A reminder as to how fake the whole torture narrative really is

[noise]

FOR seven years I have remained silent about the false claims magnifying the effectiveness of the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques like waterboarding. I have spoken only in closed government hearings, as these matters were classified. But the release last week of four Justice Department memos on interrogations allows me to shed light on the story, and on some of the lessons to be learned.

One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.

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.

My Tortured Decision

Thus Yoo and Co. weren't patriots bending the law to keep the country safe. They were thugs trying to turn the US into a police state. You don't move on from this. You don't pretend it was ok.

[Bluebear]

1. 'You don't move on from this. You don't pretend it was ok.' Amen.

[fasttense]

2. Why do you insist on looking back instead of forward?

Americans are not allowed to look back.

[TexasObserver]

3. Recommend

[Solly Mack]

4. Calling various torture methods enhanced or even harsh interrogation techniques

is playing into the bullshit narrative that says America didn't torture...merely used harsh methods.

And attempting to dismiss war crimes as little more than mistakes is no better.


I agree...you don't move forward from this. You don't pretend it was OK...yet that is exactly what America is doing.

[noise]

7. It would be UNFAIR to hold anyone accountable

After all, accountability might make OLC lawyers risk averse. Or cause lawyers to think twice about public service.

:sarcasm:

[leveymg]

5. The effect of waterboarding and psychological torture was to erase the evidence trail

that led back to a catastrophically failed CIA operation. See,

#
leveymg's Journal - Archives
The Al-Qaeda figures subjected to brainwashing and waterboarding that turned them into near-vegetables all had ties with the CIA during the 1990s in Bosnia ...
journals.democraticunderground.com/?az=archives&j=289...1 - Cached
#
leveymg on HuffingtonPost
Waterboarding Not Discussed At CIA Briefings, Congressional Aide Says ... See, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/334, "Who Got Waterboarded, ...
#
Daily Kos: AP: CIA Torture Damaged Brains, Recall of 9/11 Suspects
Sep 22, 2009 ... Posted by leveymg in General Discussion ... The CIA dramatically altered the protocol for waterboarding by March 2003. ...
www.dailykos.com/.../-AP:-CIA-Torture-Damaged-Brains,-Recall-of-9-11-Suspects - Cached
#
Daily Kos: CIA Detainee Torture, Memory Loss, and the Bush ...
Dec 13, 2007 ... In addition to the confirmed cases of CIA waterboarding of Abu Zudayah and Abd ... by leveymg on Thu Dec 13, 2007 at 11:09:53 AM PST ...
www.dailykos.com/story/2007/12/13/134311/17/.../421664 - Cached - Similar
Show more results from www.dailykos.com
#
CIA terror suspects 'kept awake for 11 days' - Democratic Underground
May 9, 2009 ... leveymg's Journal - THE CIA OFFICER WHO OVERSAW TORTURE: Cofer ... Abu Zubaydah is said to have been driven mad by waterboarding and sensory driving … ...
www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az...all... - Cached

[G_j]

6. +1000

[noise]

8. Which

"catastrophically failed CIA operation?"

A federal appeals court in Manhattan last year dismissed claims against the Saudi government, saying such litigation can proceed only if the State Department finds that the Saudis provided financial aid and other assistance to terrorist groups.

...

"Substantial evidence establishes that these defendants had provided funding and sponsorship to al-Qaeda without which it could not have carried out the 9/11 attacks," he said. "The Second Circuit's and other lower court rulings not only deprive the victims of terrorism the compensation to which they are entitled but also remove a powerful weapon in our arsenal against foreign terrorism."

Specter looks to revive 9/11 suits against Saudis

I would argue that the public still doesn't know what went on behind the scenes. I don't know what the CIA was doing before 9/11.

[leveymg]

9. Here's a couple glimpses into what the CIA was doing with bin Laden before 9/11:

http://wwww.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/4/810764/-Erik-Prince:-American-Bin-LadenCIA-Asset,-MoneyGunmen

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/31/760117/-Bombshell:-Bin-Laden-worked-for-US-till-9-11

[noise]

10. The very people who failed to prevent 9/11

are considered credible sources in relation to al Qaeda terrorism and the effectiveness of torture. The mystery man Blee was promoted after 9/11 to station chief of the reopened Kabul station where he replaced Berntsen. That pretty much says it all in terms of his bizarre pre-9/11 conduct being sanctioned by higher ups.

IMO none of the stories (illegal op intended to infiltrate al Qaeda, fooled by double agents, turf battle, risk aversion, etc.) add up. As you note in one of the articles, the public has no way of knowing what happened. The secrecy enables the CIA to keep the public ignorant.

[leveymg]

11. If not one of the stories mentioned, what is a better explanation for events,?

There are lots of theories ranging from "there's no way we could have foreseen four airliners used as missiles against our precious America" to MIHOP.

What makes most sense to you, and why?

Why doesn't an illegal op intended to infiltrate al Qaeda (or, to tap into Saudi Intel and the ISI from the inside) not make sense to you? How about the suggestion that the US was playing both sides in the Saudi succession struggle off each other, and bin Laden was being held as a wild card up a sleeve by those who hoped to profit from an expected disintegration of Saudi Arabia?

How about the notion that the Cold War never really ended, and protecting AQ as an asset against the Russians trumped every other concern?

Or, most simply, CIA was well aware of what the bin Laden and Saudis were up to, and tried repeatedly to warn Bush. For diplomatic, personal and economic reasons, Dubya did nothing to roll up the AQ cells lest that piss off Bandar Bush and the Royals?

There seem to be elements of each of these explanations at work, as indeed there would be if there was an inner and outer cover story protecting a real operational agenda.

[noise]

12. My 2 cents

It appears that the US government wants the public to believe al Qaeda was a Saudi sponsored terrorist outfit. So according to this theory the reason why US intel didn't roll up the cells was because US officials had a look the other way policy in relation to Saudi links to terrorism. And the reason why the leads weren't pursued after 9/11 was due to the same look the other way corruption. If this theory is true then all bets are off and pretty much everything we have been told about al Qaeda is a lie.

Questions I would ask in relation to this theory:

1. Why did US intel follow illegal orders from corrupt officials?

2. Why did US intel go along with the brazen lies which justified the WoT and the police state tactics?

Illegal op intended to infiltrate al Qaeda. The information about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar was finally shared in late August. Even the sharing didn't help much as the UBLU didn't tell the criminal side agents. So it appears that neither the CIA or the FBI UBLU was acting in good faith which discounts the probability of an illegal op to thwart the plot.

Fooled by double agents. After the USS Cole attack any trust of GID agents should have gone out the window. Also the experience with Ali Mohamed (presuming US intel was fooled) should have been a sufficient wake up call.

Turf battle. We had strange conduct by both Clarke and Rice who evidently didn't think of alerting the FBI after the 7/10/01 meeting. Strange conduct by the UBLU, RFU and FBI headquarters.

Risk aversion. One would think criminal negligence was more risky than thwarting a terrorist attack.

Bottom line, I don't know what happened. I find it sickening that the same officials who advocate for torture are able to hide their pre-9/11 conduct behind national security classification. When will the media interview Richard Blee? When will the CIA declassify his 9/11 Commission MFR? It is incredible that Michael Hayden can write op-eds advocating for torture while we still don't know why the NSA failed to track the hijackers. James Bamford did a good job of discrediting Hayden's explanations.