McCain: Waterboarding didn't get bin Laden

Politico ^ | 2011-05-05 | Meredith Shiner

[rabscuttle385]

Sen. John McCain denounced “advanced interrogation” methods like waterboarding Wednesday amid a growing debate over its effectiveness reopened by the killing of Osama bin Laden.

McCain told reporters leaving an intelligence briefing for senators by CIA director Leon Panetta that he has seen no information so far to indicate that techniques like waterboarding factored significantly in the information gathering that led to bin Laden’s death.

“So far I know of no information that was obtained, that would have been useful, by ‘advanced interrogation.’ In fact, according to published reports … some of the key people who knew about this courrier denied it,” McCain said, careful to note that he was not relaying information from Panetta’s classified session with Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committee members.

“Where there is published information in the various newspapers and media that the information about this courrier was intercepted conversation between two individuals — that’s as far as I know,” the top Republicans on the Armed Services Committee added. “I stand on the side of the United States and by the Geneva conventions, of which we are signatories, which we were in violation of by waterboarding.”

[Donald Rumsfeld Fan]

“So far I know of no information that was obtained, that would have been useful, by ‘advanced interrogation.’ In fact, according to published reports … some of the key people who knew about this courrier denied it,”

[Real Cynic No More]

Typical McLame: Leaps before he looks. ie, making statements without knowing the facts. So where did the info originate that waterboarding did in fact get the leads on the complicit parties, ea the courier?

[Lazlo in PA]

Even though many here tried to explain away Sarahs support for McLame in the ‘10 election as just returning a favor, I thought that if you are a principled Conservative you would have walked away. Almost everyday McLame does another thing to prove he is a Progressive loser. He is a real and tangible example of Sarahs questionable judgement. McLame’s ideology is a danger to the country.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Maybe it was Megan who pushed Osama over the edge ;-)

Good to see ya!

[stephenjohnbanker]

Great post!

[TheOldLady]

Young Bucks Standing Around Chatting
Where Will They Go Without Free Republic?

Sponsoring FReepers leapfrog0202 and another person will contribute $10
Each time a new monthly donor signs up!
Get more bang for your buck
Sign up today

Save Lazamataz, essential FReeper

[DoughtyOne]

McCain has mastered the fine art of turning just about anything with a good potential, into dog -—t!

I think he perfected that by using his life as a testing ground.

Once he had the model perfected, everything sort of fell into place.

[DoughtyOne]

I appreciate the thought behind that post, and I don't find it particularly objectionable.  It's none the less a premise I am uncomfortable with.

Okay, John was broken.  John was reborn.  John had a rededication to our nation.  I buy the first statement, and accept the second to a degree, but when you get to the third, you can insert a sound track of a needle passing over a record outside the grooves.

From what I have seen of John McCain, he was a lout from childhood on.  His self-description is one of a bully on the grade school playground.  "I liked to fight.  I like to start fights."  Paraphrased.

His West Point years were disgusting.  His early flight school behavior was abysmal.

This is where I go off record for the sake of honoring members of the service.  I don't want to address John's military years.  I wasn't there.  'Some' people who were there, weren't impressed.  Others seem to have been.  It's a push, but I have a mountain of question associated with his service.  End of topic.

Then you get to his post military years, and the first significant good/bad moment is John taking thousands of dollars in freebies from a constituent without reporting it as required, for over seven years.  Even then it was when he was caught.  Then he interceeded with regulators on behalf of that man.  John's ability to help stall the prosecution of this man, cost many retirees their entire fortunes.  Whether those folks made wise decissions or not, the results are still the same, and still at least in part the efforts of one John McCain.

Is this the action of a guy who is dedicated to nation?  It seems to me it's more the actions of a man dedicated to self.

He has backed seriously flawed anti-American legislation over and over again.  He wasn't bashful about putting the MIA issue to rest at the behest of Vietnam.  He wasn't bashful about doing this over the objections of MIA groups or our Veterans groups.

He has joined up with some of the most evil players our nation has ever seen.  Soros, Kennedy, both Kerries, Feingold, Lieberman, and some of the worst Leftist organizations to boot.  It didn't bother him to sign on global warming, open borders, international entanglements, and naturalization of illegals on our soil legislation either, although he always described it as doing something else.

Here we have a precident that water bording helped us get Laden, and McCain pipes up to stiffle any such conclusion.

This man is a beast of a poltician, and because of his participation in our government, I don't know of many people who can hurt this nation more than John has and will continue to do.

He is not a born again lover of our nation, but making us think so is John's number one goal..., okay, second only to taking this nation down bit by bit.

If there was one politician I could remove today, it would be Obama.  If I got a muligan, it would be John McCain, hands down no one evening coming close.

[Dick Holmes]

McCain is so bad, I wonder how anyone voted for him in the primaries.

It was all over by Super Tuesday, early in February. But I voted for him in November. And he's right, here. From what I've read, torture or torture-light tactics are not the most efficient way to go. They are of dubious value, and counterproductive because we lose our moral authority.

[Lazamataz]

And he's right, here. From what I've read, torture or torture-light tactics are not the most efficient way to go. They are of dubious value, and counterproductive because we lose our moral authority.

You've read wrong.

[Dick Holmes]

You've read wrong

OK, let's match readings, of people who have been there and should know. I'll start with this one.

These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.)

What have you got?

[Lazamataz]

Read the below carefully please.

THIESSEN: Well, the headline is CIA interrogations work. I mean, the fact is in the period after 9/11, we knew absolutely nothing about the enemy who attacked us. We did not know that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the mastermind of 9/11. We didn't know who his key operatives were. We didn't know what they had planned. And then we started capturing these terrorists. We captured Abu Zubaydah, who was a key Al Qaeda facilitator, and he gave us information that led us to Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who was one of key KSM's key operatives. And they together led us to KSM. And KSM was resistant when he came into the -- when he was captured by the CIA. When they asked him about new plots, he said soon you will know. And he said I will tell you everything when I -- when I get to New York and see my lawyer. And he didn't see a lawyer. He was put under enhanced interrogation techniques and he went -- once he went through those, he made a decision to cooperate. And when he was done, he was running a graduate level class on Al Qaeda operations for the CIA. The former director…

O'REILLY: And you believe that he was broken because of waterboarding. He was waterboarded many times.

THIESSEN: Absolutely.

O'REILLY: OK, now…

THIESSEN: There is no -- there is no question.

O'REILLY: Let's zero in on the courier who was the key to finding bin Laden. I understand that the -- that KSM and another guy who is subjected to enhanced interrogation mentioned…

THIESSEN: Abu Faraj al-Libi.

O'REILLY: OK, mentioned the courier, pick it up.

THIESSEN: Well, I mean, they -- we had very little information about Al Qaeda's courier networks. What happened was first -- Abu Zubaydah and Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who were the first guys brought into the program, gave us some general information about couriers and some code names for those folks. When KSM was interrogated after he underwent waterboarding; not during it, afterwards. When he was going -- when he was being questioned, he acknowledged that he -- they had given us the name of this fellow al-Kuwaiti which was a nom de guerre and KSM admitted that he knew him. Then in 2004, we captured a fellow named Hassan Ghul who was a senior Al Qaeda operative. He was captured in Iraq, and he told us that this courier al-Kuwaiti was a key lieutenant of KSM's successor Abu Faraj al-Libi…

O'REILLY: Now, did he do that under duress -- let me just -- did he do that under duress or did he just tell us?

THIESSEN: Well, this is the thing that people don't understand. You're hearing a lot of the left is trying -- the deniers of this program are trying to say, well did they use -- did they tell us this under waterboarding or under standard interrogation later and that misunderstands how interrogation works. Enhanced interrogation was never used to get intelligence; it was used to get cooperation. So you took a detainee like KSM, who is in the state of total resistance, and you used the enhanced interrogation techniques to bring him to a state of cooperation. And when he's under enhanced interrogation techniques, they are asking him questions they already know the answers to in order to gauge whether he had stopped lying and made the decision to cooperate. And then, once he starts cooperating, the technique stops. In most cases with enhanced interrogation, the detainees went under them for a couple of days. And KSM -- he was a really tough, tough guy. He was -- he went for about a month. But once that month ended, the interrogation, the enhanced interrogations stopped and we had a -- they had a conversation with him like you and I are speaking today.

O'REILLY: All right. So you are convinced then that the information provided by KSM and then the other guy Ghoul who was captured a couple of years later…

THIESSEN: Yes.

O'REILLY: …pinpointed for the CIA this courier and then they started to tail him and that led to bin Laden's demise. Is that correct?

THIESSEN: Well, actually, yes, well, Abu Faraj, I'm sorry Hassan Ghul told us that he was a key operative of Abu Faraj al-Libi, who was KSM's successor after he was captured. So they capture Abu Faraj in 2005 and he's brought into the CIA interrogation program. He's not waterboarded, but he undergoes enhanced interrogation and was resistant, brought into a state of cooperation. And then, he starts giving them information about the courier networks and he's identifying individuals and giving them information about how the couriers operate, where the drops are and so on and so forth. And then they ask them about al-Kuwaiti, and he says I don't know him. And you know, people say that's proof that he, well, he lied. But we knew that he knew him because Abu -- because Hassan Ghul had told us that he was his key deputy. So one -- that was the red flag that told the CIA this is the guy he's protecting. This is the guy we have to go after. So if it had not been for that process, starting with Abu Zubaydah in 2002, identifying the names; KSM confirming the name; Hassan Ghul telling us he was Faraj's deputy and then Faraj denying that he even knew the guy, then they -- the CIA would have never known this is the guy to zero in on and they went after him, found him and it took years to do it. Found him and eventually followed him to bin Laden's lair.

[Dick Holmes]

A speechwriter? I asked for readings from those who had been there, interrogators with results, not speechwriters!

[Lazamataz]

Then Leon Panetta.

And this guy, Thiesson, had the same info that Bush had.

[Lazamataz]

And YOUR SOURCE!!! LOL! Former Al-Qaeda operative.

PLEASE!

[Lazamataz]

Eh. Turns out your source POSED as an AQ.

[savedbygrace]

He HAS to keep saying this because he was tortured and he has to maintain the impression that he didn’t give up anything important in return. At least he has to believe that in his own mind.

[Dick Holmes]

Then Leon Panetta

Panetta has said repeatedly that although enhanced techniques were used on some of the detainees, the information came from a lot of sources, not just those, and it is an open question whether those techniques were more effective than standard ones.

I'm still waiting for someone who is an experienced interrogator with results, to say waterboarding is useful and effective compared to standard techniques. Here's another sworn statement by an experienced interrogator:

It is my belief, based on a 27 year career as a Special Agent and interviews with hundreds of subjects in custodial settings, including members of al Qaeda, that the use of coercive interrogation techniques is not effective. The alternative approach, sometimes referred to as "rapport building" is more effective, efficient and reliable. Scientists, psychiatrists, psychologists, law enforcement and intelligence agents, all of whom have studied both approaches, have came to the same conclusion The CIA's own training manual advises its agents that heavy-handed techniques can impair a subject's ability to accurately recall information and, at worst, produce apathy and complete withdrawal.

Besides the effectiveness and reliability issues, there is the little matter of right and wrong. Why would we do what we have hanged Japanese, after WWII, as war criminals for? Don't we stand for anything?

[Lazamataz]

Here is a statement by John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who actually waterboarded Abu Zubaydah:

ABC reported yesterday that John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who interrogated al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah, claims that subjecting Zubaydah to 35 seconds of waterboarding produced valuable information that thwarted terrorist attacks … and it was necessary torture:

“A leader of the CIA team that captured the first major al Qaeda figure, Abu Zubaydah, says subjecting him to waterboarding was torture but necessary. In the first public comment by any CIA officer involved in handling high-value al Qaeda targets, John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.

“The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate,” said Kiriakou in an interview to be broadcast tonight on ABC News’ “World News With Charles Gibson” and “Nightline.”

“From that day on, he answered every question,” Kiriakou said. “The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.”

Kiriakou said the feeling in the months after the 9/11 attacks was that interrogators did not have the time to delve into the agency’s bag of other interrogation tricks. “Those tricks of the trade require a great deal of time — much of the time — and we didn’t have that luxury. We were afraid that there was another major attack coming,” he said.”

How does it feel to be wrong so often?

[Dick Holmes]

You wrote, "Here is a statement by John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who actually waterboarded Abu Zubaydah"

On the second to last page of his 2010 memoir entitled "The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror"[ Random House. ISBN 9780553807370] Kiriakou acknowledged that he was not present during Abu Zubaydah's interrogations, and had no first-hand knowledge of Abu Zubaydah's waterboardings: "I wasn't there when the interrogation took place"

Oh, and 35 seconds? Didn't have time to do it right, 'cause waterboarding got instant results? Abu Zubaydah got religion the next day? Then why did he have to be waterboarded 83 times?

How does it feel to be wrong so often?