Pointing And Laughing

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Soft on terror, eh?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

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

Terrorist Attach On Airplane Thwarted

I am admittedly late on this, but evidently some guy who is now claiming Al Qaeda affiliation of some sort tried to blow up a plane headed to Detroit but failed and presumably ended up getting his ass whupped by his fellow passengers. TPM is on the case.

Who Said What And Why?

There is a new Washington Post story up about the torture of Abu Zubaydah at GITMO. Now I am not quite sure who gets to make these kinds of decisions but, and I bullshit you not, the overwhelming bulk of the story is derived from "anonymous" sources. Mind you WaPo allows these former Bushies to contradict Ali Soufan, a decorated FBI agent whom is still in the field trying to keep us all safe and who has testfied under oath to Congress and still enjoy the freedom to lie that comes with being an "anonymous" source. Its really ironic that on the weekend that we lose an icon in journalism, Walter Cronkite, that the Post would publish such an antithesis to journalism excellence and integrity.

Now ostensibly I guess the article is an attempt by some former Bush officials to push back on the notion that Abu Zubaydah didn't yield any useful information as a result of torture. To wit I think that this part of the article comes the closest to trying to substantiate this claim.

Soufan testified to Congress in May that Abu Zubaida went silent once Mitchell took charge. Within days of the CIA team's arrival, the cables between Bangkok and Langley became devoid of new revelations. Agency officials decided to let the FBI back into the interrogations, but on the condition that forced nudity and sleep deprivation be allowed to continue.

The CIA team lowered the temperature in Abu Zubaida's cell until the detainee turned blue. The FBI turned it back up, setting off a clash over tactics.

Under FBI questioning, Abu Zubaida identified an operative he knew as Abdullah al-Mujahir, the alias, he said, of an American citizen with a Latino name. An investigation involving multiple agencies identified the suspect as Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda operative later convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

"In two different bits, after sleep deprivation, is when Abu Zubaida gave clues about who Padilla might be," the former U.S. official said. "When that was put together with other CIA sources, they were able to identify who he was. . . . The cables will not show that the FBI just asked friendly questions and got information about Padilla."

This is such a blatant attempt at sleight of hand that the Washington Post should be held in contempt by all of its readers for insulting our intelligence in this fashion. Now mind you supposedly this article was put together based on anonymous sources as well as information already out in the public domain. Well lets examine Ali Soufan's account of how they came to glean information about Jose Padilla from Abu Zubaydah.

Only weeks later, this clash of cultures played out in the heated dispute over how to handle Abu Zubaydah. A Palestinian who is believed to have served as logistics chief for Afghan terrorist-training camps, Abu Zubaydah was captured after a bloody gunfight. He was transferred from Pakistan to Thailand, where Soufan and Gaudin immediately sought to gain his trust by nursing his wounds. (Soufan would not comment on the location of the interrogation; sources, who like others interviewed for this story didn't want to be named discussing sensitive information, have placed him in Thailand at this time. An FBI spokesman says Gaudin, who is still in the bureau, would not comment on his role in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations.) "We kept him alive," Soufan says. "It wasn't easy, he couldn't drink, he had a fever. I was holding ice to his lips." Gaudin, for his part, cleaned Abu Zubaydah's buttocks. During this time, Soufan and Gaudin also began the questioning; it became a "mental poker game." At first, Abu Zubaydah even denied his identity, insisting that his name was "Daoud."

But Soufan had poured through the bureau's intelligence files and stunned Abu Zubaydah when he called him "Hani"—the nickname that his mother used for him. Soufan also showed him photos of a number of terror suspects who were high on the bureau's priority list. Abu Zubaydah looked at one of them and said, "That's Mukhtar."

Now it was Soufan who was stunned. The FBI had been trying to determine the identity of a mysterious "Mukhtar," whom bin Laden kept referring to on a tape he made after 9/11. Now Soufan knew: Mukhtar was the man in the photo, terror fugitive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and, as Abu Zubaydah blurted out, " the one behind 9/11."

As the sessions continued, Soufan engaged Abu Zubaydah in long discussions about his world view, which included a tinge of socialism. After Abu Zubaydah railed one day about the influence of American imperialist corporations, he asked Soufan to get him a Coca-Cola—a request that prompted the two of them to laugh. Soon enough, Abu Zubaydah offered up more information—about the bizarre plans of a jihadist from Puerto Rico to set off a "dirty bomb" inside the country. This information led to Padilla's arrest in Chicago by the FBI in early May.

But the tenor of the Abu Zubaydah interrogations changed a few days later, when a CIA contractor showed up. Although Soufan declined to identify the contractor by name, other sources (and media accounts) identify him as James Mitchell, a former Air Force psychologist who had worked on the U.S. military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape training—a program to teach officers how to resist the abusive interrogation methods used by Chinese communists during the Korean War. Within days of his arrival, Mitchell—an architect of the CIA interrogation program—took charge of the questioning of Abu Zubaydah. He directed that Abu Zubaydah be ordered to answer questions or face a gradual increase in aggressive techniques. One day Soufan entered Abu Zubadyah's room and saw that he had been stripped naked; he covered him with a towel.

So you have Ali Soufan putting his name on it when he says that Mitchell wasn't even at GITMO when Zubaydah gave up Jose Padilla and thus there is no way the information could have come from torture. And on the other hand you have an anonymous former Bush official (probably a Dick Cheney lackey or Cheney himself) anonymously lying about the very timeline of events and the Washington Post doesn't even take the time out to acknowledge that the timeline is even in dispute. Are we really supposed to be that stupid or maybe that woefully under informed that we just accept this anonymous sources' word over a man who has testifed under oath about what went down with Zubaydah and continues to put his life on the line battling terrorist all over the world?

The Washington Post is quickly hastening its own demise with this kind of slppy and lazy, intellectually dishonest work.

But even with all of the misdirection thrown around in the article there is still one major takeaway. There is no way these people can claim that what was done to Zubaydah was not torture.

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

One More Time

CIA officials at the Counterterrorist Center were not convinced.

"Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent," the former official said. "Headquarters said it would be on the team's back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, 'You've lost your spine.' "

Mitchell and Jessen now found themselves in the same position as Soufan, Shumate and others.

"It was hard on them, too," the former U.S. official said. "They are psychologists. They didn't enjoy this at all."

The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said.

After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

A 2005 Justice Department memo released this year confirmed the visit. "These officials," the memo said, "reported that enhanced techniques were no longer needed."

It is apparent that the chickenhawks inhabiting the White House were so afraid of their own shaddow that they didn't give a shit about whether Abu Zubaydah or any other prisoner they used torture on was giving them good information. All they cared about was torturing the guy over and over again so there was at least the appearance of intelligence coming in so they could cover their ass in case another attack happened. What a joke it is to hear them now try to claim they kept this country safe and beat their chests as if they are some kind of heros.

They truth is every single one of them were and are cowards and that torture is the tool of cowards. Its the brave man who sticks to his values and morals in the face of grave consequences, the coward is the one who gives them up in the interest of cutting corners.

If there is any justice in the world these people who ordered torture will be held accountable for their crimes, sooner rather than later.

Non Denial Denial

Just keep talking stupid. You are making the case for investigating your Daddy better than any Democrat ever could.

What About The WHY?

The New York Times has a front page story today about former Guantanamo Bay detainee Said Ali al-Shihri and how he has now risen to the number two Al Queda figure in Yemen. The first line of the article goes like this.

The emergence of a former Guantánamo Bay detainee as the deputy leader of Al Qaeda’s Yemeni branch has underscored the potential complications in carrying out the executive order President Obama signed Thursday that the detention center be shut down within a year.

Now I for one was puzzled by such a pronouncement. For one President Obama's executive order says absolutely nothing about releasing detainees. He and Press Secretary Robert Gibbs both stated that a plan is still being formulated to deal with the disposition of the detainees. But bigger than that al-Shihri was released by the Bush Administration. If he went back to terrorism shouldn't that instead be an indictment of THEIR policy with respect to detainees?

Now I realize that there are some detainees at GITMO that have become causes for the ACLU and other civil libertarion groups. However most of those cases involved people being detained without much if any credible evidence to support the arrest. And to my knowledge there was not a single solitary civil libertarian group working to free al-Shiri. So I was very interested to see what his story was. Was he an obviously innoncent person who was radicalized by his detention? Not from the story the NYTimes tells.

Mr. Shihri, 35, trained in urban warfare tactics at a camp north of Kabul, Afghanistan, according to documents released by the Pentagon as part of his Guantánamo dossier. Two weeks after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, he traveled to Afghanistan via Bahrain and Pakistan, and he later told American investigators that his intention was to do relief work, the documents say. He was wounded in an airstrike and spent a month and a half recovering in a hospital in Pakistan.

The documents state that Mr. Shihri met with a group of “extremists” in Iran and helped them get into Afghanistan. They also say he was accused of trying to arrange the assassination of a writer, in accordance with a fatwa, or religious order, issued by an extremist cleric.

So to recap, this guy was suspected of attending terrorist training camps, meeting with extremists in Iran and helping them get into Afghanistan and attempting to have a journalist killed. That is pretty heavy stuff. Now I don't know how credible their evidence was or wasn't but something compelled them to detain the guy in the first place. Now the biggest question that came to my mind was why did they release him if he supposedly did all of these terrorist activities? Well as far as I can tell from the article, it was because he used "I didn't do it" defense.

However, under a heading describing reasons for Mr. Shihri’s possible release from Guantánamo, the documents say he claimed that he traveled to Iran “to purchase carpets for his store” in Saudi Arabia. They also say that he denied knowledge of any terrorists or terrorist activities, and that he “related that if released, he would like to return to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, wherein he would reunite with his family.”

“The detainee stated he would attempt to work at his family’s furniture store if it is still in business,” the documents say.

Well the ironic thing is, of course, that damn near every criminal uses that same defense. And what makes it worse is that there are "enemy combatants" STILL detained at GITMO who have a helluva lot more evidence that they didn't commit the crimes they are being held for. So what gives? And my question to the NYTimes why didn't they more vigorously try to get to the bottom of it?

What would have compelled the Bush Administration to release this man? Was he tortured? Did he give up information? And why didn't the NYTimes purse that question? Its unthinkable to me for them to write the article without it occuring to them that maybe the bigger story is how the guy got out in the first place. I realize that the wingnuts wouldn't be interested in the focus not being on how some how this case reflects badly on President Obama but you would think the "grey lady" would have a different motivation.

As John Cole points out this story is more of an indictment of the Bush Administration than it is any statement about President Obama's executive orders. Hopefully someone out there reading this will start asking some of the same questions that I have.