DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum CIA Waterboarding Uncovered 2nd Wave Attack on L.A.

CIA Waterboarding Produced Intel That Stopped Attack on Los Angeles

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNS.com



“Soon, you will know.”

That is the ominous statement an uncooperative Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM), mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, told his Central Intelligence Agency interrogators when they initially asked him, after he had been captured, about additional planned al-Qaida attacks on the United States.

In March 2003, KSM became the third and final terrorist ever waterboarded by the CIA. The other two were Abu Zubaydah and Rahim Al-Nashiri.

So few were waterboarded because the CIA was so strict in the criteria for deciding when the technique could be used.

As CIA Acting General Counsel John A. Rizzo explained in a 2004 letter to then-Acting Assistant Attorney General Daniel Levin of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, the CIA would only resort to waterboarding a top al-Qaida leader when the agency had “credible intelligence that a terrorist attack is imminent,” “substantial and credible indicators that the subject has actionable intelligence that can prevent, disrupt or deny this attack” and “(o)ther interrogation methods have failed to elicit the information within the perceived time limit for preventing the attack.”

Rizzo’s letter, as quoted here, was cited in a May 30, 2005, memo to Rizzo from then-Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Steven G. Bradbury, also of the Office of Legal Counsel.

On Tuesday, the CIA confirmed to me that it stands by assertions credited to the agency in this 2005 memo that subjecting KSM to “enhanced techniques” of interrogation—including waterboarding—caused him to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to stop a planned 9/11-style attack on Los Angeles.

The previously classified memo was released by President Obama last week.

Before they were waterboarded, both KSM and Abu Zubaydah did not believe Americans had the will to stop al-Qaida, the 2005 Justice Department memo says, citing information from the CIA.

“Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,’” said the memo. “Indeed, before the CIA used enhanced techniques in its interrogation of KSM, KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, ‘Soon, you will know.’”

After he was waterboarded, KSM provided the CIA with information that allowed the U.S. government to close down a terror cell already “tasked” with flying a jet into a building in Los Angeles.

“You have informed us that the interrogation of KSM—once enhanced techniques were employed—led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the ‘Second Wave,’ ‘to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into’ a building in Los Angeles,” says the memo, referring to information CIA provided to Justice.

“You have informed us that information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemaah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave,’” said the memo.

“More specifically, we understand that KSM admitted that he had (redaction) large sum of money to an al-Qaida associate (redaction) ... . Khan subsequently identified the associate (Zubair), who was then captured,” said the memo. “Zubair, in turn, provided information that led to the arrest of Hambali. The information acquired from these captures allowed CIA interrogators to pose more specific questions to KSM, which led the CIA (to) Hambali’s brother, al-Hadi. Using information obtained from multiple sources, al-Hadi was captured, and he subsequently identified the Garuba cell. With the aid of this additional information, interrogations of Hambali confirmed much of what was learned from KSM.”

A CIA spokesman confirmed to me on Tuesday, as I first reported on CNSNews.com, that the CIA stands by the factual assertions made here.

While waterboarding was exceedingly rare in CIA interrogations of al-Qaida terrorists, it was routinely used on certain members of our own armed forces who went through “Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape” (SERE) training. According to another previously classified memo that Obama released last week, some branches of the U.S. military stopped using waterboarding in training certain troops not because waterboarding had harmful long-term effects, but because it was so universally effective in extracting information.

“With respect to the waterboard, you have also orally informed us that the Navy continues to use it in training,” said a 2002 Office of Legal Counsel memo to the CIA’s Rizzo. “You have informed us that other services ceased use of the waterboard because it was so successful as an interrogation technique but not because of any concerns over harm, physical or mental, caused by it. It was also reported to be almost 100 percent effective in producing cooperation among trainees.”

According to the CIA, it produced cooperation in the mastermind of 9-11 and thus yielded information used to stop a 9-11 type attack on the West Coast.

President Obama says he has prohibited the interrogation techniques described in the Justice Department memos he released. Next time the CIA catches a KSM, they must be kinder and gentler with him.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=47003

Heard Dick Cheney alluding to this the other night... when he said if you want to stop waterboarding because you don't like it, fine.. but don't stop it because you say it doesn't work, because it does.

I will say this about waterboarding, and torture in general. If it was happening to me, I would tell the people anything they wanted to know. I would lie, I would make things up, I would do absolutely anything to make sure that the torture stopped.

Quote:

---

I would tell the people anything they wanted to know. I would lie, I would make things up, I would do absolutely anything to make sure that the torture stopped.

---

But if you knew the truth, you would tell the truth and as this article points out, they didn't do it every Joe Schmoe, they only did it to the ones that they had really strong reasons to believe knew the truth...... you might lie once to make it stop, then they put you back in your cell and once they confirm you lied, they will start all over again.. so you might as well tell them the truth...

Oh, I agree. I would tell them the truth very early. Hell, I'm one of those that would tell the truth at just the HINT of torture. But if it kept going, I'd tell them anything they want to hear.

But, don't get me wrong, I really don't have a big problem with the whole "torture" thing. Granted, sometimes you get results and sometimes you get "false positives", but my take on these terrorists is if they're going to act like animals, you treat them like animals (don't tell PETA).

Terrorists want to grab our journalists and cut their heads off on TV, we grab some of theirs and execute them in brutal fashion. I just don't have a problem with it.

So what you are saying is, you are not into S&M? or water sport's?

Well, not together at least.

Quote:

---

Terrorists want to grab our journalists and cut their heads off on TV, we grab some of theirs and execute them in brutal fashion. I just don't have a problem with it.

---

Well I disagree. I don't claim to know all of the facts on torture, but I do know enough to have the opinion that sometimes its worth it.

As for your journalists beheading comment, that is what I disagree with... The single biggest thing that seperates us from terrorists, as I see it, is that they kill indiscriminately and we try to selectively target those who would do us harm.. We shouldn't be beheading journalists or anybody for that matter... we need to operate on a higher level and I think we can do that and still get results....

But those who think we can fight terrorists without getting our hands a little dirty, IMHO, are not realistic...

Do they have video of these confessions? Do they have something other than what some interrogator says?

I'm all for getting the information by any means possible, as long as they are 100% sure they have someone with information. And only use these techniques when our national safety is concerned.

Terrorist still follow the old adage that all's fair in love and war, but the U.S. tries to hard to follow the "rules" set by the U.N. This puts our men and women serving, at a great disadvantage. I always believe you fight fair, and fair is set by how low your opponent will go.

JC and posting in general

I don't agree. I don't think it is as cut and dried as we used waterboarding and it stopped an attack on the LA. Therefore it is an okay practice. The math is not that simple and I think that if you take that view you are ignoring the other part of the equation.

I agree stopping the LA plot was good, but how many terrorist did we rally to the extremist cause because we used torture, and how many more threats did we create that we will now have to deal with? Or how many allies decreased their support and distanced themselves away from the US because we used torture?

I am glad that they stopped the planned attack, but I am not sure that when all the ramifications of how it was done are added up that the ends will have justified the means.

Once again, I wasn't being very clear (still thinking about S&M and watersports). I agree that we don't just grab "innocent" people like journalists. I meant we grab one of the terrorists themselves.

Quote:

---

But those who think we can fight terrorists without getting our hands a little dirty, IMHO, are not realistic...

---

I agree 100%

Quote:

---

I agree stopping the LA plot was good, but how many terrorist did we rally to the extremist cause because we used torture, and how many more threats did we create that we will now have to deal with? Or how many allies decreased their support and distanced themselves away from the US because we used torture?

---

This quote is a PERFECT example of this quote:

Quote:

---

“Both KSM and Zubaydah had ‘expressed their belief that the general U.S. population was ‘weak,’ lacked resilience and would be unable to ‘do what was necessary’ to prevent the terrorists from succeeding in their goals,’”

---

And I believe that "WEAK" attitude produces FAR more terrorists than the fact we waterboarded one guy....

Well, IMO, the US's attitude toward and treatment of other countries and other cultures produces more terrorists than either of those two.

Maybe you're right, maybe we haven't done anything wrong at all and haven't brought any of this on ourselves. Yeah, you're probably right.

I'm gonna be beat on for this, but to me, it's a mistake to torture.. I know I know,, these are terrorists we are talking about,, these are people that would cut off the head of a reporter,, these are people that would attack a country by ramming planes into skyscrapers... I get it,, and I also get that it's not covered under the rules of the Geneva Convention..

Still, to me it doesn't make it right.. I really thought we Americans were better than that.. Perhaps I was wrong... But I would like to believe that fundementally, we are a good people that would not bow to pressure to do what is generally considered to be wrong...

Again, after reading some of the responses on this thread,, I'm pretty much alone in that thinking.......

Quote:

---

Our success is what produces the hate and the desire to destroy us.

---

Really that simple is it ? I love this country but I will admit it's shortcomings of which there is plenty . As a country we have run roughshod over alot of other countries in the world ( that is what the strong do ) and as a result some of them don't think too highly of us . We have participated in genocide both directly and indirectly, we have overthrown governments and subverted others all in the name of our self interests . We turn a blind eye to savage dictators and even help them in thier endevors . Those could be a few more reasons we have our detractors . Having said all of that we still live in the best country in the world hands down and I am proud and honored to be an American.

Quote:

---

I love this country but I will admit it's shortcomings of which there is plenty . As a country we have run roughshod over alot of other countries in the world ( that is what the strong do ) and as a result some of them don't think too highly of us . We have participated in genocide both directly and indirectly, we have overthrown governments and subverted others all in the name of our self interests . We turn a blind eye to savage dictators and even help them in thier endevors . Those could be a few more reasons we have our detractors .

---

Absolutely true, and that's 100% completely Ok.. because just like ANY other country or organization, we do what we feel is in OUR best interests, not theirs.
My one and only qualm is that I think we all too often take a far too short-sighted view of what is in our best interest.

Our concerns are not and never should be what is good for everyone in the world... it is and should be what is good for the U.S.A. Considerations for other countries should come into play when what happens to them affects us. It is all just the cold reality that too many idealists can't get their head around. People want to be all shiny-happy and sing kumbaia and pretend that everyone can always be nice to each other and have everyone get along with everyone - and nothing could be further from the truth. It is completely IMPOSSIBLE for any of that. Why? Because the equation involves humans and where you have humans you have personalities and ambitions.

SURFS UP DUDE

I completely and absolutely understand your position...and I agree with it to a degree. But would you prefer that 2000 people lose their lives because of our unwillingness to place a little(ok maybe a lot) mental anguish(there is no physical harm with waterboarding...) on a person who we know has information that could stop it from happening....I mean the parameters for someone to get to the point of waterboarding were severe.

So what is the morality of allowing 2000 innocent people to die when you have the power to stop it.

Much like DC I don't condone the rampant use of torture but it does have it's place and we cannot be afraid to use it.

Wars are won in the will....79 has already surrendered(say hi to the French for us ) Now if that means accepting losses of 2000 innocent people from time to time because we will not employ waterboarding.....and still continuing the fight.....that is one thing(not a thing I agree with but it is one thing).....But how often do you think that will be acceptable????

Even so, I'm not cool with any government agency of ours torturing anybody. I don't believe any government, given power, is able to limit itself. Thus I think torture is downright scary. Heck, just look at what innocent thought went behind the creation of the IRS and see what it has become.

You are comparing torture to the creation of the IRS.........OK I can see that

So you'd prefer thousands of people die than for us to torture terrorists who wish nothing more than to kill Americans? I couldn't care less about hurting a terrorist. They aren't people. They are animals who behead and torture our civilians. These "people" are the ones who caused 9/11 and killed 2,974 innocent Americans. These "people" ruined lives of people who did absolutely nothing wrong.

The fact is that you can't fight these guys without getting dirty. If you'd prefer thousands of Americans die than for us to torture these pieces of crap, then I have very little respect for you. 9/11 was the worst day of many Americans' lives, and I'd do anything in my power to stop it from happening again.

Remember this: http://tonyrogers.com/images/wtc/wtc_jump_04_large.jpg

Don't mean to sound stupid but what is 'waterboarding'?

Well, what did you say, then?

Quote:

---

Our success is what produces the hate and the desire to destroy us.

---

So it's our success that makes them hate us, not any mistakes we've made?

Water boarding involves strapping a person to an inclined board, with his feet raised and his head lowered. The interrogators bind the person's arms and legs so he can't move at all, and they cover his face. In some descriptions, the person is gagged, and some sort of cloth covers his nose and mouth. The interrogator then repeatedly pours water onto the person's face.

Quote:

---

Still, to me it doesn't make it right.. I really thought we Americans were better than that.. Perhaps I was wrong...

---

An overly romanticized sentiment.

Quote:

---

But I would like to believe that fundementally, we are a good people that would not bow to pressure to do what is generally considered to be wrong...

---

We still are a good people and it isn't "bowing to pressure to do what is generally considered wrong" - it is doing the things that nobody wants to think about because it is distasteful to think about.



Consider this famous scene:


Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.
Jessep: You want answers?
Kaffee: I want the truth!
Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.
We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!



Everyone wants to support Cruise's character, Kaffee; but the cold, hard reality is that Jessep is FAR closer to reality.

Those are your words. I attempted to say I've seen things done by our government with innocent enough intent but have learned by now to limit my trust in any government agency and those with influence / control over such agency. Given the potential misuse of torture, I don't fear for my life as much as I fear for my freedom.

So you would rather sit back and wait to find out what “Soon, you will know” means? Or do you think by giving these guys cookies and a hot shower they are going to fill us in on their plans to drive planes into buildings?

Quote:

---

Still, to me it doesn't make it right.. I really thought we Americans were better than that.. Perhaps I was wrong...

---

Better than what?....doing everything in our power to prevent the murder of US citizens? It is my opinion that you do what it takes and worry about the guilt feelings later. I wouldn't want to tell victims' families that we could have prevented the atrocities but we were worried about what the press would say.

Quote:

---

Again, after reading some of the responses on this thread,, I'm pretty much alone in that thinking.......

---

Yep. You're an altruistic rebel.

Quote:

---

But would you prefer that 2000 people lose their lives because of our unwillingness to place a little(ok maybe a lot) mental anguish(there is no physical harm with waterboarding...) on a person who we know has information that could stop it from happening....I mean the parameters for someone to get to the point of waterboarding were severe.

---

Which is it, a little or a lot. Where is the line drawn? If something is considered wrong, then it's wrong... Isn't it?

You can't be a little bit dead, or a little bit pregnant can ya?

As for the question of whether or not I want 2000 Americans killed,, of course not..

We must be EVER VIGILANT...

We can't let our guard down .... not even for a moment.

I"m not saying that will solve the problem, but it will go a long way towards it.

As far as waterboarding not being harmful..... I don't know if it is or isn't,, all I know is that it's considered torture... It goes back to where do you draw the line...

Somewhere along the line,, we are either going to be the people we hope to be, or we aren't.. The choice is ours to make. In all my life, I've never thought of Americans as the bad guys.. NEVER. I'd rather that illusion not be disturbed..