail against China for their own violations of human rights. What authority you could possibly have to do any of that, when you're a torturing nation yourself.

I'm sorry, but I just can't agree with your vision of a gray area there.

[Winehole23]

You see it in perfect black and white. I respect that. I don't agree with it. I think there's a grey area here just like there is in whether or not it's okay to end a human life. If I shoot someone does it matter whether or not I did it in self defense?

Absolutely, yes. My hunch is that Obama is concealing and will continue to conceal evidence of our culpability.

Apparently Bush and Cheney's own selective de-classifications did not create the impression that we were justified. Too bad.

[Marcus Bryant]

Absolutely, yes. My hunch is that Obama is concealing and will continue to conceal evidence of our culpability.

Apparently Bush and Cheney's own selective de-classifications did not create the impression that we were justified. Too bad.

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land? I guess you don't spend half a tril a year on 'defense' without it being put into use occasionally.

[ChumpDumper]

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land?

Well, that opposition would obviously hate America.

[Winehole23]

Taking a step back from the methods for a moment, are we now not going to be served by any kind of principled opposition once, say, the current administration opts to take on the Somali pirates on land? I guess you don't spend half a tril a year on 'defense' without it being put into use occasionally.

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out, we all lose.

[Marcus Bryant]

Good question, if I understand it correctly. Much turns on the tactical significance of the phrase "on land." It probably means aerial or naval bombardment, plus black ops.

I wonder if AFRICOM is well-enough established in Africa to survive the blowback from more *deep intervention* in Somalia. We'll see whether the threat to meet piracy on land was saber rattling or meant sincerely.

IMO there is always a role for the principled opposition. Moreover, the legitimacy of republican power requires it. If the opposition wimps out (Dems, I direct this at you), we all lose.

Think of it. You have the 'two-fer' of attacks on American shipping and al Qaida support in the hinterlands. The only thing left would be that it would be a diversion from the 'real' front of the war against al Qaida. My guess is the GOP would generally be predisposed to accept it and support the CINC at this point.

[Crookshanks]

CIA Confirms: Waterboarding 9/11 Mastermind Led to Info that Aborted 9/11-Style Attack on Los Angeles
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

(CNSNews.com) - The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) -- including the use of waterboarding -- caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.

Before he was waterboarded, when KSM was asked about planned attacks on the United States, he ominously told his CIA interrogators, “Soon, you will know.”

According to the previously classified May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that was released by President Barack Obama last week, the thwarted attack -- which KSM called the “Second Wave”-- planned “ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles.”

KSM was the mastermind of the first “hijacked-airliner” attacks on the United States, which struck the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Northern Virginia on Sept. 11, 2001.

After KSM was captured by the United States, he was not initially cooperative with CIA interrogators. Nor was another top al Qaeda leader named Zubaydah. KSM, Zubaydah, and a third terrorist named Nashiri were the only three persons ever subjected to waterboarding by the CIA. (Additional terrorist detainees were subjected to other “enhanced techniques” that included slapping, sleep deprivation, dietary limitations, and temporary confinement to small spaces -- but not to water-boarding.)

This was because the CIA imposed very tight restrictions on the use of waterboarding. “The ‘waterboard,’ which is the most intense of the CIA interrogation techniques, is subject to additional limits,” explained the May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo. “It may be used on a High Value Detainee only if the CIA has ‘credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent’; ‘substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack’; and ‘[o]ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit this information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.’”

The quotations in this part of the Justice memo were taken from an Aug. 2, 2004 letter that CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo sent to the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

Before they were subjected to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation that included waterboarding, KSM and Zubaydah were not only uncooperative but also appeared contemptuous of the will of the American people to defend themselves.

“In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including KSM and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques,” says the Justice Department memo. “Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general US population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience, and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals.’ Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon you will know.’”

After he was subjected to the “waterboard” technique, KSM became cooperative, providing intelligence that led to the capture of key al Qaeda allies and, eventually, the closing down of an East Asian terrorist cell that had been tasked with carrying out the 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that details what happened in this regard was written by then-Principal Deputy Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury to John A. Rizzo, the senior deputy general counsel for the CIA.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—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,” says the memo.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discover of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” reads the memo. “More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had [redaction] large sum of money to an al Qaeda associate [redaction] … Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured. Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA to Hambali’s brother, al Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”

A CIA spokesman confirmed to CNSNews.com today that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

In the memo itself, the Justice Department’s Bradbury told the CIA’s Rossi: “Your office has informed us that the CIA believes that ‘the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qa’ida has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”

cnsnews.com
=================================
The ends justify the means! Maybe the people in LA would agree?

[Winehole23]

Think of it. You have the 'two-fer' of attacks on American shipping and al Qaida support in the hinterlands. The only thing left would be that it would be a diversion from the 'real' front of the war against al Qaida. My guess is the GOP would generally be predisposed to accept it and support the CINC at this point.

Maybe. My guess is that "CINC" sticks in their throats a little bit, as applied to Obama.

Or did you mean the antique, pre-Rumsfeldian sense of the word?

[ChumpDumper]

The ends justify the means! Maybe the people in LA would agree?

Kidnapping and torturing their children in front of them might work well too!

Let's give that a shot!

[Winehole23]

For the record, I'm not down with moral relativism. Torture is never morally straight, despite the possible upside.

Somehow, I doubt the CIA's selective leak to Heritage and cns tells the whole story. Maybe they ought to release the whole record, so we can judge for ourselves?

[DarrinS]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

[PixelPusher]

For the record, I'm not down with moral relativism. Torture is never morally straight, despite the possible upside.

Somehow, I doubt the CIA's selective leak to Heritage and cns tells the whole story. Maybe they ought to release the whole record*, so we can judge for ourselves?

*"whole record" does not include video tapes of said interrogations that were subsequently destroyed by the CIA

[Winehole23]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

You tell me, Socrates. I don't write torture handbooks.

[DarrinS]

You tell me, Socrates. I don't write torture handbooks.

Well, I always hear people say there are better ways (or other ways) of obtaining the information, I just wanted to know what they are. If there are more effective ways of obtaining the information without us having to resort to the cruel and unusual punishment of a caterpillar, I'm all for it.

[ChumpDumper]

What is a morally acceptable way to obtain information that would save thousands of lives?

You seriously don't know of any?

[Marcus Bryant]

Well, I always hear people say there are better ways (or other ways) of obtaining the information, I just wanted to know what they are. If there are more effective ways of obtaining the information without us having to resort to the cruel and unusual punishment of a caterpillar, I'm all for it.

Better SIGINT and HUMINT, I suppose.

[Yonivore]

When Obama released the "torture" memos, what did it accomplish?

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

[JoeChalupa]

This topic always reminds me of "A Few Good Men" and it was just on this weekend. There are some things we don't like to talk about but know happens...well...Col. Jessep says it better...

"Son, we live in a world that has walls and those walls need to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lieutenant Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and curse the Marines; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives and that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use then as the backbone of a life trying to defend something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are en led to."

All I know is that while I don't agree with torture if someone had one of my family members I would approve any measure to find and rescue them.
And there WILL be another terrorist attack on US soil and it will be blamed on Obama and I would bet that, while they don't want harm to come to the US, there are those who would cheer if it happened. Not cheer because of the tragedy but cheer because of the "I told you so's" they will throw out.

[JoeChalupa]

He created more terrorists!

Now, I don't expect many in this crowd to appreciate what Vice President Cheney is saying but, why release memos that only serve to inflame? Why not release the memos that show what were the fruits of those harsh interrogation techniques?

Why not? Because it will justify the used of those techniques...that's why.

Justifying it doesn't make it right but I understand where Cheney is coming from. But he also wants to clear his name.

[Winehole23]

*"whole record" does not include video tapes of said interrogations that were subsequently destroyed by the CIA

How convenient. The destroyed tapes leave us to accept the CIA's claim the interrogation worked, without us being able to decide for ourselves whether they crossed moral and legal boundaries during the questioning, or, more importantly, whether their own interrogation summaries are substantiated in the first place. The direct historical record was intentionally (some might say contumaciously) destroyed.

It puts me in mind of what c_g just said about painting a picture.