Keep America Afraid

This is a dope web ad. Hope it spreads like wildfire!



By the way Democratic ad people, that song at the end of the ad, you know the same song featured prominently in the movie "Donnie Darko"? Yeah, that's good background music for attack ads.

Just sayin

Dangerous Laughing Stocks

Here is the central problem of our politics today. You have the Democrats led by President Obama who have an agenda they are trying to implement to get our country back on track. Not everything they are doing however is in the best interests of average Americans and or isn't consistent with our Constitution. That's not just my opinion, that's a fact.

But the other major political party has essential decided to eschew any semblence of real and rational arguments against what the Democrats and President Obama are doing, instead choosing to drink from the well of asshatery. Right now there is truly nothing they won't say or do to try to fearmonger against Democrats on any given subject and if that means trying to smear them or trying to smear a group of people in this country and trying to inspire reprisals, hey they are all for it.

Dahlia Lithwick has an excellent piece in Slate about the many legitimate ways the Republican Senators could have criticized Attorney General Holder's reasoning for putting Khalid Sheik Muhammed on trial in federal court in New York. But instead many Senators of the GOP persuasion decided to hold some kind of inquisition about all those "leftist lawyers" now populating the Justice Department who might be terrorist sympathizers.

Seriously.

And the last graf of her piece really puts this all in perspective.

Reasonable people can differ on whether the acts of Sept 11, 2001, were crimes to be handled in court or acts of war to be tried by military tribunals. Experts will never agree on whether criminal trials make us safer or less safe. The 9/11 families also remain split on whether trials or commissions are appropriate. But when you continue to hear that anyone who objects to Bush's detainee policies is unworthy to serve in government, or is part of some elaborate conspiracy to free terrorists, there is truly nothing left to do but laugh.

And yeah she has a point about laughing at them, until you realize that there are people in this country who don't know any better. People will hear Senator Jon Kyl intimate that Attorney General Eric Holder is a terrorist sympathizer and buy it hook line and sinker. People who, still on edge after 9-11, will decide that they HAVE to do something to protect themselves, their family, their friends. People who eventually will attempt to take the law into their own hands because they are being brainwashed into believing that their own government is conspiring against them.

And last night Rachel Maddow took this a step further also focusing on the many Republicans who now think its fine to demean a religion, and to call for the profiling of those who practice Islam.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Journalists, politicians and regular folks can continue to try to make it seem as if this is just politics as usual but its not. What is happening here is one political party is building up a tension inside this country. A tension that is a lot stronger than disagreements over the free market or tax cuts. A tension that is and has been radicalizing a percentage of our citizenry who increasingly see in the Republican party an almost tacit approval a a violent anti government backlash.

Its time for people to stop holding back on this kind of bullshit and sounding the alarm. What I don't want anybody to say if one or some of these crazy bastards go out and try to target liberals or elected Democratic officials is, "Nobody could have forseen..." The writing is right there on the wall for all to see. And if we don't get these assholes to back off the ending will be predictable. At some point people are going to have to decide if that is acceptable to them, and if not they are going to have to say something.

It is what it is.

Andy McCarthy Should Be Tasting Adam Sewer's Shoe Leather Right About Now

Adam Sewer put his foot so far up Andy McCarthy's ass over his ridiculous post on Eric Holder's appearance yesterday at the Senate hearings over trying KSM that if he tried to talk right now he couln't because he would have Adam's foot in his mouth. This dude is a clown and there is no reason for any rational person to take him seriously anyway but just in case Sewer's PWNAGE crushed him.

(h/t Ackerman)

Attorney General Holder's Use Of The Word "Scared"

Here is a part of Attorney General Eric Holder's opening statement today in hearings to discuss putting Khalid Sheik Muhammed and other terrorists on trial in federal court.

Third, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed will have no more of a platform to spew his hateful ideology in federal court than he would have in military commissions. Before the commissions last year, he declared the proceedings an "inquisition," condemned his own attorneys and our Constitution, and professed his desire to become a martyr. Those proceedings were heavily covered in the media, yet few complained at the time that his rants threatened the fabric of our democracy.

Judges in federal court have firm control over the conduct of defendants and other participants in their courtrooms, and when the 9/11 conspirators are brought to trial, I have every confidence that the presiding judge will ensure appropriate decorum. And if KSM makes the same statements he made in his military commission proceedings, I have every confidence the nation and the world will see him for the coward he is. I'm not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.

Fourth, there is nothing common about the treatment the alleged 9/11 conspirators will receive. In fact, I expect to direct prosecutors to seek the ultimate and most uncommon penalty for these heinous crimes. And I expect that they will be held in custody under Special Administrative Measures reserved for the most dangerous criminals.

Finally, there are some who have said this decision means that we have reverted to a pre-9/11 mentality, or that we don't realize this nation is at war. Three weeks ago, I had the honor of joining the President at Dover Air Force Base for the dignified transfer of the remains of eighteen Americans, including three DEA agents, who lost their lives to the war in Afghanistan. The brave soldiers and agents carried home on that plane gave their lives to defend this country and its values, and we owe it to them to do everything we can to carry on the work for which they sacrificed.

I know that we are at war.

I know that we are at war with a vicious enemy who targets our soldiers on the battlefield in Afghanistan and our civilians on the streets here at home. I have personally witnessed that somber fact in the faces of the families who have lost loved ones abroad, and I have seen it in the daily intelligence stream I review each day. Those who suggest otherwise are simply wrong.

Prosecuting the 9/11 defendants in federal court does not represent some larger judgment about whether or not we are at war. We are at war, and we will use every instrument of national power - civilian, military, law enforcement, intelligence, diplomatic, and others - to win. We need not cower in the face of this enemy. Our institutions are strong, our infrastructure is sturdy, our resolve is firm, and our people are ready.

We will also use every instrument of our national power to bring to justice those responsible for terrorist attacks against our people. For eight years, justice has been delayed for the victims of the 9/11 attacks. It has been delayed even further for the victims of the attack on the USS Cole. No longer. No more delays. It is time, it is past time, to act. By bringing prosecutions in both our courts and military commissions, by seeking the death penalty, by holding these terrorists responsible for their actions, we are finally taking ultimate steps toward justice. That is why I made this decision.

I thought his opening statement was excellent and really framed the issue from a position of strength. When he said:

I'm not scared of what KSM will have to say at trial - and no one else needs to be either.

I found that to be very powerful in political terms. On the one hand it puts anyone who opposes this move on the defensive. If he is advocating and implementing a plan to bring KSM to justice in a federal court and he is not scared, what does that make anyone who opposes such a move? And make no mistake about it, even though Republicans are fearmongering hard against it, the truth is none of them want to be labeled as scared. They might say the "fear" something will happen or they are "concerned" but you will never hear them admit they are "scared".

The American people don't like scaredy cats leading them. They want strong leaders who take information into account, but they abhor a coward.

On the other hand when Holder says no one else should be either, he is playing the role of comforter for the nations bedwetters and worry worts. If he isn't afraid then why should any of the rest of us be? And of course no regular person wants to feel like they are acting like a scaredy cat too.

If Democrats were smart they would continue to use the term "scared" in every debate about this issue. Not afraid, not concerned, not fearful, but SCARED.

See how many Republicans run away from that term as soon as it gets thrown around.

On The New "Pre 9-11 Mindset" Talking Point

There is a really simple pushback to the new Liz Cheney et al talking point that putting Khalid Sheik Muhammed on trial shows a "pre 9-11 mindset". Just point to the several terrorist plots broken up recently by our national security apparatus.

Oh and for shits and giggles you can even point out that they were thwarted without the use of torture.

Its really not that hard Democratic strategists. Seriously.

P.S. If you wanna make them walk off the set in a huff then you can also point out who was in office in the months prior to 9-11. One thing is for sure, nobody can say that President Clinton wasn't paying attention to terrorism. Remember HE was the one who actually tried to kill Osama Bin Ladin before he left office.

"I Don't Care About The Constitution"

Bill O'Reilly finally says what and other right wingers really think about our Constitution.



The more these dumbasses rail against putting KSM and other terrorists on trial here in federal court, the more they are going to reveal the venal cowards that they really are. It will be interesting to see if Bill O'Reilly tries to walk back his denouncement of the document that he and his cohorts claim to be upholding the values of night after night.

On Fearing KSM's Propaganda...

Spencer Ackerman has an excellent take down for all these wingnut asshats running around with their hair on fire because they contend that putting Khalid Sheik Muhammed on trial will give him an opportunity to rail against America and spew propaganda to his fellow extremists.

What’s an actual insult to the victims of 9/11 is the idea that America is not strong enough to withstand the blatherings of a mass murderer. For me, the prospect of KSM grandstanding at his trial falls into I-wish-a-motherfucker-would territory. I want to hear how KSM builds a case against America, because everyone will hear how laughably conspiratorial and clownish it is. Think of what a cathartic moment it will be when America sees the face of the man considered to be UBL’s most efficient henchman and he delivers a pitiful harangue to a bank of cameras. No one will be emboldened to do anything but laugh. The only downside will be his inevitable discussion of how CIA operatives tortured him.

My hope for the KSM trial is that it does more than all this. It should forever shatter the pernicious myth that al-Qaeda is composed of supermen — supermen against whom America has no choice but to alter its character and most precious laws in order to confront. I suspect we’ll have an Eichmann-in-Jerusalem moment — and sorry for the unfortunate Nazi/al-Qaeda analogy; al-Qaeda are not the Nazis; but I couldn’t really think of any other parallel — except instead of the banality of evil, we’ll see the lunacy and vanity and self-absorption of it. That’s because al-Qaeda’s weltanshauung depends on a myth that holds America to be implacably determined to snuff out the glory of Islam. In reality, most Americans couldn’t give a fuck about Islam and only started to know the first thing about it because of 9/11. But that America — an America bearing no resemblance to the actual America — will be what KSM seeks to counter-indict. It’s farcical, and farcical in ways that can only benefit the real America.

You know I loved that I-wish-a-motherfucker-would line! LOL

I will make a distinction though and this comes from a comment I left on his blog.

You see (Republicans) aren't REALLY afraid of what KSM will say or do during the trial. What (they are) REALLY afraid is that a Democratic administration will do what a Republican administration didn’t. And that is show that our system of justice is stronger than any terrorist in some far off land living in a cage. And also that we will NOT show cowardice by bending to their will by not giving them a fair trial and thus becoming the caricature that they try to make out of our country. And finally that a Democratic administration will show more deference to our founding fathers than Bush or Cheney would have ever dreamed.

You see once KSM and his cohorts are dragged in front of a jury and are handed down the death penalty, then they lose the super villan with super powers status that Bush, Cheney and just about every Republican in Congress has given them for the last 8 years. And guess what, if there are no more boogey men then Republicans will have a hard time finding someone to fearmonger against when they are pimping their national security cred.

As with most things that have to do with Republican criticism of moves that the Obama administration makes, this has almost nothing to do with what they are actually saying and everything to do with what they see as their political futures. See also, health care, cap and trade, gay marriage…etc

I think its very important that we push back on silly Republican criticizms of the Obama administration. I think its equally important that we always point out that most of these criticisms are rooted in rank politics and not real ideology. Its one thing to be a hypocrite. Its another thing to be a hypocrite just for political gain and discounting how that hypocrisy could put the citizens in this country in harms way.

It is what it is...

Finally, Justice

Eight years later Khalid Sheik Muhammed and various other terrorist will now be brought to justice.

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, a federal law enforcement official said early on Friday.

But the administration will prosecute Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri -- the detainee accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen -- and several other detainees before a military commission, the official said.

The decisions to give civilian prosecutors detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks and keep the case of the Cole attack within the military system are expected to be announced at the Department of Justice later on Friday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.

We've been through all the arguments before, but I guarantee we're about to have the same tiresome debate all over again. We'll hear that a U.S. criminal court couldn't possibly be equipped to hear a case against a terrorist suspect -- except for all the U.S. criminal courts that have already proven that they're well equipped to hear cases against terrorist suspects. We'll hear that KSM, if convicted, will end up in an American supermax facility that's ill prepared to house terrorists -- except for all the terrorists that already safely locked away in American supermax facilities.

I've simply never understood the right's weak-kneed panic over the U.S. justice system.

Contra Steve Benen who I have a great amount of respect for, this all makes perfect sense to me. Right wingers only talk about the values this country was founded on in abstract terms but they don't really believe in them. They believe that THEY are the only arbiters of the right way to do things and how justice should be carried out in this country. Its why they try every way possible to undermine existing laws without going through the normal channels to change them. Its why they can promote stuff like torture just to make themselves feel tough. Its why they are so against any bill that ensures equal rights for everyone. For the right its all about their own ego and in this case because they are scared of their own shadow they think everyone else should be too.

And its really that simple. For them they don't care what the law says. Instead they would rather just lock these guys away and throw away the key without even so much as a hint of a trial. They don't trust their fellow citizens to be able to bring back a guilty verdict and therefore they don't think they should have to rely on them. Its really funny to watch them constantly invoke the founding fathers when it suits them when the truth is they either have no idea and or have no respect for what this country was really founded on.

It is what it is.

Update: Utterly predictable...

Ali Soufan Calls Bullshit On Dick Cheney And The Rest Of The Torture Advocates

Former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, is back with another op ed in the New York Times. This time he takes apart Dick Cheney's assertion that the CIA IG report vindicated his position that torture "worked". Spencer Ackerman has a really good post up about it and I suggest reading that in addition to the op ed but I wanted to highlight a particular part of the op ed which should be repeated over and over like an echo whenever Dick Cheney or his wingnut daughter Liz appears on any cable news shows again.

It is surprising, as the eighth anniversary of 9/11 approaches, that none of Al Qaeda’s top leadership is in our custody. One damaging consequence of the harsh interrogation program was that the expert interrogators whose skills were deemed unnecessary to the new methods were forced out.

Mr. Mohammed knew the location of most, if not all, of the members of Al Qaeda’s leadership council, and possibly of every covert cell around the world. One can only imagine who else we could have captured, or what attacks we might have disrupted, if Mr. Mohammed had been questioned by the experts who knew the most about him.

The Mr. Mohammed Soufan is referring to is Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Now this is the central point that I feel like liberals and progressives are loathe to explore because whether torture worked or not, it was illegal and should have never been pursued. I get the sense that many of us on the left also are hesitant to press the case because we think there is a chance that torture did yield useful information. Now on the one hand I am sure that torturing normal people is prone to making them tell more than they would without it. But members of Al Qaeda are not regular people anymore than our soldiers are regular people. And above and beyond that no matter how much information was given up, there still is the question of if it was credible. We have a culture whereby we have been conditioned to believe that because torture works in movies or on popular Tee Vee shows then it works in real life. But the truth, as counterintiutive as it might be to some of us, is that it doesn't.

As Ali Soufan points out, if torture was so effective then why the hell haven't we caught the Al Qaeda leadership, all of whom were know to KSM? Why didn't he tell us where they were and what they were up to? Why don't we have bin Ladin's head on a platter right now when instead, 8 years after 9/11 the guy is still putting out propaganda tapes? Can anybody answer that one? Can one single torture advocate answer that question?

Traditional interrogation was never tried on KSM, and that's the dirty little secret that nobody, including the mainstream media, ever wants to talk about. Soufan points out in the op ed all the information extracted from other HVDs who were tortured because the FBI was still allowed to use traditional interrogations either before or after the torture. When they were able to use traditional interrogtions prior to the torture they were able to extract information just fine and the torture wasn't even necessary and only ended up making the detainee shut down to the point where the FBI had to be called back in time and time again just to get them to start back talking. In the cases where traditional interrogation was used after the detainees were tortured the interrogators had to work their asses off to undue the harm the torture had done just to get the detainees to talk. In short, torture made it harder and less likely to get information out of the detainees in just about every single instance. This isn't some DFH saying it, its a hardened FBI interrogator who actually was in the room and got good information from several members of Al Qaeda and helped prosecute them both here and abroad.

Now I realize that torture advocates will never admit that torture didn't work and actually harmed our efforts to head off more attacks, but its time for everyone else to start calling bullshit on them too. Its not enough just to stick to the legality of the situation when the other side is appealing to people's primal instinct for revenge. People need to know that our ability to extract revenge was actually hurt by people like Dick Cheney ordering torture. As Soufan infers with his rhetorical question the very reason we don't have Al Qaeda's leadership dead or in custody now is precisely because Cheney ordered the torture of the men who could have led us right to them.

At some point we have to say that and keep repeating it until it sinks in to the public's consciousness. Otherwise we leave open the possibility that Dick Cheney gets to revise history to his benefit. And I don't think any of us wants that to happen.

WaPo Is A Safe Haven For Neo Cons And Pro Torturists

When Politico is fact checking you then you know that you have jumped the shark, the whale and the giant octopus!

For a more complete debunking of the Washington Post article yesterday and the new one today which reported that torture "worked" on Khalid Sheik Muhammed despite tons of evidence to the contrary I would recommend emptywheel's posts here and here.

How screwed up is it that in 2009 we are even having to prosecute the argument against torture in the court of public opinion?

You Don't Have To Believe Me, Unless You Want To Believe Me, But Its Real....So Real

When I got a chance to look at the CIA's IG report for the first time today at the Washington Independent's website I almost immediately noticed two things, one of which may not be a big deal, the other one is almost certainly a big deal.

Here was the first thing I noticed.

Several months earlier, in late 2001, CIA had tasked an independent contractor psychologist who had [redacted] experience in the U.S. Air Force's Survival, Evastion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) training program, to research and write a paper on Al-Qa'ida resistence to interrogation techniques.

Now honestly I might just be uninformed about this issue but I, personally, didn't know until now that the CIA had set out to try to figure out ways to overcome Al Qa'ida's resistance to interrogation techniques torture so early on in the game. I mean basically at best if we captured Al Qa'ida operatives right after 9-11 and this edict came down at the end of 2001 then that means in the intervening 3 months basically the CIA found that these operatives were impervious to normal and accepted means of interrogation and were already looking to up the ante.

The problem, of course, is that even on the face of it this doesn't add up. It goes to a point I made a few months back and that is that the whole justification for supposed "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques" was that they were supposed to be used when traditional methods of interrogation failed. But that clearly couldn't have been the case with Khalid Sheik Muhammed because he was waterboarded 183 times in the first month of us having him in custody. It didn't appear to be the case with Abu Zubaydah either who was supposedly the first high value target to be waterboarded. And in this passage in the IG report it would seem that the third man who was waterboarded, Al Nashiri,also wasn't given the opportunity to cooperate before EITs or torture take your pick, were employed.

The interrogation of Al-Nashiri proceeded after [redacted] the necessary Headquarters authorization [redacted] psychologist/interrogators began Al-Nashiri's interrogation using EITs immediately upon his arrival.

Now everyone knows that there is something seriously fishy that is connected to Al-Nahsiri because you hardly ever hear the current administration or the previous administration even mention this guy as one of the people who were waterboarded. Instead they just focus on Abu Zubaydah and KSM. Hopefully one day we will get to the bottom of what actually happened to him. I suspect that he might not have been who they thought was which would be terribly embarrassing if it got out that they waterboarded an innocent man.

The second thing I found was this passage about waterboarding and why the interrogators were not going strictly by the OLC memo guidelines as to how it would be administered. (thanks for the transcription Attackerman)

OIG’s [Office of the Inspector General's] review of the videotapes revealed that the waterboard technique employed at [REDACTED] was different from the technique as described in the DoJ opinion and used in the SERE training. The difference was in the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE School and in the DoJ opinion, the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contest, the Agency interrogator [REDACTED] continuously applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique differed from that used in SERE training and explained that the Agency’s technique is different because it is “for real” and is more poignant and convincing.

Now this is vital information for two different reasons.

The first reason its important is a legal one. When asked about the difference between what the OLC and DOJ memos outlined as being acceptable as waterboarding and what the psychologists and interrogators were doing in practice, at least one of those psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that not only was there a difference, but that it was also entirely intentional. Im no legal scholar but that sounds pretty much like an admission of guilty to a layman. Especially when this unnamed person invoked the words "for real" to describe the difference. I don't see a way that someone can explain away these psychologists/interrogators disregarding the already flawed OLC memos in order to intentionally treat the detainees in an even more harsh manner than was laid out for them. So it would appear that the Special Prosecutor whom Attorney General Eric Holder just chose to investigate torture will have some pretty nice targets right off the bat.

The second reason this is important is purely political and I make no apologies for that. For months torture apologists like Sean Hannity, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Liz Cheney, just to name a few, hid behind our troops to try to make a bogus argument that waterboarding was not torture. Their meme which got repeated time and time again on FoxNews and in the wingnut blogosphere is that "it couldn't be torture because we do it to our own members of the military". Many of them took it further and tried to paint anyone who rightly labeled waterboarding as torture, as it has been prosecuted as such for decades, to be claiming that we also tortured our men and women in the military. Even for the GOP this was a particularly disgusting attack in their attempt to excuse the rancid bullshit that was perpetrated by the Bush administration, supposedly in the name of national security.

Well no longer can they make such a claim when it comes to what we did with these detainees. Not only did the CIA Inspector General observe for himself that they were not following the guidelines to waterboard a detainee as was proscribed in the OLC memos which were cribbed from SERE school teachings, at least one of the persons participating in the waterboarding acknowledged that it wasn't the same thing because with the detainees it was "for real".

Now the next step is that when liberals or progressives of Democratic members of Congress go on any cable news shows or Sunday talk shows to talk about demanding accountability for torture, they need to familiarize themselves with the information in this document. No longer should they allow Republicans and Conservatives to try to frame this issue as being not a big deal. I understand that we have our plates full with health care reform but if there was ever a time to demand accountability from the Bush administration I think its now. We have to try to strike when the iron is hot in my honest opinion. And we have to be armed with the facts not as we see them but as they are spelled out in this CIA IG report.

I will be posting more on the report as I comb through it.

"Conformed Their Conduct To That Advice"

Holder also stressed that intelligence community officials who acted reasonably and relied in good faith on authoritative legal advice from the Justice Department that their conduct was lawful, and conformed their conduct to that advice, would not face federal prosecutions for that conduct.

Statement from Attorney General Eric Holder concerning the release of OLC memos and any potential prosecutions of CIA personnel.


Yesterday ABC News posted a breaking a story about an intelligence report released by the CIA on the briefings that took place going back to 2002 and beyond of the members of Congress on the enhanced interrogation torture techniques authorized by the now infamous OLC memos. The focus of the ABC News story was on whether or not Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was briefed on Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded, something she previously denied had happened during one of the briefings. Now personally reading the report, to me, doesn't refute Speaker Pelosi's story at all. There is no notation of a specific mention of waterboarding during this briefing as there are in subsequent briefings to other members of Congress. And about the only thing it does say is that she was briefed on the techniques used against Abu Zubaydah. But I think the focus of the article is totally off, perhaps intentionally or perhaps not. But here is the thing to keep in mind. This briefing took place accordiing to the intelligence report on September 4th of 2002. The OLC memo authorizing EITs was dated August 1st of 2002.

Why do those dates matter? Well allow me to quote from that August 1, 2002 memo:

You have informed us that the use of these techniques would be on an as needed bases and that not all of these techniques will necessarily be used. The interrogation team would use these techniques in some combination to convince Zubaydah that the only way he can influence his surroundings is through cooperation. You have, however, informed us that you expect these techniques to be used in some sort of excalating fashion, culminating with the waterboard, though not necessarily ending with this technique.

Now to go back to the dates. The OLC memos authorizing 10 torture techniques to be used against Abu Zubaydah including waterboarding was dated on August 1, 2002. Thats just 34 days before the September 4, 2002 briefing to Speaker Pelosi. So if we are to believe that the CIA briefed Speaker Pelosi and told her that waterboarding had already been used on Abu Zubaydah on Sept 4th, how does that square with using the 9 other techniques in escalating fashion from just 34 days earlier? Now obviously perhaps the truth is that the intelligence report just confirms that Speaker Pelosi was telling the truth. But then there is also the evidence that Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times in the month of August. Now if in fact the CIA had employed the techniques prior to August 1st and or they did not use waterboarding as a last resort, wouldn't that imply that they hadn't "conformed their conduct to that advice" the litmus test that Attorney General Holder put forth as to whom would be open to prosecution for torture?

I have posted before about the timeline discrepancy with respect to Khalid Sheik Muhammed. From all the public reports it would seem that in the same month that KSM as captured he was waterboarded 183 times. That would lead a reasonable person to believe that waterboarding wasn't the last resort but the first resort of these CIA interrogators. But thats not the bill of goods that has been sold to the public at large. Lets just go to Dick Cheney's words a few days ago in an interview published on Politico:

Cheney: Well, I don’t believe that’s true. That assumes that we didn’t try other ways, and in fact we did. We resorted, for example, to waterboarding, which is the source of much of the controversy ... with only three individuals. In those cases, it was only after we’d gone through all the other steps of the process. The way the whole program was set up was very careful, to use other methods and only to resort to the enhanced techniques in those special circumstances.

I personally believe that Cheney and the rest of the pro torturists are framing the issue this way so as to get people to believe that we waterboarded only when we had no other choice. In fact he specifically wants you to believe that the CIA had tried "all other steps" before resorting to waterboarding. Now reasonable people might hear that and think "Well gee, they tried everything they could but the detainees wouldn't talk so they felt they had to do something drastic". This plays into the "24" ticking time bomb mindset that is prevalent in our country these days. I have seen and heard many people say stuff like "You have to do what you have to do to protect the homeland" or some version of that. But what if it was shown that we DIDN'T have to use these techniques to get the information as FBI interrogator Ali Soufan has asserted several times? What if it was shown that we didn't even try to get the information any other way and went straight to torture. And bigger than that, if these people didn't follow the advice of the OLC memos? Do you think that would affect public opinion? I do.

The intelligence reports should actually be furthering the push towards prosecutions for torture, but our MSM is instead going to use it to push a flame war. We deserve better and we should demand better!

Dan Froomkin PWNS The Kraut

Dan Froomkin takes apart his fellow Washington Post opinion columnist Charles Krauthammer's argument supporting torture that was published in their paper this morning. I suggest you go read the whole thing but I wanted to point out on part of Froomkin's column that I have said before and that I believe needs to be shouted from the hills.

For instance, he writes: "KSM, the mastermind of 9/11 who knew more about more plots than anyone else, did not seem very inclined to respond to polite inquiries about future plans. The man who boasted of personally beheading Daniel Pearl with a butcher knife answered questions about plots with 'soon you will know' -- meaning, when you count the bodies in the morgue and find horribly disfigured burn victims in hospitals, you will know then what we are planning now."

But as Scott Shane recently pointed out in the New York Times, with more than a little understatement: "Mr. Mohammed, captured on March 1, 2003, was waterboarded 183 times that month. That striking number, which would average out to six waterboardings a day, suggests that interrogators did not try a traditional, rapport-building approach for long before escalating to their most extreme tool."

We have been sold the story that Khalid Sheik Muhammed and others were tortured because they didn't respond to traditional interrogation techniques. In point of fact the OLC memos are supposed to give guidance that the torture techniques were supposed to use in an escalating fashion and that was a part of what was supposed to make it legal. But its obvious to anybody who is paying attention that there is simply no way in the hell that any traditional interrogation techniques were tried with KSM. In fact it appears that they didn't even try the lower forms of torture either and just went straight to waterboarding. And if there is one thing that will crack the legal justification for torturing these men I believe it would be proving that whether the OLC memos themselves were legal or not (which they weren't) they weren't followed anyway. That puts CIA contractors on the hook for torture and I just bet that they will start the ball rolling uphill to put blame exactly where it should be, on those in the Bush administration who ordered torture in the first place. At least I hope thats what ends up happening.

Willful Ignorance

I watched this segment on Hardball yesterday and one thing became clear, the Villagers don't want to hear the truth. Time and time again Chris Matthews and Pat Buchannan tried to used the "means justify the ends" defense to excuse the torture of detainees. Time and time again Johnathan Turley kept reminding them THAT ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL TO TORTURE PEOPLE. Near the end showing that Tweety just doesn't think breaking the law is that big of a deal, he asks Turley why he is being such an absolutist about this. Whiskey Tango Fire? What part of ITS FUCKING ILLEGAL TO TORTURE PEOPLE can Tweety not understand? I thought Professor Turley did a hell of a job of sparring with those idiots but it was a lost cause. Of course Chris Matthews and Pat Buchannan had no such hangups when it came to trying to impeach President Clinton for getting some head. That to them was a lot more clear cut illegal behavior than waterboarding people is. Such is the mindset of the Village. IOKIYAR is now an institutional part of their mindset.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

I should also point out that after handing out a Hardball award to John McCain Tweety made the remark that McCain should have won the Presidency in 2000. I used to try to take up for Matthews but now I think he has just lost his damn mind.

Burying The Lede

Today the New York Times has an article by Scott Shane which tries to change the framing of the torture issue from its legality to its efficacy. This is of course an absurd, albeit predictable, premise for a major newspaper to put forth in an article on the subject. If I am broke robbing a bank might work to get me money but I will still be arrested for it because its illegal. It matters not whether torture works, most assuredly it probably does at least on a superficial level, what matters is that the United States does not torture. Period. Full stop. And less we forget it was that Commie, Pinko, Liberal, Pacifist, Ronald Reagan, who signed us onto the Conventions Against Tortue and referred to the practice as abhorrent. It would be nice if some MSM folks would ask the pro torturists in the GOP if they disagree with Reagan.

However buried deep inside this ridiculous article is a footnote that should have been the focus from the beginning. Take a look at this:

On Mr. Mohammed, the record is murkier. The memorandum says that “before the C.I.A. used enhanced techniques,” Mr. Mohammed “resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, ‘Simply noting, ‘Soon, you will know.’ ”

But the same memorandum reveals in a footnote that Mr. Mohammed, captured on March 1, 2003, was waterboarded 183 times that month. That striking number, which would average out to six waterboardings a day, suggests that interrogators did not try a traditional, rapport-building approach for long before escalating to their most extreme tool.

This is a major deal that I haven't seen really explored in the MSM nor in the blogosphere. Just how soon did the CIA give up on traditional interrogation techniques and turn to torture to extract information from Khalid Sheik Muhammed? Its a very very important question for a variety of reasons. For one these methods were supposed to be employed AFTER the detainee was found to be resistant to traditional interrogation methods. For two there was supposed to be a progression from less harsh "enhanced interrogation techniques" to the obvious torture of waterboarding. Since the record on this seems to be very clear from the memos, only a couple of options are plausible. Either the CIA never even tried to build rapport and get information from KSM at the beginning and bypassed every other less harsh technique and went straight to torture, OR they were waterboarding KSM at least double or more times a day than was initially thought. Either way its a very damning statement to the treatment he received after being picked up.

It might be time for people a lot more powerful than I to try to get to the bottom of this mystery. I don't think in either scenario one could argue that his torturers were "working in good conscious" and should therefore be subject to investigation and or prosecution. I have no love at all for KSM but we deserve clarity on what was done in the name of all of our safety.

(h/t Greg Sargent)

The Truth On Torture

Former FBI supervisory special agent Ali Soufan decided to come out and debunk a lot of the conjecture flying around from the pro torture crowd in an op-ed today. I know there will be a lot of howling today from this article but its going to be hard to get around the uncomfortable truths in the op-ed.

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

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process.

Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May.

One of the worst consequences of the use of these harsh techniques was that it reintroduced the so-called Chinese wall between the C.I.A. and F.B.I., similar to the communications obstacles that prevented us from working together to stop the 9/11 attacks. Because the bureau would not employ these problematic techniques, our agents who knew the most about the terrorists could have no part in the investigation. An F.B.I. colleague of mine who knew more about Khalid Shaikh Mohammed than anyone in the government was not allowed to speak to him.

Don't miss what he is saying here. Not only did torture not work, it also created the same kind of wall between the FBI and the CIA that hurt our intelligence agencies before 9-11. So not only did it hurt our reputation around the world, it in point of fact made us less safe by interfering with the communications between intelligence agencies.

The debate after the release of these memos has centered on whether C.I.A. officials should be prosecuted for their role in harsh interrogation techniques. That would be a mistake. Almost all the agency officials I worked with on these issues were good people who felt as I did about the use of enhanced techniques: it is un-American, ineffective and harmful to our national security.

Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).

My C.I.A. colleagues who balked at the techniques, on the other hand, were instructed to continue. (It’s worth noting that when reading between the lines of the newly released memos, it seems clear that it was contractors, not C.I.A. officers, who requested the use of these techniques.)

So contrary to the musings of Joe Klein and David Ignatius the CIA themselves didn't want to have to torture these people. Its about time for all of this to come to light. If we are a nation of laws, we have to start acting like it.

183 Times

For all of the torture apologists on the right I just have one question. If waterboarding was so effective, why did the CIA have to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in one month and Abu Zubaydah, whom we now know wasn't the high level al Queda agent that the CIA initially thouoght he was, 83 times in one month. Until you can answer that question you don't have a right to even engage in the conversation about whether those who ordered torture should be prosecuted.

The Other "Joe The Dumb Ass"

On today's episode of Morning Joe Scarborough was back at it as usual beating his chest about torture. You would think Scarborough was former military or CIA the way he repeatedly asserts how he "knows" all manner of inside information about what actionable intelligence has been extracted from enemy combatants and especially Khalid Sheik Muhammed due to them being tortured. I imagine that when he is at home alone Scarborough plays "Jack Bauer" in the mirror pretending to torture people and then ride off into the sunset as a hero. And in predictable fashion today Scarborough picked another woman to verbally assault over the situation. Does anyone other than me think it ironic that a guy who tries to come off as "tough" spends every morning picking fights and yelling at women when they don't agree with him? It was gratifying to see Kristia Freeland not roll over for his bully act ala Mika Brzezinki and keep throwing his shit back at him. Lets watch.



Now of course to make matters worse, as is usually the case, Joe Scarborough is dead ass wrong.

From the Vanity Fair article entitled "Tortured Reasoning"

President Bush has said it works extremely well, insisting it has been a vital weapon in America’s counterterrorist arsenal. Vice President Dick Cheney and C.I.A. director Michael Hayden have made similar assertions. In fact, time and again, Bush has been given opportunities to distance his administration from the use of coercive methods but has stood steadfastly by their use. His most detailed exposition came in a White House announcement on September 6, 2006, when he said such tactics had led to the capture of top al-Qaeda operatives and had thwarted a number of planned attacks, including plots to strike U.S. Marines in Djibouti, fly planes into office towers in London, and detonate a radioactive “dirty” bomb in America. “Were it not for this program, our intelligence community believes that al-Qaeda and its allies would have succeeded in launching another attack against the American homeland. By giving us information about terrorist plans we could not get anywhere else, this program has saved innocent lives.”

Really? In researching this article, I spoke to numerous counterterrorist officials from agencies on both sides of the Atlantic. Their conclusion is unanimous: not only have coercive methods failed to generate significant and actionable intelligence, they have also caused the squandering of resources on a massive scale through false leads, chimerical plots, and unnecessary safety alerts—with Abu Zubaydah’s case one of the most glaring examples.

Here, they say, far from exposing a deadly plot, all torture did was lead to more torture of his supposed accomplices while also providing some misleading “information” that boosted the administration’s argument for invading
Iraq.

snip

Bush discussed Abu Zubaydah’s treatment in his 2006 announcement. “As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the C.I.A. used an alternative set of procedures…. The procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.” Soon, Bush went on, Abu Zubaydah “began to provide information on key al-Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September 11.” Among them, Bush said, were Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the alleged 9/11 mastermind, and his fellow conspirator Ramzi Binalshibh. In fact, Binalshibh was not arrested for another six months and K.S.M. not for another year. In K.S.M.’s case, the lead came from an informant motivated by a $25 million reward.

As for K.S.M. himself, who (as Jane Mayer writes) was waterboarded, reportedly hung for hours on end from his wrists, beaten, and subjected to other agonies for weeks, Bush said he provided “many details of other plots to kill innocent Americans.” K.S.M. was certainly knowledgeable. It would be surprising if he gave up nothing of value. But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

Whenever you hear some idiot exclaim "I know for a fact..." always be suspicious especially if their last name is Scarborough.

Oh and just for one last parting shot at this ass hat thinkprogress gives us this aside.

In fact, the interrogator who successfully brought down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi — and who has written and spoken publicly about how torture doesn’t work — told Laura Ingraham last month he broke one insurgent after he gave him a copy of Harry Potter.