An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

You Can’t Get There From Here

One of the most annoying things about movement conservatives, I find, is the way they combine insufferably sanctimonious self-righteousness with a complete disregard for facts. I’m not talking here about “facts” that should more properly be called opinions — like, for instance, “Torture has kept Americans safe from another terrorist attack for seven years now. That is a fact.” I’m talking about facts that are based on the laws of physics — like the fact that information provided by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed under torture after he was arrested in March 2003 could not have helped foil a plot to blow up the Library Tower in Los Angeles (now called the U.S. Bank Tower) that was discovered in 2002.

The Library Tower plot has been used ad nauseum by torture apologists to “prove” that torture produces actionable intelligence. The most recent example is one Frank J. Fleming, who writes this at Pajamas Media:

A civilized nation should never torture. Period. Ever, for any reason. No matter how many lives are at stake. It always just reduces us to animals that thirst for the pain of others. We say we want it to stop “terrorists” from killing us, but if in the process we murder our own humanity, what’s the point? And anyway, torture doesn’t work. I don’t care what basic logic or common sense or history tells you. It never works. Ever. That’s what studies say. Scientific ones where, to test the efficacy, they tortured monkeys to see if they could get the monkeys to talk, and none of them ever did. So with that issue settled, for what other reason could we be seeking torture but inhuman sadistic pleasure?

Yes, some are claiming that the torturing of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed saved thousands of people from a plot to blow up the Library Tower in Los Angeles, but that’s ridiculous. First of all, if they really got useful information, then they obviously didn’t use torture because it’s a well-known fact that torture doesn’t work (remember the studies I mentioned). But they claimed they used waterboarding, which they say is not torture but we all know is totally torture. I mean, they hold someone down and pour water — real water — on his face; try that on a cat and see if it acts like that isn’t torture. Thus, since waterboarding is torture, it obviously didn’t cause KSM to give up information because torture doesn’t work. Thus, he must have given up the information for reasons completely unrelated to the waterboarding.

Now look at what we (and by we, I mean you, because I’m not a part of this) have become. Torturers. And what did we gain? Information on a terror plot that was probably never going to happen in the first place. And even if it was going to happen, it’s not like thousands of people don’t die in LA every year anyway. Plus, “Library Tower” isn’t actually a library. So we gained nothing, and we debased ourselves by becoming nothing more than common Cheneys. Just because someone masterminded a plot that killed thousands doesn’t make it right to pour water on him.

So I hope your bloodthirst has been quenched, you mindless barbarians. You may say Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is “evil,” but then I ask, “Who is holding whom hostage and pouring water on his face?” No wonder the rest of the world looks at us and sees who the real terrorists are. This is what our torture has done to us. And I weep.

So do I — for Fleming’s shoddy, sloppy thinking, for his lack of interest in doing some basic research to confirm that a claim is true before making it, and for the condescending attitude toward opponents of torture for their lack of attention to “basic logic or common sense or history” when he hasn’t even paid attention to facts.

On April 21, Timothy Noah debunked the Library Tower canard in response to Marc Thiessen’s op-ed in the Washington Post that day:

… [Marc] A. Thiessen, a former Bush speechwriter, argues in a Washington Post op-ed (”The CIA’s Questioning Worked“) that justification for the Bush administration’s techniques is there for all to see in a memo from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel dated May 30, 2005, one of the four made public.

Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques “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.” KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that “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 Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ” In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.

Ah, the Library Tower. The thwarting of al-Qaida’s attack on it was a favorite talking point of President Bush (though he sometimes called it the “Liberty Tower“; for the past six years, its formal name has been the U.S. Bank Tower). Because the Library Tower is in Los Angeles, the al-Qaida plot to bring it down is sometimes confused with the Millennium Plot, a separate plan to attack Los Angeles International Airport on New Year’s Day 2000—supported but not organized by al-Qaida—that came much closer to fruition. The Library Tower … stands 73 stories high and is the tallest skyscraper west of the Mississippi. … Sheikh Mohammed initially planned to crash a jetliner into it on 9/11 as part of a scheme involving not four but 10 passenger planes on both coasts. Osama Bin Laden vetoed that as too ambitious and scaled back the plan to focus on New York and Washington. After 9/11, Sheikh Mohammed still hoped to execute the attack on the Library Tower and, working with a Southeast Asian al-Qaida affiliate (the aforementioned Hambali), recruited four terror cell members to carry it out.

The first reason to be skeptical that this planned attack could have been carried out successfully is that, as I’ve noted before, attacking buildings by flying planes into them didn’t remain a viable al-Qaida strategy even through Sept. 11, 2001. Thanks to cell phones, passengers on United Flight 93 were able to learn that al-Qaida was using planes as missiles and crashed the plane before it could hit its target. There was no way future passengers on any flight would let a terrorist who killed the pilot and took the controls fly wherever he pleased.

What clinches the falsity of Thiessen’s claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen’s argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush’s counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and “at that point, the other members of the cell” (later arrested) “believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward” [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, “In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast.” These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got—an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush’s characterization of it as a “disrupted plot” was “ludicrous”—that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn’t captured until March 2003.

How could Sheikh Mohammed’s water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration “broke up” that attack during the previous year? It couldn’t, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn’t realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing. Stranger things have happened. But the plot was already a dead letter. If foiling the Library Tower plot was the reason to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then that water-boarding was more than cruel and unjust. It was a waste of water.

Each time another reality-based writer points out the chronology problem with claiming that torturing KSM helped break up plans to attack the Library Tower, I say to myself that torture supporters could not possibly be clueless or dumb enough to bring it up again as an example of how information gained through torture saved American lives. But, always, they are.

  • CStanley
    And every time I hear this complaint I wonder whether the writer hasn't heard the purported explanation or if he/she doesn't buy it.

    I can understand the latter, as I'm skeptical of it too- but I find it odd when people talk about this as though there is not even any conceivable explanation. After all, we did convict the people who plotted to destroy the WTC in the 90s, but then there was obviously continued planning for a second plot. I don't know whether or not that claim is really accurate in regard to the alleged second plot to attack LA, but that's the explanation. Choose to believe it or not, but it's not as though people aren't aware of the timeline issue.
  • kathyedits
    Christine, I'm (almost) at a loss for words. You appear to be suggesting that the continued plotting to destroy the WTC after the 1st attempt means that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed could indeed have given information under torture in March 2003 that the CIA then used to break up the Library Tower plot, which had already been broken up in 2002.

    Perhaps I'm missing something. What is that something? I mean, I don't get it. How does the CIA stop a terrorist plot in 2002 with information Khalid Sheikh Mohammed gave them in 2003?

    Help? Please?
  • kathyedits
    After all, we did convict the people who plotted to destroy the WTC in the 90s, but then there was obviously continued planning for a second plot.

    By different people, Christine. By different people. Not by the people who were convicted in the 90s plot. These were different people who plotted 9/11. And 9/11 was not the same plot as the one in the 90s. That was the 1st plot. 9/11 was the second. Nobody is claiming that someone gave information under torture in 2001 that then enabled investigators to go back and stop the plot in the early 1990s.

    I don't know whether or not that claim is really accurate in regard to the alleged second plot to attack LA, but that's the explanation.

    Christine. What "alleged second plot to attack LA"? What second plot, Christine? I'm not aware of a second plot.
  • JSpencer
    Allowing torture to be associated with America in the first place was a terrible mistake. Those who continue to try and rationalize it, to act as torture apologists, clearly don't understand the depth of failure signified by this corruption. It's a sad thing to see so many of my countrymen this morally adrift. If the line isn't drawn here, then why bother having standards at all? I see this as just another chapter in the dumbing down of America.
  • CStanley
    If you're going to write about a story, Kathy, then I'd expect that you'd have researched it. Bush spoke (in 2005 or 2006, I believe- and it was on the WH website) about a second plot being broken up as a result of KSM's information- he allegedly told the interrogators that the plot hadn't been abandoned after it was first discovered but was passed on to a different leader, Hambali.

    Even the foiled plot that you refer to was a rehash of the original 9/11 plan which was to include West coast targets like the Library tower- so that's my point- that the plots tend to have rebirths after one is foiled.

    I have no idea if KSM's confession about this really happened or if so, if he was confessing something real or something fictitious, but that is what people are alleging when they say that the waterboarding resulted in disruption of plot to attack LA. So you're flabergasted reaction to the repetition of this claim even though you believe the timeline disproves it just isn't based on an accurate understanding of what the claim is. You're free to be skeptical of whether the allegation is true (as am I) but that doesn't mean the people making the claim are idiots who won't acknowledge that the timeline doesn't work, because they're not saying what you claim they're saying. And your reaction seems to indicate that you're the one who didn't know what you were talking about here- that you weren't even aware that people who 'keep repeating this' aren't talking about the same thing that you think they were talking about.

    Here are a couple of links for you:
    http://spectator.org/blog/2009/04/22/more-on-th...

    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE5YT...

    http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/bush-seizes-on...

    Interestingly, that last article indicates something which could be fact checked if anyone was interested in learning the truth. Apparently when Bush first talked about this incident, the mayor of LA expressed that city officials had never been notified of this planned attack, but the administration claimed that HS officials had briefed LA officials. I wonder if that's really true? If so, it would indicate that they at least believed at the time that there was a potential threat (rather than this being something made up after the fact.)
  • Rudi
    CS You are ignoring the timeline. Here from W's own mouth:
    http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news...
    We Also Broke Up Other Post-9/11 Aviation Plots.

    * In 2002, we broke up a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast. During a hearing at Guantanamo Bay two months ago, KSM stated that the intended target was the Library Tower in Los Angeles.
    * In 2003, we uncovered and stopped a plot led by another suspected senior al Qaeda operative named Abu Bakr al-Azdi. Our intelligence community believes this plot was to be another East Coast aviation attack – hijacking multiple airplanes and then crashing them into targets in the United States.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Moha...
    Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 by the Pakistani ISI, possibly in a joint action with agents of the American Diplomatic Security Service, and has been in U.S. custody since that time. In September 2006, the U.S. government announced it had moved Mohammed from a secret prison to the facility at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp.[5] Human Rights Watch and Mohammed have personally claimed that the American authorities have tortured him, a claim that was supported by information released on February 4, 2008, when it was revealed that he was subjected to the controversial technique of "simulated drowning", also called "waterboarding".[6].

    In March 2007, after four years in captivity, including six months of detention at Guantanamo Bay, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed — as it was claimed by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal Hearing [7] in Guantanamo Bay — confessed to masterminding the September 11th attacks, the Richard Reid shoe bombing attempt to blow up an airliner over the Atlantic Ocean, the Bali nightclub bombing in Indonesia, the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and various foiled attacks.[8]

    On December 8, 2008, Mohammed and four co-defendants sent a note to the military judge expressing their desire to confess and plead guilty.[9]

    If the plot was foiled and all were arrested before KSM capture, how did our sadistic torture lead to time travel to stop the West coast attack?
  • CStanley
    Rudi, I'm not ignoring anything- you are ignoring the entire comment I made and the links.

    I'm not sure what part of this is hard to understand, but the summary of it is that CIA and the Bush administration allege that after the initial Library Tower plot had been broken up, KSM claimed during interrogation that the plot had not been abandoned but instead, had been passed off to be directed by Hambali.

    Here's the LA Times discussion of that claim:
    http://articles.latimes.com/p/2005/oct/08/natio...

    The White House said Thursday that U.S. authorities disrupted the so-called “West Coast Airliner Plot” in mid-2002, stopping terrorists from attacking “targets on the West Coast of the United States using hijacked airplanes. The plotters included at least one major operational planner involved in planning the events of 9/11.”

    The brief White House document offered no details about the timing of the airliner plot, or potential targets. White House officials on Friday confirmed that one of the targets referred to in the document was the Library Tower, which was renamed the US Bank Tower in 2003.

    The description of the plot was based on claims made by Mohammed, who has said he was the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, during interrogations after his capture in Pakistan in March 2003. But those familiar with Mohammed’s comments and the alleged plot have suggested that, at most, it was a plan that was stopped in its initial stages and was not an operational plot that had been disrupted by authorities.

    In March 2004, the Los Angeles Police Department confirmed that it had been briefed on Mohammed’s statements. “We were made aware of that information last spring,” John Miller, then the LAPD’s top anti-terrorism official, said at the time.

    On Friday, Miller – now the chief spokesman for the FBI – said only that the LAPD had discussed the matter in depth with the Joint Terrorism Task Force and concluded that whatever plot that had existed in its initial stages already had been dismantled with the arrest of Al Qaeda operatives in Indonesia and elsewhere.



    And the Am Spectator link I provided talks about this article- with skepticism about whether or not the 'plot' was really an organizational plot or just some guys still kicking around the idea.

    Heck, even Theissen talked about the discrepancy of the timeline and gave the explanation, that no one was saying that the interrogation in 2003 led to the foiling of the plot in 2002- so people who are critiquing him for being ignorant are themselves being ignorant of what he actually said.

    Feel free to accuse him and others of accepting at face value the claim about a possible second (or third, perhaps more correct to call it) attempt at this target, but if you claim that they're suggesting that the interrogation led to the foiling of a past event then you're either being foolish yourself (proving yourself incapable of reading comprehension) or you're being disingenuous in trying to claim someone wrote something that's not at all what they wrote.
  • CStanley
    Actually I just came across this, by Theissen, responding to the skepticism that there was even any organized reconstitution of the LA Library Tower plot:
    http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MmUxYz...

    He gives a bit more detail, including that KSM gave up the names of guys who were transporting money to Hambali, and then the name of Hambali's brother who was allegedly put in charge of this operation. So, who knows, there could actually be something to this even if it was disrupted pretty early.

    But again what is clear is that none of the major people who are talking about the disruption of this LA plot are referring to the initial plot in 2002.
  • Rudi
    Froomkin shots down the narrative of the BUSH SPEECH WRITER.
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/white-house-wa...
    Maybe Theissen and Hannity will show how water boarding is nothing more that a fraternity hazing!!
    From Slate:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2216601/
  • HemmD
    It occured to me that an element of the torture debate that hasn't been examined is the sourcing of the information that has been brought to light since 9/11. I can't believe how gullible the defenders of BushCo must be, or think we are, to constantly take CIA leaks at face value while merely noting FBI statements. It sets up a false equivalency that allows for a narrative that justifies all that's been done by the past administration. The CIA has been hip deep in crafting a narrative that 1) justified a war based upon untrustworthy sources, incarcerations of hundreds,and justified torture. For this narrtive, BushCo provided the legal cover to protect its authors.

    The evidence that led up to the war all came from CIA sources, and people like Richard Clark were squelched for questioning sources like the ever reliable "curveball" who were used as primary and secondary sources to "prove" Iraq was holding WMD, yellow cake uranium, and constructing bioterrorism factories. George Tennet sat directly behind Sec. Powel as he showed his 'evidence' to the UN. For his managing of the narrative, Tennet received the Medal of Freedom, a nice reward for beingso completely wrong.

    The torture memos have shown the creation institutionalization of torture that was implmented simultaneosly withing the CIA and military facilities. FBI sources, experts in interrogation, were cut out ofthe program from the start. There appears no attempt to check the efficacy interrogation through torture. The Hambali capture is just another example.

    "Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.

    "To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous," said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines."


    If you wish to weigh testimony between two groups,who would you most likely believe. A part of the justice department or a group dedicated to crafting a political narrative?
  • kathyedits
    But again what is clear is that none of the major people who are talking about the disruption of this LA plot are referring to the initial plot in 2002.

    What is clear, Christine, is that movement conservatives like Marc Thiessen and others who at one time or other were employed by the Bush administration (Thiessen being one of those) and who still are true believers in the wonder and beauty of torture are chasing puffs of smoke and grasping at straws to "prove" that torturing people like Abu Zubaydah and KSM provided actionable intelligence and disrupted plots.

    There was only one plot involving the Library Tower, Christine -- the one that was disrupted in 2002. Even that plot was not much more than talk, but whatever there was, was stopped in 2002. Under torture, KSM told interrogators about the Library Tower plot, which had already been discovered. He also told interrogators that he had hopes for still carrying out that attack and asked a trusted associate, Hambali, to follow up on the idea. The LAT article you link to (which is also the one I linked to) continues:
    Hambali, also known as Riduan Isamuddin, in turn is believed to have chosen several men to launch the attacks, including a pilot, and had set aside some money to pay for them, according to one senior counter-terrorism official.

    Those men were soon captured, however, and the plot never progressed past the planning stages, according to several counter-terrorism officials.

    “To take that and make it into a disrupted plot is just ludicrous,” said one senior FBI official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in accordance with departmental guidelines.

    Yet, you expect that a serious, adult discussion of whether torturing KSM led to the disruption of any plots should include, as a disrupted plot, an idea that KSM passed on to an associate and that never went anywhere. No matter how much people like Marc Thiessen insist that torturing KSM led to the name Hambali, and that led to another name, and another, and another, and all those people were arrested, that still does not make a disrupted plot, Christine. And that's what this is about. We are debating here the question of whether torturing KSM led to reliable, real information that actually helped authorities stop an active plot that would have killed innocent people if the authorities had not tortured KSM. And the answer is, it did not. KSM's torture did not stop the Library Tower plot because that was stopped in 2002, and KSM's torture did not stop a plot to launch a "second wave" attack on the Library Tower because there never was any such plot. An idea is not a plot.
  • CStanley
    Where do you get this insider information, Kathy? Almost everyone in the intelligence community agreed with some level of useful information- either actionable intelligence or a great deal of organizational information about al Qaeda. Obama's top intel officer agrees with that assessment as well, so I don't know where you get off being so dismissive.

    What is being ridiculed in that LA Times article (by an anonymous FBI official, who would have had no idea what actually was happening at CIA- that's actually one of the main real criticisms of the way all this was being carried out, because the 'wall of separation' was once again in place between the two agencies) is that Hambali had 'set aside money' (which corroborates what Theissen said about KSM giving names of the money transporters) and had chosen people to carry out the attack but those people were captured (also suggests corroboration of Theissen's claim about names being discovered from KSM's responses.)

    Yet this to you is evidence that there was no plot. OK, so you tell me. At what point in the planning of the 9/11 attacks would you have given credit to intel agencies for having disrupted it, if they'd been able to do so? Only after the hijackers arrived at the airports? After the got control of the planes? You tell me.
  • CStanley
    Hemm, I think that's a reasonable point except that I don't trust the FBI sources either. The turf battles between FBI and CIA are so notorious that they take on a politicization of their own (not GOP vs. Dem, but agency vs. agency.)
  • kathyedits
    Where do you get this insider information, Kathy? Almost everyone in the intelligence community agreed with some level of useful information- either actionable intelligence or a great deal of organizational information about al Qaeda. Obama's top intel officer agrees with that assessment as well, so I don't know where you get off being so dismissive.

    You are telling me that almost everyone in the intelligence community agreed that KSM's torture in March 2003 yielded useful information about KSM's desire to re-start the planning for an attack on the Library Tower? That's the subject I am discussing. Which subject are you discussing?

    By the way, that wall of separation between the FBI and CIA was made worse by the CIA's torture program. FBI officials were so upset about it that they refused to let their officers take part in CIA interrogations or be anywhere near them.
  • CStanley
    By the way, that wall of separation between the FBI and CIA was made worse by the CIA's torture program. FBI officials were so upset about it that they refused to let their officers take part in CIA interrogations or be anywhere near them.

    By the way, I already stated that in my comment.

    You are telling me that almost everyone in the intelligence community agreed that KSM's torture in March 2003 yielded useful information about KSM's desire to re-start the planning for an attack on the Library Tower? That's the subject I am discussing. Which subject are you discussing?

    My comment about a fair amount of consensus is on the general topic of useful information having been gained from the interrogation procedures that were used. Do you dispute that (for instance, my example was Blair- I believe his exact words- though edited out of the memo he wrote when it was first released to the media- were that the techniques yielded some high value information. Why on earth would he say such a thing if he didn't feel that was true, or that it was the consensus opinion?)

    So given that, how do you reach your conclusion that this information absolutely was not obtained? You have this certainty which makes no sense. Skepticism over the claims of individual pieces of information makes sense, but there is no way for you to know the things you claim to know- they're strictly your opinions.
  • kathykattenburg
    By the way, I already stated that in my comment.

    No, you didn't. Unless you are referring to a comment other than the one you made to Hemm.

    My comment about a fair amount of consensus is on the general topic of useful information having been gained from the interrogation procedures that were used.

    Okay, well I'm not sure why you would ask me where I got "insider information" about useful information that you meant to refer to general information not specific to any particular plot -- thus obviously suggesting that that was what I was talking about in MY comments, when clearly it's not what I was talking about in this thread. But since you do shift to that aspect of the subject, one does not need insider information to know that torture does not produce reliable information. I have no idea what you mean by there being a "fair amount of consensus" that useful information was gained from the CIA's torture program, and I also don't know why you think that the fact that Dennis Blair thinks torture produced useful information somehow means that Blair's opinion was the "consensus opinion." The only people I know of who have defended the torture program are Bush administration officials who are ideologically committed to the program. Dennis Blair is one of those, although he did not refer to any specific cases -- he just made a general statement that he was sure useful information had been gained -- and then added, in a separate, public statement that regardless of whether useful information had been gained, the cost to the United States's reputation and our national security (because of how torture was used by Al Qaeda as a recruitment tool) had not been worth the value of any information we might have gotten.

    As for "Why on earth would he say such a thing if he didn't feel that was true, or that it was the consensus opinion?" I have no doubt he felt it was true, but how does that lead you to the conclusion that it IS true? He provided no examples, no specific instances where information provided through torture stopped an imminent attack and thus saved American lives. I don't know why you place such stock in what he said, or in what other CIA and other Bush admin officials say about a program they either put in place, or conducted, or justified, or helped to maintain (depending on who they were). Don't you realize that every government and regime in history has made that claim -- that torture was necessary, that it worked, that it kept people safe? I really am stunned by such childlike naivete. I can only attribute it to the fact that you are, or were, a Bush admin supporter and thus have trouble believing anything they did or say now could be false. If it's not attributable to that, I don't know what to attribute it to. A willingness to accept what established authorities say is true? I don't know.

    Plus, it's demonstrably untrue -- or at least open to serious challenge -- that there was or is now a "consensus" on the efficacy of torture. Numerous current and former CIA officials have said the program was completely ineffective and produced nothing but garbage, or information that was already known or could easily have been gained through traditional interrogation methods. This group of mostly retired intelligence professionals was formed specifically to oppose the Bush admin torture program, and in this memorandum they sent to Pres. Obama, they specifically say it's not true that most intelligence officials support the CIA's torture program or that they did not want Obama to end it. To the contrary, according to them, most CIA professionals "deplore" torture and definitely do NOT support the Bush admin's torture program.

    I'm also shocked that you would think it acceptable to torture people to get generalized "useful information" about Al Qaeda, or to "learn" about the organization and "how it works." Way back in the day, eight years ago, when Americans first started asking themselves if torture was ever okay, the most bloodthirsty people were saying torture might be justifiable in a ticking time bomb scenario (which doesn't exist, of course). Nobody EVER said, or suggested, that it might be okay to torture people to get "useful information" or "find out an organization worked." This is how degraded we have become as a society, Christine. It's horrifying to me.

    Beyond all this, Christine, I can convey the degree of certainty and assurance that I do, about the absurdity of any notion that torturing detainees yielded useful information in general or specific actionable intelligence about specific plots because I know enough about torture to know that it doesn't work -- by definition. I am educated about torture. I am informed about torture. I don't feel the need to be thrown off balance and second-guess what I know and understand to be the truth through my own efforts to inform myself on a subject about which there is, literally, endless amounts of information. I don't care how much Dennis Blair or Michael Mukasey or Michael Hayden go on and on about how essential the CIA's torture program (of course they don't use that word) was to our national security, how effective it was, how much it kept us safe. If it were true, they would have provided specific details that survived fact-checking. And none of them ever have. And they never have for a reason. Because they can't demonstrate that torture saved American lives because it didn't -- because torture doesn't save lives. Of course, that is not even the most relevant issue here. Torture is illegal. It is absolutely proscribed. Not for any reason may it be used, ever. That's our law and that's numerous international treaties to which the U.S. is party.
  • CStanley
    Gosh, Kathy, I've given up even trying to get through that comment.

    First, you seem to be operating under the belief that Dennis Blair was part of the Bush administration, when he's actually the appointed DNI of the Obama administration. So by not knowing the facts, you're missing my point about his statement. It's a statement against interest for the Obama administration, and statements like that should be given weight because there's no political reason for him to say anything which might be taken as support of the Bush administration's interrogation policies. And then you also ask why I assume anything about his statements reflecting truth rather than just his opinion- well, there's also the principle of putting higher weight behind the opinions of people who are actually privvy to all of the available information, over the opinions of say someone like yourself who really has no clue what is in all of the classified records.

    Beyond that I also see in skimming your comment that you're putting words in my keyboard which I absolutely did not say. This isn't about whether or not I support the interrogation procedures, Kathy, and I know that you and I have discussed this many times before so I know that you've seen me state the opposite, and so it's completely disingenuous for you to claim that I'm now saying otherwise when I never stated anywhere that I support those policies. My opinion is more or less the same as Dennis Blair's, Kathy- that's OBAMA administration official Dennis Blair, Kathy- that even in the face of evidence that these procedures may have 'worked' to get some information, the procedures still should not be used.

    Anyway, I'm done with the conversation since you are repeatedly writing things without knowing some of the most basic facts, and then you're stating your own opinions as though they're established facts. It's impossible to hold an intellectually honest discussion under those terms.
  • CStanley
    One last thing, I'll point out one of the many things that you seem to have failed to read, my comment about the 'wall of separation' which you claim I did not make:

    "that's actually one of the main real criticisms of the way all this was being carried out, because the 'wall of separation' was once again in place between the two agencies"
  • kathykattenburg
    One last thing, I'll point out one of the many things that you seem to have failed to read, my comment about the 'wall of separation' which you claim I did not make:

    And that is NOT the comment you made in response to Hemm. I was referring to this comment: "Hemm, I think that's a reasonable point except that I don't trust the FBI sources either. The turf battles between FBI and CIA are so notorious that they take on a politicization of their own (not GOP vs. Dem, but agency vs. agency.)." I had not seen the comment you just quoted me, and that of course is why I added, "Unless you are referring to a comment other than the one you made to Hemm." -- to allow for the possibility that you were referring, umm, to a comment other than the one you made to Hemm.

    Re: Dennis Blair being part of the Obama admin: You are right that I got mixed up about that, and that I was thinking he was part of the Bush admin. So my bad on that point. However, it does not change the substance of what I said to you. It IS true that, not having been part of the Bush administration, he would not have felt he had to defend the program from a proprietary standpoint. I agree with you on that, now that you have reminded me that he was appointed by Obama and was not part of the Bush administration. However, when you say, "... there's also the principle of putting higher weight behind the opinions of people who are actually privvy to all of the available information, over the opinions of say someone like yourself who really has no clue what is in all of the classified records," sorry I don't buy that. That just doesn't wash with me. First of all, knowing what torture is, what it does, and what it doesn't and can't do, I call bulls**t on any claims that the CIA's torture program produced useful information of any kind. I would never accept that just because it comes from the DNI who has access to classified records. And second, I do not accept as fact any claim or set of claims, from anyone, who cannot or will not provide the evidence or proof. And it's astonishing to me that you *can* do so, given what we now know, and actually have known for some time, about all the lies and deceptions fed to the American people by the Bush administration. All through these last eight years, anyone who questioned what Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al. said about the intelligence that showed Iraq had an active nuclear program, and biological weapons, and was in cahoots with al Qaeda, and was an imminent danger to the U.S., etc., etc., was angrily told by Bush supporters that the president and all his men (and at least one woman) knew better than we did. Who were we to question the president, when he was the one who saw the briefings and the intelligence reports every day? Well, guess what? Dick Cheney lied and cherry-picked, and the intelligence did not indicate what he said it did.

    If you trust that torture yielded useful information because Dennis Blair said it did and he has access to the classified information, and you trust that the classified information itself was all accurate and true and complete, and gave specific detailed information about what, how, why, when, and where the information tortured out of KSM and Abu Zubaydah and others was "useful," then that's fine for you, apparently. But it's not fine for me. The president says it's not torture so it's not torture? Dennis Blair says he saw the classified reports and they show KSM gave us really important information under torture so he did? Sorry, I need more. A fancy title and a high-level security clearance don't cut it with me unless there's tangible, specific, independent evidence and I get to see it. Until then, I will continue to use my own ability to think for myself.

    As for me misrepresenting your positions and putting words on your keyboard, I can only say that it has not been at all clear to me that you oppose torture even though you believe Dennis Blair when he says it works. Yes, I do recall you saying in past threads on this subject that you think torture is wrong even though it may work, but the weight of your argument in these discussions is usually much more on the side of trying to advance your agreement with the notion that torture works. It's easy to forget or overlook that you've said torture is wrong in the past when every time we get into one of these debates, you're arguing heatedly with me and others that this one said that torture DID break up this plot over here, and there WAS another plot, and KSM *could* have been planning to strike again, and Marc Thiessen and American Spectator et al. *are* making legitimate arguments, and when would *you* consider it a plot? When it's already happened? And Dennis Blair said torture *did* work, and he should know because he saw the classified information.

    Your priority, your goal, in these debates is to successfully argue the point that torturing detainees in U.S. custody *was* an effective way to get good information and stop attacks, and that we should respect and understand and have sympathy with the use of torture because it really worked. And now, going forward, we shouldn't torture anymore because it really is wrong, but there was a good, good argument for using these techniques when they were used, and how can you say torture didn't work, when the CIA guys tell us it did?

    As I've said before, even if torture did work, it's not the point, because torture is illegal and torture is evil. It's a moral evil. Nevertheless, I *do* feel I have to challenge the notion that torture works, because it doesn't, and I believe that part of the evil of torture lies in this persistent notion that it works. But you seem to be less bothered by the immorality and illegality of torture than you are by the fact that I would put my informed understanding of the non-effectiveness of torture -- based on centuries upon centuries and mountains upon mountains of historical and documentary evidence -- above what the "classified record" says.

    So, fine, I take you at your word that you think torture is wrong and counterproductive even though it works, but I think I can be forgiven for getting a different impression when your arguments here are focused 99% on the "torture works and the classified records can't be wrong" part, and 1% on the "torture is wrong and counterproductive even though it works" part.

    I'm sorry this is so long. I freely admit to using 50 words when one will do.
  • CStanley
    OK, I was going to leave this thread alone, but I like that you actually responded to what I was saying and have acknowledged your mistake about Blair (and I wasn't trying to nitpick over that error, but you can see now that it went to the substance of the point I was raising.)

    I think I can be forgiven for getting a different impression when your arguments here are focused 99% on the "torture works and the classified records can't be wrong" part, and 1% on the "torture is wrong and counterproductive even though it works" part.

    I 'forgive' in the sense that I don't take it personally or hold it against you personally- but no, you can't be 'forgiven' in the sense of this being excusable as a debate tactic. You may not be intentionally engaging in this, but when people deliberately use this tactic what they're doing is presuming that anyone who expresses disagreement with part of their argument is necessarily espousing the opposite viewpoint.

    There are two problems with that. First, as I said, it's dishonest when done intentionally (sort of a form of strawman argument- instead of responding to the actual points raised by someone who rebuts your points, you're dismissing them on the grounds that they hold this opposite, extreme opinion that's unworthy of even being taken seriously.) In this case, as is often the case in the last few years, that charge is raised by anyone who disagrees with any criticism of the Bush administration or its policies, as though a person has to agree with every criticism (even that which has no real evidence behind it or that which engages in outrageous hyperbole) or else one has no credibility. That's absurd.

    If a person had been convicted of a crime (lesser than murder) and then a writer claimed that the person was a murderer, and someone else brought up the fact that there was no evidence being presented to back up that charge, would it make sense to you for the original writer to respond with "What, you're defending him? He's a convicted criminal!"? I would think you'd see the flaw in that 'logic', yet your emotional response to anything to do with the Bush administration seems to cause you to make similar arguments.

    And even when this isn't being done with dishonest intent, it still leads to poorly constructed arguments which will convince no one who didn't already agree with you.

    Without rehashing the whole thing, I'll try to briefly point out that I don't necessarily think that the claims of a second LA plot are true- but I'm trying to get you to see that you cannot possibly have evidence of those claims being false either. That is your opinion, and that's fine- I've examined the available evidence and shown that it could be true that a reconstituted plot was disrupted in the early phases of planning, or it's possible that that's all BS. Neither you nor I was present to witness what information changed hands and so we both only have our best guesses about it.

    Instead of making poorly constructed arguments, I think it would make a lot of sense for you or others to write articles expressing your skepticism about the alleged plots that were disrupted (to me, the most obvious reason for skepticism was the laundry list of hundreds of things that KSM supposedly confessed to- for heavens sake, people were joking that next he'd say he was responsible for Jonbenet Ramsey's death and the disappearance of the girl in Aruba.)

    But when you make a lousy argument, stating emphatically to me that these claims CANNOT be true, you're only making the people who disagree with you decide that your posts aren't worth reading or taking seriously. I mean, OK, your whole argument seems to be that there's all of this historical evidence that torture doesn't work in extracting true confessions. Fine, but I've shown you in another thread that it appears to me that CIA may have found a way to extract information that had some probability of being true (things they may have been somewhat sure of but needed more confirmation or direction to check them out further) and then presumably they'd follow the leads and check out the truth or falsehood of the information that was given up. That's different from randomly torturing people and expecting the information extracted to be trustworthy.

    To me, the argument here should be similar to arguments against use of corporal punishment of children (obviously I'm not claiming similarity in scale or seriousness of those actions.) Experts will say that corporal punishment doesn't work- and parents who spank their kids will read that and think to themselves that the experts are clueless because they believe that their spankings have been effective. And if done in a certain way, under some circumstances, that may even be true- but there are other broader reasons that it still is a poor form of discipline. So, those experts shouldn't make claims that they really can't support with evidence (no one can say that spanking a child never works to extinguish an undesirable behavior) but they should stick to more correct arguments.

    your arguments here are focused 99% on the "torture works and the classified records can't be wrong" part, and 1% on the "torture is wrong and counterproductive even though it works" part.

    Well, gee, earlier you were admonishing me for not sticking to the topic at hand...
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC