CIA Official: No Proof That Torture Stopped Terror Attacks on America
By Susie Madrak Monday Apr 27, 2009 1:30pmThey just can't seem to get their stories straight. No matter how hard they try to justify torture, the facts don't seem to support them:
WASHINGTON — The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos.
That undercuts assertions by former vice president Dick Cheney and other former Bush administration officials that the use of harsh interrogation tactics including waterboarding, which is widely considered torture, was justified because it headed off terrorist attacks.
[...] "It is difficult to quantify with confidence and precision the effectiveness of the program," Steven G. Bradbury, then the Justice Department's principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a May 30, 2005, memo to CIA General Counsel John Rizzo, one of four released last week by the Obama administration.
"As the IG Report notes, it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks. And because the CIA has used enhanced techniques sparingly, 'there is limited data on which to assess their individual effectiveness'," Bradbury wrote, quoting the IG report.
Nevertheless, Bradbury concluded in his May 2005 memos that the program had been effective; that conclusion relied largely on memos written after the still secret report by Inspector General John Helgerson.
Helgerson also concluded that waterboarding was riskier than officials claimed and reported that the CIA's Office of Medical Services thought that the risk to the health of some prisoners outweighed any potential intelligence benefit, according to the memos.
The IG's report is among several indications that the Bush administration's use of abusive interrogation methods was less productive than some former administration officials have claimed.
Login or Register to post comments.
It was illegal and that's the bottom line!
Sure, every criminal, when they are caught, first tries to deny they did the crime but if they realize that won't work, the next step is to try to justify their doing the crime.
Let Obama prosecute Bush, the CIA, all of the enabling and complicit Republicrats and the Oligarchs all in one great cleansing.
THEN I will be a believer.
n/t
and further more no proof except our government explaination that we were ever attacked .................by real terriorists let alone that torture was nesassary!
So what, it's illegal.
We shouldn't validate the talking points of working or not working at all by discussing them. Torture is illegal. Period.
Ya. We aren't generating it though. We are trying to tamp it down so the MSM can concentrate on detailing the acts of torture - which will happen as the real information comes out. the republicans are trying to shout the investigation down and the MSM is loving it. Ying & Yan.
FBI Director Robert Mueller said he would not participate in "enhanced interrogation" techniques.
then, Bush/Cheney proclaimed that "enhanced interrogation" resulted in stopping a domestic sleeper cell attack at the Los Angeles airport..
and I was like "but hold on, but isn't that FBI jurisdiction?"
(me and my pesky critical thinking skills..)
so I figured either Mueller was lying and was totally waterboarding citizens... or Bush/Cheney were lying to us (again).
nice to see it was the latter.
the FBI said, they refused to participate in, or cooperate with, "enhanced interrogation"
investigations of persons living on American soil, who wish to attack American soil, is under FBI jurisdiction. investigating, preventing, and prosecuting attempts to blow up the LA Airport, is under FBI jurisdiction.
Bush/Cheney/FOX - proclaimed that "enhanced interrogation" resulted in disrupting an attempt by individuals living in the United States, attempting to blow up the LA Airport.
*******
either:
- the FBI lied, and are engaging in enhanced interrogation
- the CIA or Homeland Security or the Justice Dept violated jurisdictional law
- Bush/Cheney lied, and it wasn't .... *really* ... enhanced interrogation that led to the disruption of an attempted domestic terrorist attack on U.S. soil.
*******
protip: 9/11 was, in fact, a call to arms for federal, state and local law enforcement and first responders to improve investigation, arrest, prosecution, and communication. CIA and DHS and military this and Iran that ... had nothing to do with it. 9/11 was a domestic terrorist attack. not an international attack.
Oh man, it's sad to see that ad on the right side of this page for Fox Nation. I know it can't be helped but it's still a pisser to see it, especially here. :(
Better here than somewhere where their shit might be believed.
Charge them double, quadruple.
Cheney has a dog and pony show. He needs to link his crimes to something that could be mis-interpretted as a defense, at lest by a few of his friends and family, and by his good friends, the MSM.
I'm sure John King is proud of his work, but i'm hoping the DOJ gets it's insight into reality elsewhere. His show title "state of the union" obviously refers to the union between the republican party players and the MSM. BFF.
the issue is that TORTURE IS F*CKING ILLEGAL.
I can't believe that it is acceptable in XXI century America to have a debate regarding whether or not torture is acceptable.
Even if torture f*cking cured cancer, it would make diddly squat of a difference. It is illegal, period, end of debate.
WTF! Seriously, WTF!
Don't smoke it cause it's illegal. Not a very strong argument. You need to also show WHY it's illegal. With torture, you need to show that not only is it morally reprehensible but also worthless and why it is illegal. The torture lovers are trying to make the morality and effectiveness argument fuzzy to make it legal hence why they need to be shut down.
There's no reason why their defense shouldn't be shut down regardless of how they attempt to justify it. Once again, where are the outspoken dems con cajones?
Same place where unicorns and leprechauns hang out?
Well there is Dennis, but he seems to be ignored by the rest of them for some reason.
not by a long shot.
The Geneva convention, and the slew of international treaties... are fairly strong arguments IMHO. Never mind the whole issue that the US constitution forbids the government from administering torture.
By discussing the benefits or lack thereof torture, we are adding validity to the arguments that these knuckle draggers are coming up in order to justify their actions. I don't give a shit how "useful" their torture sessions were, they were illegal period.
In any other civilized society this debate would not have even passed the embryonic state. Leave to the US to be still arguing in the XXI century about the merits of torture, and creationism. What a bunch of retards we are forced to live with...
Right. Torture and creationism. They're Talipublicans!
The Talipublicani folk want to return to a dark age.
We were talking about rational people we wouldn't even be having those discussions to begin with.
My far right family like to justify torture by claiming that Israel does it and it works for them so it should be allowed here.
Those types of people are also the ones that immediately jump to the defense of the bankers because what they did was technically legal.
These people like to equate homosexuality with pedophile and bestiality.
Moral equivalence is meaningless with these people and saying something is illegal or not has no relevance. If it's illegal they will claim they are doing the right thing or it works for Israel (insert other rogue state). If it's legal then no amount of explaining how doing something hurts people aka derivatives/CDS/ninja loans will change their mind.
I would beg to differ on the legality of the Banksters activities.
They knew what they were doing was misrepresentation aka fraud.
Treason
Start pulling passports.
This ain't no disco
What's he been up to?
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stori...
Poised to make a "killing"
From January 1997 until being sworn in as the 21st Secretary of Defense in January 2001, Rumsfeld served as Chairman of Gilead Sciences, Inc. Gilead Sciences is the developer of Tamiflu (Oseltamivir).
The CIA lie that they destroyed the tapes must be laid to rest.
There are the same electronic videos as when when george bush's family carried out the assassination of Saddam.
I bet there's a video of Pat Tillman's political assassination ,Too. I bet that true AMERICAN HERO didn't snivile and beg for his life ass he watched an AMERICAN weapon blow his brains out.
Roll the fucking tapes, little tiny dick !
There's file on tiny tiny dicks desktop. Bet?
Perhaps we should put it to them this way. If you think there is merit in torture, change the law. If a whole lot of people in this country, along with republicans, think we should torture then draft a bill to say that and let's see who supports it.
Seriously, the first three stories on C&L are all related to this issue. Haven't we beaten this topic to death? We know it; conservatives know it; the whole world knows it. The US knowingly, and willingly, abandoned it's morals under the Bush regime after 9/11 in the name of its' 'war on terror'.
Republicans can spin it however they like, but the FACT remains it's torture, plain and simple, and it is illegal. We need to find out who authorized it and hold them accountable, regardless of who it is. End of story.
Reagan and Bush and Cheney and these guys in their circle trained and funded Osama Bin Laden to fight for us against the Russians in Afghanistan.
I think ron here at C&L was right in that the torture was more about trying to get info. regarding a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda than it was about stopping an imminant terrorist attack. Cheney and his goons really needed that justification for attacking Iraq.
I think ron here at C&L was right in that the torture was more about trying to get info. regarding a link between Saddam and Al Qaeda than it was about stopping an imminant terrorist attack. Cheney and his goons really needed that justification for attacking Iraq.
it was about getting FALSE information, the ONLY way to establish a link would be through torture since every one of the president's agencies informed them in NO uncertain terms that there was NO LINK
it was about getting false information, it was about CREATING lever ending unrest
Yes, exactly. It was about getting false information.
there's no proof torture prevented issues however there is proof torture created more enemies
for each person you torture you turn all their family, everyone of their friends and every friends friend into a terrorist
if someone would have come forward with information that might help now they won't
in addition, we KNOW AS A FACT the policies of torture HAVE killed American lives, it was information they gathered through their torture programs that the administration used to base their "weapons of mass destruction" lies
torture begets violence it does not prevent it
here's the sick part;
the administration was informed those facts, BY THE GENERALS, they knew in no uncertain terms torture would be counter productive, yet the went forward
why?
because the policies have a real purpose, when you want an insurgency, when you want unrest, that's when you institute programs of torture
the administration got exactly what they were looking for
I'd like to comment further, the following two quotes are from marcy wheeler over at www.firedoglake.com;
December 18, 2001: Ibn Sheikh al-Libi captured. After being tortured, al-Libi made up stories about Al Qaeda ties to Iraq.
In other words, they were getting false information from torture–false information they would use to bring us to war with Iraq–at the same time as they were devising their plan to torture Abu Zubaydah.
this is how progressives need to address the "discourse" concerning the "eficacy of torture;
“of COURSE torture hurts us more then it helps us, if it weren’t for torture the administration would have NEVER gotten the FALSE information linking al qaeda to Iraq, LOOK at all the Americans killed thanks to torture!”
Question: Why didn't Cheney torture people to find Bin Laden? Answer: Because Cheney knew once we found Bin Laden we would know who was really behind 9/11. Cheney probably knew Bin Laden was already dead, too. The fact that the torture sessions never were to find Bin Laden is going to bite Cheney in the ass...
Cheney gave the whole bin laden familiy a free pass including osama, of coarse. He's family to the buschCos.
When cheney was escouting the bin laden family around the globe, he was escouting bin laden across afganistan into pakistan. Check it out at least. you must expect the worst and only hope for the best when it comes to the bushies.
Personally, I think Obama is a great man for truly trying to walk that bipartisan line. But it really doesn't work--esp. since the Repugs have no interest WHATSOEVER of making any (sensible) deals. Thus, the standstill is always there...but we have them on the torture thing. It seems obvious. They broke the law, and lawbreakers generally get punished. Still, I watched an interesting video about this debate earlier today. Newsy.com tries to offer various sources...but it's good to see what they're saying. It's good to hear what Kapinski said...that the senior leaders should NOT be exempt by any means. It's worth looking at:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/next_to_nil_1/
I believe a whole bunch of folks here and on TV have made that point eminently clear. Torture apparently happened under orders from the top folks and was condoned and enabled on several fronts. Therefore, they are Guilty of war crimes. Period.
Mr. Cheney is an A #1 top-rate coward who also happens to be a sociopath, like his puppet, Dubya. They engaged in torture because they got some kind of power rush from it, and because they Could! They thought they were the be-all, end-all, invincible masters of the planet because they pulled off the biggest scam ever on 9/11.
Well, we've seen behind the curtain, and it's time to investigate, prosecute, convict and incarcerate - ALL of them.
I couldn't have said it better. the stage is set. the country will stand as witness to the prosecution of these bigger than life public figures. However when it starts, it will be a diliberate, sober, formal afair. hopefully. By then there will be other issues to entertain the MSM, and distract the right wing loonies, and justice will be done without fanfare.
As insane and ridiculous as it sounds--there are rules of war.
all nations including the US signed treaties at the geneva conventions.
We should never go beyond them.
Should we torture the craiglist killer to get him to talk?
should we have tortured ted bundy to get him to talk?
I just wish to hell that the freaking media and the pundits would stop saying that waterboarding is "widely considered torture". Every time some ass-bag, say like Gingrich, declares that he don't know if waterboarding is torture, the jury is still out or we have to have a debate---tell them to go fuck themselves. WATERBOARDING IS TORTURE. END OF STORY!
No need for a "truth panel" or any behind closed doors "investigation". Get it out into the open air and let these shit head neofascists,eer cons, and the idiots that parrot everything they say look at the vile, corrupt, morally bankrupt, war criminals that they are and hang their head in shame while tears pool at their feet.
Investigate openly, indict openly, convict openly and sentence openly. The world must see that our Constitution means what it says.
Livid in Liberty
All the legitimate sources say torture does not work! The only ones who really say it does are Bush goons and some rogue CIA officials -- probably many of the ones who did the torture.
But -- so many insist on repeating the lame talking point: "But, but what if the terrorists had Americans held captive, threatened to kill them and it was a ticking time bomb?????" Astonishingly enough, this makes the vast majority of talking heads say they would be for torture in some cases. Unreal. I hate to think this country has gotten lazier and dumber in the past 60 years, but it has.
And just today (Monday), Kit Bond was STILL claiming, on Chrissie Matthews's show, the debunked story about "Library tower in L.A." And will you be surprised to hear that Matthews did NOT say that story had been debunked? I am so sick of this. When will ANY talking head have the guts to call a liar A LIAR? I feel Keith or Rachel would, but the liars won't go on their shows. And I am also sick to death of Chris Matthews. Oh yes, his show is Hardball -- some hardball. The only hard thing about it is to avoid the spit spewing out his mouth. He screams and interrupts until I am shouting at my TV "SHUT UP -- let the guest finish a sentence!" And, of course, he only screams at truth tellers -- never the liars like Kit Bond. He's a wuss.
Login or Register to post comments.