CIA confirms 'enhanced interrogation' did not lead to Osama bin Laden (or: Torture is wrong!)

I don't recall seeing any here defending the practice of torture (sorry - 'enhanced interrogation'), but I wanted to pass this along just in case - MODS, please kill if this is duplicate thread, network safeguards here do not allow search function to work.

The Washington Post has an article here out covering a letter sent by CIA chief Leon Panetta to John Mccain confirming that torture had no luck in leading to the killing of Osama bin Laden, in addition to the fact that it also provided false intel - despite long standing government claims as to the efficacy of this policy:

CIA chief Leon Panetta has written a private letter to Senator John McCain that offers the most detailed answer yet to questions about the relationship between torture and Osama Bin Laden’s death — and undercuts the claim by former Bush administration officials that torture was key to Bin Laden’s killing.

I am not usually inclined to agree with John Mccain on a good many issues, but I believe he is absolutely correct in his opposition to the policy of enhanced interrogation, and that this is indeed a moral debate of great import for a nation that alleges to be upstanding and operating under the rule of law. Granted, Mccain's personal experiences in Vietnam might figure in here, but there can be no talking around the point that our 18th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, and I believe that no amount of mental gymnastics can realistically work around the fact that most forms of 'enhanced interrogation' fall under this classification - or that we can rightly apply such violations to non-americans (or those we have stripped of citizenship at the whim of administration officials!).

Returning to Panetta's letter:

Let me further point out that we first learned about the facilitator/courier’s nom de guerre from a detainee not in CIA custody in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading information about the facilitator/courier. These attempts to falsify the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.

In the end, no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means.

This is nothing more than a perfect illustration, admitted by one of the highest-level intelligence officers we have, that torture under any guise is ineffective - in addition to detrimental to US security. Those subjected to such treatment will provide false intel to end such 'interrogation', and there's not really any way for us to know if the person we're treating as such even HAS information we need.

It also subjects the US to increased animosity and reactionism as a result of apparent hypocrisy and cruelty, as well as opens up a moral equivalency for our enemies to respond to the capture of any of our troops accordingly...this all being in addition to the fact that it renders us nothing less than oathbreakers for violating our agreement to the Geneva Conventions.

In addition, while I will be the first to admit that the US is not a christian nation, a good many of our leaders and representatives claim to be such - and there is nothing of the spirit of Christ in this behaviour. Other wise men have also made relevant statements for such topics here, and I'll close with just one:

Martin Luther King, Jr. -

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.

Be well - and let's all pressure our leaders and strive together to make this nation a light on a hill shining for the world to see, instead of the creeping darkness we are commonly viewed as.

Haha, great info OP, just revealing more of the lies and constant bulls*it coming from the government, why the CIA is directly contradicting them is interesting.

"Sure, torture has been proven time and again in countless studies to result in fabricated testimony. And, yeah, so maybe an infinitesimal proportion of the info we extracted from detainees by employing these techniques actually ended up being of any use. That's not why we do it."

Those employing enhanced interrogation methods are already perfectly aware of their inefficacy. The question we must ask is, why do they do it?

Originally posted by Praetorius
I am not usually inclined to agree with John Mccain on a good many issues, but I believe he is absolutely correct in his opposition to the policy of enhanced interrogation

Same here. McCain was tortured when he was a POW, I think he would be better qualified to make a statement on what qualifies as torture....more so than the Bush administration's lawyers that wrote a memo declaring "enhanced interrogation" legal.

reply to post by mistermonculous


They do it because it's part of the script.. who coined the phrase?.. a political party in Germany, called the national socialists sent jews & other undesirables (muslims of today) off for some good old nazi "Verschärfte Vernehmung" ( meaning "enhanced interrogation" ) good times...

In part, imo, like with the nazi party.. this is conditioning. Party leaders & politicians are soulless sociopath gangsters who want to put a hurt on people they don't like... without any of that bothersome sunshine, or that wrinkled old piece of paper written on marijuana.

The sheep are being conditioned to accept it.. it's what party leaders and kings always do.. propagate the idea their word was law..

Tell that to Dick..

His book is coming out soon and we'll hear, supposedly, indepth reasons why he believes "enhanced interrogation methods" work w/ proof.

Originally posted by mistermonculous

Those employing enhanced interrogation methods are already perfectly aware of their inefficacy. The question we must ask is, why do they do it?

Because it scares people and makes them afraid of doing anything at all that might get them branded a terrorist. Including and especially the citizens of the US.

A lot of people are afraid to speak out, act out, protest, etc., and torture and jailing people without trial works very well as terrorism against your own people. The witch hunts didnt turn up many real witches. But they did make the population desperate not to be labeled a witch. Which made many of them very good little sheep.

reply to post by Illusionsaregrander


*dingdingding*

Ladies and gentlemen, we have a winner.

It's a psy-op folks, and it's at our expense. Though certainly tarnishing our international reputation (or bolstering it, depending on your aims) is frosting on the ugh cake.

P.S. Did anyone ever see the clip of a Fox News correspondent blurting out, "We are the U.S., we don't *bleep*ing torture!" He wasn't, btw, denying that the methods used were torture, but was rather expressing his outrage at enhanced interrogation techniques. I love that guy a little.

reply to post by Praetorius


I think the argument was in reference to the enhanced interrogation techniques on one of the detained big wigs at Gitmo, who gave some info on his courier while being waterboarded.

reply to post by Xcathdra
Possibly, but according to Panetta, there was no smoking gun.

Apologies if I'm misunderstanding, but from his letter:

Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence — including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound.

Correct me if I'm wrong...but, those that were interrogated/tortured could not have known that OBL was in Abbotobad, as they were already in captivity (and being interrogated) well before the Abbotobad compound was ever built.

People captured before Bin Ladens location could easily have the info after the fact if they knew other captives who were brought into Gitmo at later dates. They will talk amongst themselves about whats going on, so its possible in that regards.

As I said, I know they were talking about the water boarding assisting in getting some of the info. Ill try to find the article talking about it. Maybe I am mistaekn and was thinking it was about something else.

reply to post by CanadianDream420
That man is the devil.

'nuff said.

reply to post by Xcathdra
Thanks Xcathdra, let me know what you find.

reply to post by Praetorius


Here is an article from the SantaMaria Times -

Source

NBC’s Brian Williams on Tuesday asked CIA Director Leon Panetta, “Are you denying that water boarding was, in part...used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?”

“No,” Panetta replied. Intelligence officers “used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees.” Williams asked if that “handy euphemism...includes water boarding.” Panetta replied, “That’s correct.”

Its up in the air.... Waterboarding was used, and depending on source you get yes it was helpful to get info, and no it was not helpful.

The article talks about 3 high level Al Queida commanders who underwent water boarding, which is supposedly where the links to the courier, as well as his name, came into play.

Its possible they are playing the semantics game. Under International law (Conventions against torture or CAT) torture is a nono.

The problem is when the US signs international agreements like that, they become part of the US body of Federal Law. This means that the US can make changes to that agreement (although many people reject this part, however case law is present and supports it), which is what occured.

The way the Government views waterboarding is the manner in which they can say torture was not used to get info. Waterboarding is considered an enhanced interrogation technique, not torture, under US law.

I guess its going to come down to a toss up - those who think waterboarding helped, and those who think it does not help.

Either way, im glad we got the s.o.b.