Obama Team Feared Coup If He Prosecuted War Crmes

[billc]

From another article:

[FONT=times new roman,times]"Waterboarding" Khalid Sheikh Mohammed during his detention in an overseas prison was crucial to Sunday's operation, according to Rep. Peter King (R-New York), appearing on Fox News O'Reilly Factor on Monday night. King linked his comments to his briefing by the White House Sunday night. The Freedom's Lighthouse website summarizes[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]:[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]"The intelligence that led the United States to find the whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden came through the waterboarding of Khalid Sheikh Muhammed (KSM). The nickname for a courier of Bin Laden's was obtained from KSM through waterboarding, later confirmed by another detainee that was interrogated in 2007, according to King. It took U.S. Intelligence four years to identify who the courier actually was and follow him to the compound where Bin Laden was hiding."
[/FONT]
​

 

[billc]

From the interrogation memo linked on the second page of this thread: http://theacru.org/pdfs/TheInterrogationMemos.pdf

Results of the Enhanced Interrogation Program
The CIA has stated in writing that it believes that the intelligence acquired through such

enhanced interrogations “has been a key reason why al-Qai’da has failed to launch a spectacular
attack in the West since 11 September 2001.”
13 In particular, before their enhanced
interrogations, 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.”
14 But after enhanced interrogation with waterboarding
“KSM and Abu Zubaydah have been pivotal sources because of their ability and willingness to

13

IV,

provide their analysis and speculation about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of
terrorists.”
15
The CIA explained how it builds intelligence from various sources, saying that it

“frequently uses the information from one detainee, as well as other sources, to vet the
information of another detainee. Although lower level detainees provide less information
than the high value detainees, information from these detainees has, on many occasions,
supplied the information needed to probe the high value detainees further….[T]he
triangulation of intelligence provides a fuller knowledge of Al-Qai’da activities than
would be possible from a single detainee.”
16
In other words, as the CIA has further explained, “even interrogations of comparatively lowertier

high value detainees supply information that the CIA uses to validate and assess information
elicited in other interrogations and through other methods. Intelligence acquired from the
interrogation program also enhances other intelligence methods, and it has helped to build the
CIA’s overall understanding of al Qaeda and its affiliates.”
17 As a result, while the
“interrogations have led to specific actionable intelligence,” as discussed further below, they

have also produced “a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its
affiliates.”
18
Former CIA Director Hayden and former Attorney General Mukasey elaborate,

“Interrogation is conducted by using such obvious approaches as asking questions whose
correct answers are already known and only when truthful information is provided
proceeding to what may not be known. Moreover, intelligence can be verified, correlated
and used to get information from other detainees, and has been; none of this information
is used in isolation.”
19
Most importantly, the enhanced interrogation of KSM led to the discovery of Al Qaeda’s

planned “Second Wave,” a second 9/11 on the west coast, involving East Asian Al Qaeda
operatives crashing a hijacked airliner into a building in Los Angeles, with the Library Tower
usually mentioned as the target, the tallest building on the west coast. The CIA explained,
“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 Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked
with executing the ‘Second Wave.’”
20
The CIA explained in more detail how this came about,


15

Id.

 

[billc]

The F.B.I. agent Ali Soufan who claimed the interrogation methods didn't work is discussed in "Courting Disaster." The C.I.A. interrogators did not believe that standard criminal interrogation techniques would work against the hardened terrorist leaders. They weren't criminals in the regular sense of the word but dedicated jihadis.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Courting Disaster." has been debunked previously.
Constitutionality, etc, all previously covered. Your own wording shows waterboarding which is torture to be illegal, as does numerous other Federal, State and local statutes as well as international treaty, and law.
All discussed as far back as 2008.

 

[Makalakumu]

The more I read this denialism, the more convinced I am that the Obama advisor was justified. Imagine a black man "lynching" some WASPS for saving America from "his own kind." We'd have a right wing million man march for torture on the Capital Mall. What a sight that would be. God Bless...

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[elder999]

Torture is illegal-a war crime, punishable by death, funnily enough, by virtue of the U.S. being signatory to the War Crimes Act of 1996 , and the 1986 Convention Against Torture. In 2001, Bush asked attorneys what consituted torture, where the limits actually lay, and the U.S. acted in accordance with the legal advice that the President had received-answers that have divided the country, often across party lines, for a decade now.

The mechanism of waterboarding described up thread by billi is exactly the mechanism described by the victims of the Khmer Rouge-when the Khmer Rouge did it, it was called torture.

The 1986 Convention Against Torture defines torture thusly:

|Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

Furthermore:

A presidential memorandum of September 7, 2002 authorized U.S. interrogators of prisoners captured in Afghanistan to deny the prisoners basic protections required by the Geneva Conventions, and thus according to Jordan J. Paust, professor of law and formerly a member of the faculty of the Judge Advocate General's School, "necessarily authorized and ordered violations of the Geneva Conventions, which are war crimes."[SUP][30][/SUP] Based on the president's memorandum, U.S. personnel carried out cruel and inhumane treatment on the prisoners,[SUP][31][/SUP] which necessarily means that the president's memorandum was a plan to violate the Geneva Convention, and such a plan constitutes a war crime under the Geneva Conventions, according to Professor Paust

In short, waterboarding is torture, and torture is a war crime.

The President ordered violations of the Geneva Convention-also a war crime.

George Bush recently canceled a trip to Switzerland, becuase activists there were going to bring charges against him of committiting war crimes.

If this is true, who is in charge of the US?

I've been telling you, but no one seems to listen: Halliburton, GE, Exxon, Raytheon..........

I mean, these aren't the only war crimes the U.S. has committed, and the bottom line is that they're not crimes if our side commits them. U.S. troops committed war crimes in the Spanish American war,World War I(his one interesting because it was poison gas, per the Hague Codification of 1907, but everyone did it was a wash) World War II, and most notably, because there were prosecutions and extensive documentation, Vietnam. We've bombed civilians in Yugoslavia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Why split hairs over whether or not waterboarding is or is not torture? People have been tortured and illegally detained in the "war on terror" in all of our names-and no one, beyond the knucklehead scapegoats of Abu Ghraib, is ever going to be prosecutred for those war crimes.

 

[billc]

To say that the methods used by the Kmer Rouge were the same as those used by the C.I.A. is not factually correct.

From Courting Disaster:

In this technique, the detainee is lying on a gurney that is inclined at an angle of 10 to 15 degrees to the horizontal, with the detainee on his back and his head toward the lower end of the gurney. A cloth is placed over the detainee's face, and cold water is poured on the cloth from a height of approximately 6 to 18 inches. The wet cloth creates a barrier through which it is difficult-or in some cases not possible-to breathe.
A single "application" of water may not last for more than 40 seconds, with the duration of an "application" measured from the moment when water-of whatever quantity-is first poured onto the cloth until the moment the cloth is removed from the subject's face...When the time limit is reached, the pouring of the water is immediately discontinued and the cloth is removed. We understand that if the detainee makes an effort to defeat the technique (e.g., by twisting his head to the side and breathing out of the corner of his mouth) the interrogator may cup his hands around the detainees nose and mouth to dam the runoff, in which case it would not be possible for the detainee to breathe during the application of water. In addition, you have informed us that the technique may be applied in a manner to defeat efforts by the detainee to hold his breath by, for example, beginning an application of water as the detainee is exhaling. Either in the normal application,or where countermeasures are used, we understand that water may enter-and may accumulate in,the detainees mouth and nasal cavity, preventing him from breathing.
In addition, you have indicated that the detainee as a countermeasure may swallow water, possibly in significant quantities. For that reason, based on the advise of medical personel, the CIA requires that saline solution be used instead of plain water to reduce the possibility of hyopnatermina if the detainee drinks the water.
We understand that the effect of the waterboard is to induce the sensation of drowning...

You have also informed us that the waterboard may be approved for use with a given detainee only during, at most, one single 30-period, and that during that period the waterboard technique may be used on no more than five days. We further understand that in any 24-hour period, interrogators may use no more than two "sessions" of the water board on a subject-with a "session" defined to mean the time that the detainee is strapped to the waterboard-and that no session may last more than two hours. Moreover, during any session, the number of individual applications of water lasting ten seconds or longer may not exceed six. As noted above, the maximum length of any application of water is 40 seconds ( you have informed us that this maximum has rarely been reached) Finally, the total cumulative time of all applications of whatever length in a 24 hour period may not exceed 12 minutes...

During the use of the waterboard, a physician and a psychologist are present at all times. The detainee is monitored to ensure that he does not develop respiratory distress. If the detainee is not freely breathing after the cloth is removed from his face, he is immediately moved to a vertical position in order to clear the water from his mouth, nose, and nasopharynx. The gurney used for administering this technique is specially designed so that this can be accomplished very quickly if necessary.

To try and compare, that is silence the argurment, the U.S. method used on three terrorist leaders to the Khmer Rouge who tortured and murdered 1/3 of the population of cambodia is just wrong. The only thing in common between the Kmer Rouge and the U.S. is that they both used water.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

"Courting Disaster." has been debunked previously.

 

[billc]

The water torture used by the U.S. during the spanish american war and the Phillipine inserrection is not the technique used on the three terrorists who brought down the world trade center and killed 3000 people.

 

[elder999]

To say that the methods used by the Kmer Rouge were the same as those used by the C.I.A. is not factually correct.

From Courting Disaster:

I said the mechanism was precisely the same-if you want to believe that they were given breaks every 40 seconds, fine, the method was not the same, but that's not what I said.

More to the point, this painting:



Was done by Vann Nath, an artist and victim of the Khmer Rouge. The mechanism is precisely that used by the CIA, though the gurney that the Khmer Rouge used was actually a wooden table, hence the name "waterboarding."

 

[Sukerkin]

It's a difference that doesn't really make a difference, BillC. Torture is torture - there's not an awful lot of wiggle-room on that.

I really think you are barking up the wrong tree with this approach. It appears clear that torture was used and that those who over-stepped the bounds of what was legal were punished for it.

I don't like the fact that our closest ally used such tactics in intelligence gathering (and I like it even less that it appears that my own country made use of the 'services' available) but I'm not daft enough to think that governments don't do things that are morally outrageous.

All we can do with elected officials is try to get them to behave in ways we can live with whilst still having them protect our interests ...

... well, actually, they generally protect corporate interests but we can dream .

Generally public pressure will just cause governments to get really good at keeping secrets but there's a limit to what we can do about what we are unaware of. At the end of the day, we can only hope that there is enough moral fibre in our society to stop those with the power from doing things we wouldn't as individuals condone.

 

[billc]

From Courting Disaster: On the Khmer Rouge methods of torture...

Duch took great pride in his work at s-21, and he was not about to let Pol Pot tarnish his legacy. As he put it in the courtroom:"I could not bear what Pol Pot said so I had to show my face...For s-21, I was the chairman of that office. The crimes committed at s-21 were under my responsiblilty. During Dutch's reign of terror at s-21 more than 14,000 men, women and children were tortured there. Only seven people survived

.


Yes, that really sounds like what the CIA did to the three, yes, three terrorist leaders who murdered 3000 innocent people. All three of the terrorists eventually cooperated and the information gathered helped stop attacks, saving innocent lives, and helped locate bin laden. And they had nice dinners and then engaged in their prayers and read the Koran. Apparently, KSM, really enjoys Kentucky Fried chicken, that was his choice of food when he decided to cooperate.

Yes, 14000 murdered cambodians versus three terrorists who went on to enjoy Kentucky Fried chicken. Quite the comparison.

(The information about ksm's dining habit was heard in an interview with the author of his biography)

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Bill, cite a credible source. "Courting Disaster." has been debunked previously.
It's not credible, continuing to cite it is not going to validate anything you seek.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...then for those who do not support the mild form of CIA waterboarding, I guess drone attacks, bombing cities with civillian populations, engaging in close combat in urban terrain, with civillians present and staging raids where the target (bin laden) is actually killed are also forbidden by your code of ethics and morality? So to would be giving the police firearms, and probably mace as well since chemical warfare was used in world war 1 and we wouldn't want to be seen using chemical weapons, of any kind, on civillians whose only crime is resisting arrest or protesting their government. I guess it would be a nicer world if the tactics you believe in were the only ones we used.

 

[billc]

And I would merely point out that those who disagree with Courting Disaster have an agenda of their own. Much like any issue, I will discredit your sources as eagerly as you try to discredit mine.

 

[billc]

So Sukerkin, a police officer who shoots a man about to shoot another, innocent, unarmed man is no different?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

http://thescienceofsecurity.org/blog//2011/05/enhanced_interrogation_techniq-print.html

KSM's interrogators, too, have reported to New York Times journalist Scott Shane that the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks served as a virtual Al Qaeda consultant to the CIA (offering them blackboard lectures on the operations and ideological underpinnings of bin Laden's group) not because his ego and self-concept were broken by sleep-deprivation, water-boarding, or other EITs, but because it was flattered and manipulated by lead interrogator Deuce Martinez for whom KSM developed a close admiration.

Many others in the security establishment with access to the unredacted transcripts of Zubaydah's and KSM's interrogations have also rejected claims that EITs provided life saving intelligence. CIA Inspector General John Helgerson, after an extensive review, reported in 2004 that he found no evidence that EITs had foiled imminent plots as had been claimed by Bush, Cheney, Hayden, and others. FBI Director Robert Mueller told Vanity Fair's David Rose the same thing in December 2008. And Peter Clarke, former head of Scotland Yard, reacting to Thiessen's claims that information attained from KSM had prevented the Heathrow bombing plot, squarely rejected his analysis, calling it "completely and utterly wrong."
More recently, as Shane and Savage report "Glenn L. Carle, a retired C.I.A. officer who oversaw the interrogation of a high-level detainee in 2002, said that coercive techniques 'didn't provide useful, meaningful, trustworthy information.' Even the CIA's own interrogation manuals - formulated in the mid-20th century at a time when the agency was deeply researching interrogation techniques - warns agents that "Use of force is a poor technique, yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say what he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
Still, former administration officials who participated in or abetted the development of the EIT program (architected by a pair of enterprising retired military personnel with a flawed and reductive understanding of human psychology) have not ceased making their claims that EITs saved American lives. Thiessen, more than anyone in or close to the previous administration, has mastered the art of conflating 'information gained from detainees who underwent EITs' with information gained thanks to interrogators' rapport-based approaches to (and cunning psychological manipulation of) subjects who also underwent EITs at some other point during their detainment. (See Thiessen's most recent book, Courting Disaster, for a skillful deployment of this and several other logical/rhetorical fallacies.)

The continued attempts to try to explain waterboarding as not being torture, is a sign of not living in reality, where US Federal, State and local law, as well as international treaty and law, and the laws of other civilized nations classify it as such.

Continuing to cite a well debunked source such as Thiessen's Courting Disaster is a sign of a weak argument.

I don't have to go point by point here. Did that previously over the last 2 years. All in the previously posted links to our discussions here, which contain hundreds of other citations and links that dispute and debunk every "I love the waterboarding" argument being given.

My -ONLY- agenda here Bill, is to insist that my government obey it's OWN laws, operate within them, and live up to the expectation of it's citizens that the US is the "Good Guys". I am very consistent in this view, even when doing so argues against a personal desire.
Members of the US government broke the law. The President, regardless of who he is, is not above the law.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

So Sukerkin, a police officer who shoots a man about to shoot another, innocent, unarmed man is no different?

Your argument here is invalid as the example has little to nothing to do with torturing a prisoner.

 

[elder999]

Hmmm...then for those who do not support the mild form of CIA waterboarding,.

Dude. It was torture. I show again, the legal definition of torture:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.

 

[billc]

Then killing bin laden was murder.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...aden_is_ok_why_cant_you_do_waterboarding.html

Wallace: We'll stipulate -- I think we'll all stipulate -- that bin Laden was a monster, but why is shooting an unarmed man in the face legal and proper while enhanced interrogation, including waterboarding of a detainee under very strict controls and limits -- why is that over the line?
Donilon: Well, let me talk first about the first half of the statement that you made. Again, the president met with the operators yesterday at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, and here are the facts. We are at war with al-Qaeda. Osama bin Laden is the emir or commander, indeed the only leader of al-Qaeda in its 22 year history. This was his residence and operational compound. Our forces entered that compound and were fired upon in the pitch black. It's an organization that uses IEDs and suicide vests and booby traps and all manner of other kinds of destructive capabilities.
Wallace: Mr. Donilon, let me just make my point. I’m not asking you why it was OK to shoot Osama bin Laden. I fully understand the threat. And I’m not second-guessing the SEALs. What I am second guessing is, if that’s OK, why can’t you do waterboarding? Why can’t you do enhanced interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was just as bad an operator as Osama bin Laden?
Donilon: Because, well, our judgment is that it’s not consistent with our values, not consistent and not necessary in terms of getting the kind of intelligence that we need.
Wallace: But shooting bin Laden in the head is consistent with our values?
Donilon: We are at war with Osama bin Laden.
Wallace: We’re at war with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Donilon: It was a military operation, right? It was absolutely appropriate for the SEALs to take the action -- for the forces to take the action that they took in this military operation against a military target.
Wallace: But why is it inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?
Donilon: I didn’t say it was inappropriate to get information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
Wallace: You said it was against our values.
Donilon: I think that the techniques are something that there’s been a policy debate about, and our administration has made our views known on that.