The role of torture in the killing and capture of Osama Bin Laden

[CACTUSJACKmankin]

I have heard claims that enhanced interrogation techniques, particularly waterboarding (possibly of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically) led either directly or indirectly to the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden. However, most of these claims i hear are from conservative media figures and politicians. Is there any objective evidence or official claim by the current administration that the water-boarding of anybody led us to OBL's compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan or is this just more pro-torture partisanism?

 

[Upchurch]

I have heard claims that enhanced interrogation techniques, particularly waterboarding (possibly of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically) led either directly or indirectly to the finding and killing of Osama Bin Laden.

That's funny. A few days ago, NPR reported the exact opposite.


eta: I believe this was the story I heard.

 

[Bilbo]

The pubs are just trying to justify torture...plain and simple. Call it enhanced blah blahh blahhh, but it's still torture, and still illegal.

Even Cheney crawled out of his cave to sing his song on Fox this weekend. It's sickening.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Just more lies from the Fox

 

[Toontown]

That's funny. A few days ago, NPR reported the exact opposite.


eta: I believe this was the story I heard.

And I believe this is what I read in the story you heard, but apparently did not hear well or read.

Among those who provided information while under CIA control was Hassan Gul, a senior al-Qaida operative from Pakistan. According to the detainee documents, Gul told interrogators that Kuwaiti traveled with bin Laden. A senior U.S. official says the information Gul provided was key to identifying Kuwaiti as bin laden's courier.

But he may have provided it under stress.

A 2005 document indicates that Gul was one of the CIA detainees subjected to "enhanced interrogation techniques." He is now free.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, a mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks and one of three CIA detainees subjected to waterboarding, indirectly confirmed information about Kuwaiti.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Right, but didn't he provide that info last August, long after the torture? Also, he was only one source of info. No torture was needed to find Bin Laden.

 

[applecorped]

The pubs are just trying to justify torture...plain and simple. Call it enhanced blah blahh blahhh, but it's still torture, and still illegal.

Even Cheney crawled out of his cave to sing his song on Fox this weekend. It's sickening.

What's to justify? It worked.

 

[A'isha]

Right, but didn't he provide that info last August, long after the torture? Also, he was only one source of info. No torture was needed to find Bin Laden.

Yup. Do you know why the cited article said "indrectly"? Because KSM never mentioned, even once, the courier's name. When he was asked, without torture, about the courier's name, he denied any knowledge of anyone with that name (or that the person named knew anything...there appears to be some conflict on this, though all reports agree the question and answer came during regular interrogation). And that's what convinced interrogators that the courier was someone really important, because that meant KSM was actively trying to conceal his knowledge of facts that interrogators knew to be true and knew that KSM had to have known.

What's to justify? It worked.

Liberal rag Newsmax apparently thought Rumsfeld explicitly told them otherwise (though Rumsfeld later backtracked on his statements when he appeared on - where else? - Sean Hannity's show).

Kind of hard to say waterboarding "worked" when a number of officials have stated that the information did not come from anyone who was tortured, and even if you don't believe them, we know that waterboarding a man 183 times failed to get him to cough up information he knew and that we knew he knew.

 

[trvlr2]

Yup. Do you know why the cited article said "indrectly"? Because KSM never mentioned, even once, the courier's name. When he was asked, without torture, about the courier's name, he denied any knowledge of anyone with that name (or that the person named knew anything...there appears to be some conflict on this, though all reports agree the question and answer came during regular interrogation). And that's what convinced interrogators that the courier was someone really important, because that meant KSM was actively trying to conceal his knowledge of facts that interrogators knew to be true and knew that KSM had to have known.



Liberal rag Newsmax apparently thought Rumsfeld explicitly told them otherwise (though Rumsfeld later backtracked on his statements when he appeared on - where else? - Sean Hannity's show).

Kind of hard to say waterboarding "worked" when a number of officials have stated that the information did not come from anyone who was tortured, and even if you don't believe them, we know that waterboarding a man 183 times failed to get him to cough up information he knew and that we knew he knew.

That'd be a 'no', then.

...But would he have told about the 'unknown unknowns'?

 

[Brainster]

The national security advisor, Tom Donilon, was rather evasive on this point:

MR. DONILON: Yeah. Let me say a couple of things. First of all, I'm not going to comment on specific pieces of intelligence and the source, point one. Point two, I can tell you this, that the intelligence achievement here, the intelligence assessment that was brought to President Obama beginning in the summer of last year with the result of hundreds of pieces of intelligence over many years by the CIA and other institutions in the government, no single piece of intelligence led to this.

MR. GREGORY: Did harsh interrogation help in the effort to ultimately identify where he was?

MR. DONILON: No single piece of intelligence led to this. Now, we had intelligence...

And later:

MR. GREGORY: Did harsh interrogations...

MR. DONILON: Yeah.

MR. GREGORY: ...help in the hunt for bin Laden?

MR. DONILON: I'm not, I'm not going to comment on specific intelligence except, except to say the following, that intelligence was gathered from detainees, it was gathered through interrogation, it was gathered from other liaison services, it was gathered technically, it was gathered through human sources, right, over time.

He was given a chance to categorically deny that the harsh interrogations helped the effort, and three times he refused to do so.

Let me add too that the level of hair-splitting going on is quite amusing. Obama apparently authorized the extra-judicial execution of Bin Laden, and was prepared to have US forces shoot their way out of Pakistan, quite likely killing numerous innocent soldiers and/or police, and somehow this is acceptable, but water-boarding known terrorists isn't? Why do I get the feeling that the real criterion being used is whether the president has a D or an R after his name?

 

[A'isha]

Let me add too that the level of hair-splitting going on is quite amusing. Obama apparently authorized the extra-judicial execution of Bin Laden, and was prepared to have US forces shoot their way out of Pakistan, quite likely killing numerous innocent soldiers and/or police, and somehow this is acceptable, but water-boarding known terrorists isn't? Why do I get the feeling that the real criterion being used is whether the president has a D or an R after his name?

No, the criterion being used is the same one that allows most of us to accept the fact that the police may occasionally have to shoot and kill suspects who are difficult or impossible to arrest when those suspects are confronted, while the idea of suspects who have been arrested and taken to the police station being beaten until they confess is unacceptable.

EDIT: Or, if you like, the reason why Suicide By Cop is a recognized phenomenon, while no one thought we needed to waterboard people in North Carolina to get the location of Eric Rudolph while he was in hiding up there (and had local support).

 

[Brainster]

No, the criterion being used is the same one that allows most of us to accept the fact that the police may occasionally have to shoot and kill suspects who are difficult or impossible to arrest when those suspects are confronted, while the idea of suspects who have been arrested and taken to the police station being beaten until they confess is unacceptable.

1. This rule that the police may shoot and kill suspects who are difficult or impossible to arrest is new to me. I know that police may kill suspects who are resisting arrest with weapons, or (in certain circumstances) attempting to escape. But neither of those appear to apply in Bin Laden's case.

2. Do these rules you suggest allow for the killing of another country's police or military in the course of attempting to make an arrest, or in the aftermath of an extra-judicial killing?

 

[A'isha]

1. This rule that the police may shoot and kill suspects who are difficult or impossible to arrest is new to me. I know that police may kill suspects who are resisting arrest with weapons, or (in certain circumstances) attempting to escape. But neither of those appear to apply in Bin Laden's case.

First of all, we don't actually know what applies in Bin Laden's case. It seems to be confirmed that he wasn't actually holding a weapon at the time of his death, but that still leaves a LOT of open possibilities as to what he was doing and/or planning before we get to "Hands in the air ready to surrender".

Second, that's not a "rule" I described, but merely a description of what sometimes happens. Cops (well, mostly) don't enter a confrontation with the intention to shoot a suspect. But there are times where shooting a suspect is an unavoidable outcome, and that's what I was referring to.

2. Do these rules you suggest allow for the killing of another country's police or military in the course of attempting to make an arrest, or in the aftermath of an extra-judicial killing?

Since that question is the same whether a shootout with the Pakistanis would have resulted if Bin Laden was captured instead of killed, I'm not sure why that matters at all.

Unless you don't think Obama should have sent in the SEALS even if they were under specific orders to capture Bin Laden and not to kill him under any circumstances.

 

[Tricky]

The national security advisor, Tom Donilon, was rather evasive on this point:

He was given a chance to categorically deny that the harsh interrogations helped the effort, and three times he refused to do so.

Let me add too that the level of hair-splitting going on is quite amusing. Obama apparently authorized the extra-judicial execution of Bin Laden, and was prepared to have US forces shoot their way out of Pakistan, quite likely killing numerous innocent soldiers and/or police, and somehow this is acceptable, but water-boarding known terrorists isn't? Why do I get the feeling that the real criterion being used is whether the president has a D or an R after his name?

I agree that he was evasive, however I think the reason for his evasiveness is that he actually didn't know. I'm not sure anybody does. There was lots of information from lots of different people and it would be hard to say "There! That's what did it." Many of the pieces were assembled long long after this interrogation.

However, as a liberal, let me state my position:

I do not agree with "enhanced interrogation" if it amounts to torture.

If it was used to get information that led to OBL's demise, that is unfortunate, however it would be stupid to say "we can't use this information because it may have been gotten unethically." The past cannot be changed.

But IF we had not used enhanced interrogation and that meant that bin Laden was still alive BECAUSE we had refused to use torture, I would be okay with that. We'd just have to wait until we could get him by ethical intelligence methods.

 

[Brainster]

First of all, we don't actually know what applies in Bin Laden's case. It seems to be confirmed that he wasn't actually holding a weapon at the time of his death, but that still leaves a LOT of open possibilities as to what he was doing and/or planning before we get to "Hands in the air ready to surrender".

Second, that's not a "rule" I described, but merely a description of what sometimes happens. Cops (well, mostly) don't enter a confrontation with the intention to shoot a suspect. But there are times where shooting a suspect is an unavoidable outcome, and that's what I was referring to.

Suppose it is determined that the orders were simply to kill him?

Since that question is the same whether a shootout with the Pakistanis would have resulted if Bin Laden was captured instead of killed, I'm not sure why that matters at all.

Unless you don't think Obama should have sent in the SEALS even if they were under specific orders to capture Bin Laden and not to kill him under any circumstances.

Nope. See I'm quite pleased with the results and don't object to the the idea of Bin Laden being killed. Nor did I object to the enhanced interrogation techniques used on al Qaeda members which may have led to the operation. I am just wondering how many of those who defend the former would do so if it had been Bush sending in the SEAL teams. I suspect the number would be quite a bit lower.

 

[Brainster]

I agree that he was evasive, however I think the reason for his evasiveness is that he actually didn't know. I'm not sure anybody does. There was lots of information from lots of different people and it would be hard to say "There! That's what did it." Many of the pieces were assembled long long after this interrogation.

However, as a liberal, let me state my position:

I do not agree with "enhanced interrogation" if it amounts to torture.

If it was used to get information that led to OBL's demise, that is unfortunate, however it would be stupid to say "we can't use this information because it may have been gotten unethically." The past cannot be changed.

But IF we had not used enhanced interrogation and that meant that bin Laden was still alive BECAUSE we had refused to use torture, I would be okay with that. We'd just have to wait until we could get him by ethical intelligence methods.

I would not defend enhanced interrogation if it amounted to torture either. Now all we have to do is decide whether shoving someone into a wall, or water-boarding them amounts to torture.

Let's try the "24" scenario. Suppose you know that another terrorist attack is imminent, which could result in the deaths of thousands. And you have the power to authorize enhanced interrogation of a key terrorist that (in your opinion) comes very close to being torture, but does not quite go over the borderline. Do you wait or do you authorize?

 

[Unabogie]

Brainster, if you don't know that waterboarding is torture, then it's either willful ignorance of decades of history and US policy or you have a seriously broken moral compass.

We've prosecuted - for torture - Japanese who have waterboarded. We've prosecuted - for torture - American cops who have done it. If it suddenly became not torture as soon as Bush started doing it, then you have a serious problem with your case. And frankly it's not a conversation worth having. If we're not speaking from the same moral center: torture is wrong, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, then I don't see a reason to speak about it any further except to shame you.

Over a hundred detainees died in the Bush torture program. Through beatings, sleep deprivation, and who knows what else. A hundred dead. In a span of a few years. It's repugnant. How can you not know that, deep in your soul?

 

[A'isha]

Suppose it is determined that the orders were simply to kill him?

So what? How is that different than if the original bombing mission was attempted? How is that different from all those other Predator drone attacks?

Nope. See I'm quite pleased with the results and don't object to the the idea of Bin Laden being killed. Nor did I object to the enhanced interrogation techniques used on al Qaeda members which may have led to the operation.

The Eric Rudolph case is very important to me, because I was at Centennial Olympic Park the weekend before the bombing, I live in Birmingham where another of his bombs killed several people, and he ended up being captured just a few miles from where my parents currently live in North Carolina. In the case of the Olympic bombing, had it not been for the diligence of a man who was later falsely accused of the bombing, a LOT of people would have died that night.

Why didn't we waterboard people to find the location of this dangerous terrorist who had killed many people, very nearly killed a whole LOT of people, and was almost certain to kill more (or at least try his damndest)?

What makes waterboarding unthinkable in a case like his, or in the case of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, while waterboarding is okay now? Is there some terrorist tipping point where they have to kill so many civilians in a single attack before waterboarding is permissible?

If waterboarding is merely an extreme form of interrogation and not torture at all and is justified because it can be used to gain information that will stop attacks and save lives, why isn't it used by law enforcement officials in cases of domestic terrorism? Why weren't suspects getting water poured over their cloth-covered faces after the backpack bomb was found in Seattle earlier this year? There wasn't an arrest until March...who knew what this terrorist on the loose on the run might have done in the intervening months!

I am just wondering how many of those who defend the former would do so if it had been Bush sending in the SEAL teams. I suspect the number would be quite a bit lower.

I'm not among them.

And, save for a few idiots who make me want to facepalm at them (like Chomsky and Greenwald), I'm willing to bet that far fewer "lefties" than you think would have a problem with SEALs taking out Bin Laden, regardless of who was president at the time.

 

[thaiboxerken]

If waterboarding is not torture, why isn't it taught as a parenting skill?

 

[A'isha]

I would not defend enhanced interrogation if it amounted to torture either. Now all we have to do is decide whether shoving someone into a wall, or water-boarding them amounts to torture.

Do you know what that is, Brainster? It's one of a number of paintings produced by Vann Nath. During the reign of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, he was sent to Tuol Sleng prison, one of the most infamous and brutal prisons run by the Khmer Rouge. All the inmates of that prison, including Vann Nath, were subject to horrific tortures. Of the 17,000 people sent to Tuol Sleng, only twelve survived. Vann Nath only survived because his captors, after nearly torturing him to death, noticed his artistic abilities and kept him around to make paintings and sculptures of Pol Pot.

Tuol Sleng is now a museum memorializing those who suffered and died there. Vann Nath, after the fall of the Khmer Rouge, began creating paintings about what he saw and suffered during his time there. The above painting by him is on display in the museum and illustrates one of the tortures he underwent: waterboarding. He painted several more depicting the waterboarding torture he and others were forced to undergo, and the actual "board" used in the torture itself is also on display in the museum.

The waterboarding technique depicted in the painting, the waterboarding technique used on Vann Nath himself in this Cambodian prison that had a 99.99924% mortality rate, the waterboarding technique that Vann Nath painted over and over again as part of his effort to document the horrific tortures that were inflicted on him, is the exact same technique used by the United States: slanted board, head lower than the feet, cloth over the face, water poured on the cloth.

This is what the Bush Administration tried to justify doing. This is what was done to Khalid Sheikh Mohammed one hundred and eighty-three times in a single month. This, plain and simple, is torture.

And if you disagree, Vann Nath can be contacted via an email address found at this website about one of his art gallery displays (and where you can view some of his other paintings showing the tortures he suffered, including several more about waterboarding). I'm sure he'd be pleased to entertain your arguments that waterboarding isn't torture.

Let's try the "24" scenario. Suppose you know that another terrorist attack is imminent, which could result in the deaths of thousands. And you have the power to authorize enhanced interrogation of a key terrorist that (in your opinion) comes very close to being torture, but does not quite go over the borderline. Do you wait or do you authorize?

There's a reason "24" is fiction. All this terrorist has to do is keep giving out false leads until the attack happens. You won't have the luxury of working at him until he breaks, if time is that much of the essence. Remember that KSM was waterboarded 183 times over a month, and still didn't give up everything he knew.

If an attack is that imminent, torturing someone is probably the worst way to get the critical piece of information needed to stop it.