In April 2003, after Waterboarding Him 183 Times, the CIA Admitted KSM Was Lying to Them

/98 Comments/in /by

In March 2003, the CIA subjected Khalid Sheikh Mohammed to the most brutal of its torture techniques. Over the course of that month, we know, the CIA waterboarded Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times.

Then, three days into April, the CIA wrote an analytical report admitting that KSM lied during those interrogations. 

A footnote in the 9/11 Report provides some detail on this analytical report (footnote 4 in Chapter 7).

In an assessment of KSM’s reporting, the CIA concluded that protecting operatives in the United States appeared to be a "major part" of KSM’s resistance efforts. For example, in response to questions about U.S. zip codes found in his notebooks, KSM provided the less than satisfactory explanation that he was planning to use the zip code to open new email accounts. CIA report, Intelligence Community Terrorist Threat Assessment, "Khalid Shaykh Muhammed’s Threat Reporting–Precious Truths, Surrounded by a Bodyguard of Lies," April 3, 2003, pp 4-5.[my emphasis]

Admittedly, CIA was bemoaning the perceived lies KSM was telling to protect operatives the Agency assumed he had planted around the United States (the footnote serves to explain why the 9/11 Commission did not believe KSM’s claims that there were no al Qaeda operatives in Southern California to assist two of the hijackers). At least from this description, we don’t know whether the Agency also admitted that KSM was lying about knowing where Osama bin Laden was–as was declassified the other day. But we do know that CIA acknowledged he was lying about precisely the subject–threat reporting–that the torture apologists claim waterboarding was so successful in eliciting.

I present this not as proof that KSM was lying about who al Qaeda had stationed in the US. Rather, it is a document written contemporaneously with the torture. And it shows what role torture-induced knowledge played for the CIA. Where KSM didn’t confirm CIA’s preconceptions, they assumed he was lying. Where he gave them stories of scary attacks, they wasted resources tracking them down. But, partly because they were torturing him, they had no easy way to sort through the crap to find any real intelligence.

There are a number of outlets that believe KSM’s admissions of lying at his CSRT are the big takeaway, even though equally damning admissions in the CSRTs have long been unclassified and KSM’s CSRT already had unclassified claims of lying.

But why take KSM’s word for it? CIA made the same claims back when they tortured him, and that admission has been unclassified for five years. 

image_print
98 replies
  1. wavpeac says:

    Now that we know more about who was being tortured and when, has anyone done a time line linking the various alerts with these “torture times”.

    I would think that linking the announcement of these big “terrorist catches” that were often touted, with times we know that people were being tortured, with our yellow alerts, would be a power, and elegant way to make the case to the American people. Not only were we torturing, but we were being alerted and scared by false information. It could be a powerful graphic and say “FRAUD” in one picture.

    (I don’t remember seeing them in any of the time lines, but it could be that I wasn’t paying attention to that detail at the time).

    • klynn says:

      Marcy,

      I second wavpeac’s question on the terror alert. Since you produced your Torture Timeline, I have wanted to add the Terror Alert Timeline to it. Rollinstone did this great article regarding the Terror Alerts.

      I will post some dates below.

      • Rayne says:

        But as I pointed out last week, political circumstances drove many (if not all) of the terror alerts. The links between content from any interrogation could be highly tenuous if the primary consideration was Bush’s approval rating in advance of the election.

        What would be most important to show is a link between lies obtained under duress, which intelligence personnel knew to be lies, and the terror alerts — in sync with a political driver.

        Because the administration was torturing for political reasons, not for reasons of national security.

        (BTW, I think for this purpose you’ll still find the info at Juliusblog on the terror alerts more helpful.)

  2. klynn says:

    Here’s the Wiki timeline:

    Severe (Red)

    The Homeland Security Advisory System has been raised to Severe only once, which applied only to flights coming from the United Kingdom:

    * August 10–14, 2006, in response to British law enforcement announcing it had disrupted a major terror plot to blow up aircraft, the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level for commercial flights from the United Kingdom to the United States to Severe.[19]

    [edit] High (Orange)

    On a nationwide level, it has been raised to High five times:

    * September 10–24, 2002, the first anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks.
    * February 7–27, 2003, near the end of the Muslim religious holiday Hajj. Intelligence reports suggested the possibility of terrorist attacks against “apartment buildings, hotels, and other soft or lightly secured targets.”
    * March 17 – April 16, 2003, around the beginning of U.S. and Coalition military action in Iraq.
    * May 20–30, 2003, after the Riyadh compound bombings and the Casablanca bombings. According to Tom Ridge: “The U.S. Intelligence Community believes that Al Qaeda has entered an operational period worldwide, and this may include terrorist attacks in the United States.”
    * December 21, 2003 – January 9, 2004, citing intelligence information suggesting large-scale attacks around the holiday season.

    In addition, the alert has been raised to High on a select or partial basis three times:

    * August 1 – November 10, 2004, for specific financial institutions in northern New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C., citing intelligence pointing to the possibility of a car or truck bomb attack, naming specific buildings as possible targets.[20][21]
    * July 7, 2005 – August 12, 2005, for mass transit systems only. The DHS secretary announced the level after the 7 July 2005 London bombings despite the absence of “specific, credible information suggesting imminent attack” in the United States.[22]
    * August 10, 2006 – present, for all domestic airline flights and all international flights to or from the United States, with the exception of flights from the United Kingdom to the United States. Flights from the United Kingdom to the United States had been under a severe alert, but were downgraded to a high alert on August 14, 2006.[19]
    For more details on this topic, see 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot.

  3. smartlady says:

    Thank you Marcy! Every dollar we donate to the Marcy Wheeler Fundraiser is an investment in Democracy. We’ll continue to donate. Please continue with the invaluable service you perform.

  4. rxbusa says:

    I have long had the suspicion that the whole business about using household liquids to blow up airplanes was the result of torture. The chemistry of it is in the realm of possible, but the logistics of trying to achieve it on an airplane is absurd.

    (Articles about the feasibility can be found at http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..rror_labs/ and http://www.scientificamerican……ves-linked )

    I remember standing in line at an airport and having this realization and the feeling of my stomach sinking when I realized the enormous waste of it…time, intellect, adrenaline, and just wasted stuff that was and is tossed for what? abject stupidity

    • phred says:

      I think you overlook a key feature of the airport liquid scare. A friend once suggested to me that is was to keep us all afraid of terrorists — a perpetual reminder to capitulate to every illegal whim of BushCo. I suspect my friend was exactly right. It never was about liquid bombs, it was about keeping the public compliant.

        • phred says:

          Well speak of the devil… The friend I mentioned is Civlibertarian, an old chum of mine who has finally decided to delurk and comment. Just want to give credit where it is due…

          Hiya Civl, sorry I missed the geek-fest last night, still trying to catch up on that thread…

  5. TarheelDem says:

    Mighty convenient to come to the conclusion that he was lying after the War in Iraq was started on March 20, 2003.

    • perris says:

      their conclusion was long before that, they informed cheney there was no link and cheney wanted the tortured link anyway

      the convenience here is the fact that we are giving cheney a pass, the cia knew they would be gathering false information and they so informed cheney of that fact

  6. Jkat says:

    OT marcy .. but .. have you seen this news article ?? i dropped it in another string … i think it’ll make some wheels in your head spin ..

  7. patg says:

    so when bush pronounced that ksm’s torture had deterred specific threats, he knew he was lying?

    and yes, rxbusa the chemistry is possible, but not on a plane unless it’s trans-ocean. and then you’d have to lock yourself in the restroom for 6-8 hours…a huge waste indeed. but then so is removing your shoes…thank you mr. reid for not trying to conceal that bomb in a more, ah, private location.

  8. perris says:

    Then, three days into April, the CIA wrote an analytical report admitting that KSM lied during those interrogations.

    marcy, you know how you kept hammering away at the number of times these people were waterboarded until mainstream finally took notice?

    I have been hammering away at the following;

    the cia and fbi already knew they would be getting false information if they tortured these captives, the information cheney wanted was already known to be false and cheney was informed that information was false

    cheney insisted on torture to get information he knew was false and the cia knew the information acquired would be false, they knew it long before they began

    I have been hammering this at every oportunity yet it seems I am the only one that thinks it’s a big deal

    there is a direct interview where the cia says directly, they informed cheney there was no link between what cheney wanted to say and reality, cheney said (paraphrased), “get it to me anyway”

    this is a VERY big deal, to my mind much bigger then the amount of times these captives were waterboarded

  9. redfish says:

    It is just astounding to me; the almost rabid level thirst for revenge and hatred towards the Bush-Cheney administration. It has nothing to do with the reality as there is no question that Bush-Cheney were abominations and horrific for this country and the world. But enough is enough. Live in the now there is too much work too be done.

    And now this extreme left fringe element is skewering President Obama at every turn which will only get us a one-term President and a Gingrich, Huckabee or Romney. Not to mention a GOP Congress in 2010 and if you think that is not possible — read your history. A fractured, divided Democratic Party cannot stand. Political pragmatism is the key to keeping in power.

    By the way – would be nice to hear “even once” here what a scum KSM is. I personally could care less what happens to him — Americans jumped to their deaths with their skin on fire due to this terrorist. You have picked the wrong poster boy.

    • perris says:

      It is just astounding to me; the almost rabid level thirst for revenge and hatred towards the Bush-Cheney administration. It has nothing to do with the reality as there is no question that Bush-Cheney were abominations and horrific for this country and the world. But enough is enough. Live in the now there is too much work too be done.

      sorry, cheney did this before, he did it when nixon left office, creating false information to undermine nixon’s detante and he did it when reagan lost his facilities an created al qaeda

      cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitze and company

      this needs to be stopped and these people must be held to account, unless YOU want it to happen again

      I’m sure you don’t and if that’s so then you have to become as determined as we are that they are brought to the bar of justice

      By the way – would be nice to hear “even once” here what a scum KSM is. I personally could care less what happens to him — Americans jumped to their deaths with their skin on fire due to this terrorist. You have picked the wrong poster boy.

      it would be nice for people to understand that what was done to him will create FAR more enemies and attacks against our country and people

      you BETTER care what was done if you want to protect Bour national security and you BETTER care what was done if you want to help our soldiers complete their jobs

      • quake says:

        cheney, rumsfeld, wolfowitze and company

        this needs to be stopped and these people must be held to account, unless YOU want it to happen again

        Agree completely except it’s even worse than you say because each time they came back (Watergate, Iran Contra, BushCo) they became more virulent. God help us all if they come back again.

      • robspierre says:

        Obviously, this plant and its cohorts DO want it all to happen again. Otherwise they wouldn’t repeat the same discredited and, too be kind, simple-minded argument. They clearly have no hope of achieving and holding power by consitutional means, given Lincoln’s dictum about fooling all of the people all of the time.

        What astonishes me is that such persons never pause to consider what if it were to be done to THEM? What if, at some point soon, it isn’t little brown people with funny-sounding names or unAmuurrican pinkos that takes the beatings and goes under the hose? Do the Bush apologists really believe this whole-heartedly in the high morality, rationality, and essential goodness of Liberals and the Left? That might–might–be a bad assumption. Others have made it before and gotten a surprise.

        Historically, when an aristocracy tyrannizes a middleclass, steals its savings, and sends its children to the slaughter in arbitrary foreign wars, said middle class has exercised three remedies:

        * the lamp post
        * the pike
        * Dr. Guillotine’s National Razor

        These are the alternatives to normal, legal proceedings, to investigation, indictment, trial, and constitutional punishment. License for said aristocracy to continue its tyranny is NOT one of the alternatives, not in the long run.

        So take your pick, America. Indict, try, and punish tyrants judicially and thereby destroy tyranny with law, once and for all. Or avenge tyranny with tyranny, making tyranny part of regime change now and in the future.

        At this point, I could almost go either way, frankly.

        So any Bush apologist that feels strongly enough about protecting Bush and company from legally mandated sanctions should feel free to reply to me with the exact spelling of his/her name, a detailed physical description (including identifying marks), and the addresses of current residence and workplaces. The Sea-green and Incorruptible Robspierre will file your info. When the time comes, perhaps a Committee of Public Safety will want to be in touch.

    • Jkat says:

      trolling are we ?? rabid ?? KSM as “poster boy” …

      are you a conservo-turd .. or do you just share their lack of reading comprrehension and jumping to totally whacky conclusions??

      IOW.. does that cork blow out of your ass often ??

      • redfish says:

        If you have been paying attention you would know that I am a dedicated life-time Liberal Democrat and Progressive. Like millions of us, we are thrilled beyond belief that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are running the show. I am unwilling to go quietly into the night watching fringe extremists destroy what so many worked so hard for. This is not a far-left country it is a moderate/indepedent one. Liberal leaning on social issues and conservative leaning on foreign policy issues.

        You should wash your mouth out with soap – and get some help to deal with all that animice and hatred. You are no progressive sir.

        • rxbusa says:

          Thrilled about Harry Reid? That there’s some real impressive liberal progressive bonafides.

          • redfish says:

            I am clearly talking about the collective leadership in this country. Far preferable to the alternative. Whatever we get when the Obama administration is sad and done with — will be far superior to the alternative. We do not live in a far-left country. This is what you and most here do not get. You talk to and at yourselves — you have no sense of the real world out there between the oceans.

            • perris says:

              far left by who’s definintion?

              we definately live in a “far left” country if you want to take the republicans definition of the term, we difinately live in a “far left” country if you want to take hannity and billo’s definition, and certainly if you wanted to take limpballs definition

              but by definition of the very term, we live in a centrist nation however that center has been defined as “far left” by corporate owned media

              so depending on your referance, of course this is a far left country based on corporate propaganda, and of course it is a centrist country based on reality

              take your pick which way you want to go with that however the republican politicians are not centrist, they are not on the right, they are fringe wing nuts promoting a corporate paid for agenda and getting people to actually believe that is somehow close to the center

              • redfish says:

                On corporate America I couldn’t agree with you more. If you read my posts in the context of what is being discussed, I am referring to foreign policy and national security. But to answer your question directly which I always try to do — when I say this is not a far-left country I am not defining it as any pundits or personalities do. I am defining it as Americans do. This from a Gallup poll this week:

                “Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004″.

                That would be 75% conservative or moderate and 21% liberal. Now go ahead, slam polls, slam Gallup, even if you trim and add 10% points it still overwhelmingly backs up my contention. Be honest – doesn’t it?

                • perris says:

                  “Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004″.

                  yet when you ask those same people about liberal agenda they agree with those agenda and disagree with republican agenda

                  that’s what marketing does, it makes you think you want something you don’t, makes you think you don’t want something you do

                  and that’s the very point, that’s what corporate media does for ya

                  • redfish says:

                    That poll has nothing to do with the corporate media – it reflects how Americans think. Americans vote on issues not agendas. No one agress on everything.

                • bmaz says:

                  Listen, you are entitled to your opinion, that’s cool. You are entitled to express it, that is fine too. We try to be broad based and open here. However, you are not entitled to come in here insult people and be so overbearing and abusive in your comment production as to overwhelm the discussion. If you want to participate normally and in good faith and on an even keel, fine. There is no desire here but to not be hectored to death by an overbearing singleminded new commenter; play nice and respectful, or go play somewhere else. It is not a threat, it is an appropriate request.

                  • redfish says:

                    Surely you are kidding, all I have done is politely but firmly express my opinions and attempt to enqage in dialogue. You will have to forgive me if I find your insinuation to be without merit and I wonder if you have read what has been directed at me? Are you sending out the same “appropriate requests” to those that use vulgarity? I never have been abusive. I respond to the person who responds to me.

                    Now come on now. Let’s be real.

                • whitewidow says:

                  Those are labels. Republicans have successfully vilified the word “liberal.” Most Americans no longer identify as such because of 30 years of propaganda against being liberal.

                  When you look at responses at the actual issues, Americans are overwhelmingly supportive of “far left” policies. Including in foreign policy. 4-5 weeks ago, before the Cheney Family Values Tour, 75% of people polled wanted either a truth commission or criminal investigation of the torture. If you didn’t spend all of your time telling people who want accountability to shut up and move on, and instead spoke out against the torture, maybe the Cheneys wouldn’t be winning that battle.

                  What might help, is if instead of telling the people who are trying to keep you from being held in preventive detention, eavesdropped on, spied on, and tortured when these assholes come back in power, you actually worked to convince Americans that they actually do agree with liberal policies.

                  Sorry, I have a problem with people who started a war on lies that killed probably 1 million Iraqis and 5000 soldiers and who tortured and killed numerous innocents don’t go to jail, while 2.5 million regular Americans are sitting in jail, a higher percentage of our population than were incarcerated in South Africa at the height of apartheid, many of them for smoking a little weed.

                  And anyone who would put a political party’s ambitions above justice is not, in my opinion, on my side. There are some things that just shouldn’t be traded away for “pragmatism.”

                  And I know I shouldn’t feed the troll, but I am just so sick of this amoral argument that it’s not convenient right now to uphold the basic values of America.

        • Jkat says:

          i stand by my comments .. and i’m not the only poster here who smelled a rotten fish .. nor have i ever claimed to be a progressive .. i’m a fiscally conservative arsonist-anarchist-moderate-independent ..

          you can make all the claims you want as to your political pedigree ..but your self-description certainly doesn’t ..imo .. match the tenor of your post ..

          please note the other six or seven posters here who objected to your mis-characterization of the goings-on here

          there is no greater principle in this nation than “no one is above the law” and seeing to it that principle stands is among the most very important issues before us today ..tomorrow ..and yesterday ..

          shorter: your attempts at becoming the resident scold are banal and asinine [sir] .. your rhetoric doesn’t match your self-description ..

          and “wash my mouth out with soap” ??? lol … to quote an old monty python line: “i fart in your general direction “.. [rabidly so]..

          • redfish says:

            I’ve been here a week or so now and I understand that those do not fit neatly into your definition of what an “acceptable progressive” is get vilified, labeled a troll and vulgarity gets spit at them. That doesn’t bother me. I have always (as politely as I can) tried to express my opinion.

            I don’t need to prove anything to you, I know what I believe. My support for gay and lesbian rights and single-payer health care has NOTHING to do with my being against releasing the photos or prosecuting members of the Bush administration at this precarious time in our country’s history.

            So call me a troll, ignore me, do your thing. I don’t care and it won’t shut me up. I assure you it only reflects poorly on those who do so.

            • Jkat says:

              yes .. yes .. i understand perfectly .. you’re certainly an upstanding american .. who thinks having beaten 100 shackled and bound people to death during interrogation under torture just doesn’t rise to the level of importance that we should pay any attention to it at all ..we should just forget about it .. look to the future ..

              hell .. what’s the “rule of law” anyway ..except a catchy phrase .. eh ??

              but thanks anyway eh ?? i grew up shoveling horse manure out of stalls .. now..at long last .. i know where it wound up ..

              and you’re not fooling anyone ..

              • redfish says:

                I do not think the rule of law is meaningless. Holder is looking at the facts, etc. and Obama has taken a position as to hat he thinks as a pragmatist is reasonable and feasible to handle right now. I am though questioning the sudden interest in the “rule of law” by some. It seems to be a new found love.

                • Jkat says:

                  the facts are simple .. under the auspices of the bush administration we ..the united states.. [1] engaged in torture of prisoners in our charge and [2] torture is against U.S. statutes and international law…

                  looking at it .. or picking it up and examining it from any angle won’t change those two basic facts ..

                  and regardless of what you might think concerning anyone’s commitment ..or lack of it ..wrt.. the “rule of law” .. doesn’t change the fundamental fact it’s the central underpinning of our system of governance … you might wish to subordinate it to other priorities ..

                  which speaks to your commitment to the tenet.. [or lack of same] ..and says nothing whatsoever about it’s intrinsic value ..

                  principles is principles .. we either have them .. or we don’t ..and they’re always inconvenient .. but also indespensable ..

                  a willingness to abandon principles in pursuit of political expediency demonstrates a lack of understanding of the concept of honor .. [which is another of those things one either has .. or has not]

                  and in conclusion …i bid you a fond farewell ..

                  • redfish says:

                    I do not disagree with one thing you said. I do think that prosecuting attorneys every single day make judgments as to whether or not to bring charges. These decisions are not only based on the rule of law, they are based on countless other factors. Eric Holder is looking at these issues right now and he will make a decision. Barack Obam has given his opinion that now is not the time for this country to expend the gut wrenching effort it would take and rip the country apart in the process. If so, say goodbye to every single other policy objective he has. He will not get one Republican or Blue Dog Democrat vote. There is plenty of time for this to be dealt with — now is not the time.

    • perris says:

      I want to add one very important thing redfish

      It is just astounding to me; the almost rabid level thirst for revenge and hatred towards the Bush-Cheney administration

      the “rabid thirst for revenge” is not against “bush-cheney”, it’s against what they did to this country and the ONLY method for preventing it from happening again, if YOU want to protect this nation then you really need to make sure they are held to account, their crimes exposed, their depravity punished

        • Rayne says:

          Freep must be running low on coffee this morning, didn’t beat me to the spanking. I’ve just about finished my first pot of java, though; my keyboard is levitating under my fingertips from caffeine-generated static.

      • redfish says:

        Now is not the time for that. There are so many grave issues facing this country right now — health care, the economy, the environment, the Supreme Court,North Korea, Iran, China, immigration. Do you really think a bloodbath in Congress that would in essence be a bloodless civil war is what we need? Do you think this highbrow intellectual tete-a-tete means anything to a poor family in South Central or Michigan? In the words of Grace Slick. “It doesn’t mean shit to a tree”.

        Since Jane is such a good “whip” for the so-called progressive voice. I challenge her to count votes in Congress to see what the appetite is for this “holding to account” you talk about.

        Let’s see if this is a realistic endeavor — or one to satiate personal hatred.

      • ghostof911 says:

        perris

        Why would you think Redfish is even the least bit interested in protecting this nation. Odds are he’s posting from another part of the globe, a citizen of a foreign power.

        • perris says:

          I write my answers to those posts not for the author but for clarification to those who might face those very same talking points either in writing or discussion in other arena

          it’s not for him it’s for those who read here

          • ghostof911 says:

            Understood, but since the author’s intention is not to engage in discussion but simply to derail it, his posts are best left ignored.

            Just IMHO.

    • Rayne says:

      If Bush/Cheney had complied with the law and treated KSM as a criminal suspect, using normal police work, KSM WOULD BE SERVING TIME RIGHT NOW IN A SUPERMAX PRISON FOR THE REST OF HIS LIFE instead of a poster boy for the fundamentalist fanatics Islamists.

      We have a fundamental problem with Bush/Cheney because

      1) they were incompetent fuck-ups who didn’t know how to use the law;
      2) they thought they were above and beyond the law;
      3) they abused our legal system for personal, political gain.

      Poster boy my ass, you troll. If there are any poster boys, it’s Bush and Cheney. Hell, they are several 52-card decks when you add the other complicit morons like Gonzales, Yoo, Bybee, Addington, Libby, and the fleet of Rovian spawn which supported them.

      [Edit: and while we’re at it, why don’t you examine why you support people who undermined American values, TORTURING, DISAPPEARING AND KILLING CHILDREN for their political aims, you torture apologist.]

        • Rayne says:

          I figured those were part and parcel with with either their incompetence — they couldn’t keep us safe on 9/11 for starters, in spite of people running around with their “hair on fire” — and with their political ambitions since using fear to remain in office while milking us of trillions through warfare was their ultimate aim.

          But I could see a fourth or more line item there, given the size and magnitude of the fuckery involved.

          Probably only needed to point to Rep. Kucinich’s articles of impeachment if we wanted to get really picky. Seems so long ago since he read them into the congressional record…

      • redfish says:

        Rayne – you also need to get some help for your anger issues. I am also sorry you call someone who disagrees with you a troll. As I have said, people like you have nothing in common with the reasonable liberal democrats and progressives that I have known all my life. I am one of them who I assure you is as far to the left as you are on social issues and more moderate on foreign policy ones.

        I do not believe KSM is a common criminal. I believe as do most Americans that he was and is a member of Al Qaeda who is not a criminal organization. They are a a worldwide political group who has declared war on America and the West. They also back that up with mass attacks that have killed thousands and thousands of innocent civilians.

        KSM should never have been tortured. Torture is abhorrent and illegal. What Bush-Cheney did was abhorrent and probably illegal. But NOW IS NOT THE TIME to deal with it. And using KSM as an intellectual pneumonic device does not advance your cause one bit.

        • Rayne says:

          You’ve made it clear you’re not a regular here who knows the regulars; you’ve successfully derailed this entire thread away from the topic.

          That’s the definition of trolling, regardless of your ideology. Please return to the topic of the CIA’s lies and torture, or find something else to do.

          [edit: bmaz, looks like you beat me to it. Feel free to discard at will.]

          • redfish says:

            Oh you will have to excuse me if I violated some sacred cow of blogging etiquette. I have derailed nothing look in the mirror read the posts. I have only until now responded to the top that was being discussed and the inevitable tree branches of larger issues the discussion leads to. Nuff’ said.

    • freepatriot says:

      the almost rabid level thirst for revenge and hatred towards the Bush-Cheney administration. It has nothing to do with the reality as there is no question that Bush-Cheney were abominations and horrific for this country and the world. But enough is enough.

      fuck YOU, asshole

      I don’t “thirst for revenge”. I expect the LAWS OF MY COUNTRY TO BE UPHELD

      and I expect the laws OF HUMANITY to be upheld

      so stick your “thirst for revenge” quote up your ass

      upholding the laws of humanity is ENOUGH

      anything less is a pathetic abrogation of YOUR responsibility as a human being and as a Citizen of the United States of America

      and as to this”

      By the way – would be nice to hear “even once” here what a scum KSM is. I personally could care less what happens to him

      it aint about KSM being scum. It’s about the scum within the body politic of MY NATION. I don’t give a shit about KSM. I do care about scum like george bush and YOU

      there is no difference between osama bin laden and scum like you. both of you feel that the end justifies the means, and you both feel you have the right to violate the laws of humanity to satisfy your own personal anger and disappointment in life

      I uphold the rule of law, defend my nation from it’s government, and respect the Laws of humanity

      what’s your excuse, you fucking scab on the asshole of humanity ???

  10. quake says:

    Completely OT…..

    I use IE7 with the Google toolbar to view FDL and EW. When you open a new tab you get a page showing recently visited sites (icons and a list). Glenzilla and “The Field” get listed when I’ve recently visted them, but neither FDL nor EW ever get listed even though I vist them frquently. Anyone know why this is the case? Is Google discriminating against FDL/EW? Or is it some flag set by the site itself?

  11. Jkat says:

    chuck .. rx ..

    i don’t know what’s up with the link .. the story is about corporations trying to keep their corporate fleet flight data secret .. see “jet group attempting to block flight data” @ raw story .. it’s still up in the main section .. about the fifth story from the top ..

  12. wavpeac says:

    with just a quick glance it appears that 4 out of 5 of the raises in alert status coincide with times in which we know torture was occurring.

    It doesn’t tell us if the info gathered was accurate or not…but it does coincide.

    Did someone do this already? It seems familiar but I couldn’t find it on searching for posts.

    If it hasn’t been done…I can finish the list later.

    I have to go run a group on emotion regulation!!

    • perris says:

      from what I remember those raised alerts came at perfect times politically for bush, so if you’re corrct that would mean he tortured to get backup for raising security alerts when he needed them

      that sounds like an excellant timeline to run, both scenarios, political expedience and torture running together

      • phred says:

        Glad you pointed that out… Do you remember the story KO did (and several follow-ups, irc) that showed how terror alerts correlated with getting embarrassing stories off the front page? I agree a dual time-line involving terror alerts along with both embarrassing news and torture would be illuminating.

        • perris says:

          yup, run that timeline together with torture and you have one very depraved and ground breaking story to do a diary with

    • Loo Hoo. says:

      I have to go run a group on emotion regulation!!

      Come back! We’ve got some emotion regulation issues right here. Where’s freep?

  14. Badwater says:

    Having people tortured made Bush and Cheney feel like real men. They really didn’t care that much about finding any real intelligence.

  15. kiotidada says:

    FWIW: Olbermann did an effective piece on the Nexus of Terror, more than a year ago It was a timeline of raising the threat levels with political events adverse to the Bushies.

    Sorry, don’t know how to find link.

  16. oldgold says:

    Bush crawled out of his hole and reportedly said this last night.

    “I told you I’m not going to criticize my successor,” he said. “I’ll just tell you that there are people at Gitmo that will kill American people at a drop of a hat and I don’t believe that persuasion isn’t going to work. Therapy isn’t going to cause terrorists to change their mind.”

    I wasn’t sure it was an acuurate quote until reading, “I don’t believe that persuasion isn’t going to work.”

    • Badwater says:

      Here’s a link. Republics are hoping that Palin vs. Letterman returns to dominate the news instead of the return of the Decider.

    • redfish says:

      Gee SD – you wouldn’t be one of those smug, elitists would you? How typical of you here — you can’t win on the playing field of ideas so you dig into your ad hominem box of insults and just throw something out there. Smile. You are amusing though.

  18. Loo Hoo. says:

    Good thing we didn’t get Daschle for HHS.

    Former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle said on Wednesday that the Obama White House would likely have to scrap a public option for health insurance coverage if it wanted to get the votes needed to pass systematic change.

    “We’ve come too far and gained too much momentum for our efforts to fail over disagreement on one single issue,” the Senator and one-time HHS Secretary nominee said, according to ABC News.

    • phred says:

      I don’t think it matters. I suspect Daschle is doing Obama’s bidding, quashing any hopes of a real public option. I’m just tickled pink that we will get health insurance reform that will likely require everyone to buy insurance from for-profit companies, just so those companies can refuse to cover our health care. Fabulous. Just fabulous.

  19. redfish says:

    Deal with what’s below please. Barack Obama understands this, so does Axelrod and Emanuel. They are pragmatists who understand that bloody confrontation on some issues will not keep the Democrats in power.

    “Thus far in 2009, 40% of Americans interviewed in national Gallup Poll surveys describe their political views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This represents a slight increase for conservatism in the U.S. since 2008, returning it to a level last seen in 2004″.

    That would be 75% conservative or moderate and 21% liberal. Now go ahead, slam polls, slam Gallup, even if you trim and add 10% points it still overwhelmingly backs up my contention.

    http://foro.univision.com/univ……id=133902

      • redfish says:

        So? So, that is my point. Americans as I have been saying are not ideologues on the right or on the left. They are certainly not far-left if anything they are more conservative. This is a fact.

    • prostratedragon says:

      Nothing like a quick scroll-through to see it at work.

      perris, phred, if you want to flesh out the whys&wherefores on that timeline, try a search on rumsfeld + psyops.

      A couple of the nuggets that bob up:

      Blowback, by Laura Rozen (actually a second-level get);
      US ‘Psychological Operations’ comes home, from Wikinews, with Information Operations Roadmap overview.

      Might one use for, or at least result of, torture not have been to make use of believing idjits in government to whom the source of results could be leaked selectively, to put meat on the notion that these scares (that airplane report was a whole truckload of last straws) were the Real Thing? Sort of narrow-area psyops in ultimate support of the broadcast kind.

  21. rxbusa says:

    Any word on whether the IG report will actually be released on time (tomorrow)?

    And also, as I recall there was another document that was to be released a week or so ago that the last I heard of it, it was snail-mailed. Was that the one that had the tortured detainees’ testimony in it or something else?

    • Rayne says:

      I haven’t seen anything yet, keep hoping one of you folks will have heard more about it and post it here.

      Tomorrow’s a Friday, so the chances are better than usual it might be released — and probably after the evening news outlets have been put to bed.

    • skdadl says:

      Petro, with each new step forward the Brits take with their investigations into complicity, I sit here gnashing teeth and trying to figure out what our avenues would be, since we’ve got some of the same problems for sure.

      The last time I watched a Commons oversight committee quiz CSIS (the RCMP and Border Security as well, but the CSIS guy was the overbearing one, a kind of Rivkin clone), the most effective questioners were two Bloc members, and the government members kept trying to rule their best questions out of order.

      I keep hoping that something the Brits do will give all the rest of us a few openings, but I can’t see the way yet.

      • Petrocelli says:

        Those High Court Judges are pretty steamed and will flog Blair and his cohorts once all the evidence appears.

        Harpuh does not want his complicity to surface because that would lead to an electoral defeat (If Iggy ever grows a brain and realize his job is not to be main opposition leader for life)

        I believe the British Press, Intelligence and Courts will see this through and Harpuh’s role will come to light.
        By then, we might have a real Liberal Leader in Office.

    • phred says:

      Thanks for that link Petro — just to clarify, it refers to Tony Blair. Here’s a nice juicy tidbit to add to the torture timeline:

      The policy was set out in written instructions sent to MI5 and MI6 officers in January 2002, which told them they might consider complaining to US officials about the mistreatment of detainees “if circumstances allow”.

      IOW, by January 2002, British agents from MI5 and MI6 were already complaining to their superiors (hence in need of policy guidance) about mistreatment of prisoners by the US. Funny, there weren’t any memos at that time that permitted such things…

    • Civlibertarian says:

      The policy was set out in written instructions sent to MI5 and MI6 officers in January 2002, which told them they might consider complaining to US officials about the mistreatment of detainees “if circumstances allow”.

      Wow, not that Blair knew, but this early date for official UK reaction to US torture. I’ve been interested to know when the UK gov learned of torture since discovering Craig Murray, who has reaction to the Guardian story here: Discovering That I Do Not Exist.

      • phred says:

        Thanks for the link to Craig Murray, I had not heard of him before. Seems I am much less well informed than I thought…

  23. Ann in AZ says:

    It may be time to move on. Jane’s been available for about 46 minutes with a new post: “Right/Left Coalition Forming Against Blank Check Government?”

    • Stephen says:

      The election process is almost totally fucked, the MSM is in the Corporate Cabal’s pocket, as is most of our Congress, the judicial system has signs of cancer, the banks have become enemies of our country. All thats left is the Constitution and the rule of law for the People to uphold for survival and salvation. Marcy Wheeler and all her friends are here to protect and defend the Constitution, the rule of law, and freedom.

  25. Petrocelli says:

    Folks, please heed bmaz’s words and
    s
    c
    r
    o
    l
    l

    … it will die of neglect …

    BTW, we have to talk to the Union that Freep recently joined … how dare he take time off to sleep and have a life of his own …

    • perris says:

      The Cia knew KSM was lying to them and they kept waterboarding

      they not only knew he was lying to them, they knew he would be lying to them, as everyone knows, when you torture someone they lie to you

      the cia told cheney the information he wanted was false, cheney told them to get it for him even though it would be false

Comments are closed.