Rumsfeld: Waterboarding/Torture Did NOT Lead to OBL Whereabouts

QUENTIN

VIP Member
Dec 4, 2008
964
203
78
Texas
From NewsMax, well-known diehard conservative news site's exclusive interview with Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source


Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches.”

...

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

A number of news reports suggest that information obtained from either Al Qaeda deputy Khalid Sheik Mohammed or Abu Faraj al-Libbi, a former senior al Qaeda officer who was captured in 2005, was the key to finding Bin Laden. Like the al Qaeda figurehead, neither man was found on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq. American intelligence agents tracked al-Libbi's cell phone to Mardan, Pakistan, about 75 miles north of Islamabad. They tipped off Pakistani intelligence agents who picked him up and eventually transferred him to U.S. custody. Mohammed was captured by our ally's security forces in Rawalpindi, Pakistan.

As one might expect, some observers are claiming that the intelligence gleaned from these "high value detainees" is proof that torture works. But that claim isn't supported by what we know so far. According to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, al-Libbi was first interrogated by the FBI, “but when the FBI wanted to use its normal, go-slow methods, the prisoner was turned over to the CIA—who promptly turned him over to the Egyptians.” He was later returned to American custody and interrogated again by the FBI, where former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists that he yielded the information under “normal interrogation approaches ...[it was] not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

But we know that while being tortured by the Egyptians, “al-Libbi talked of plots and agents,” and the information he provided “was used to make the case for war against Iraq.” As Evan Thomas noted, “there was only one problem: al-Libbi later recanted, saying that he had lied to stop the torture.”

Mohammed was also subject to torture. It was under duress that he told interrogators that al Qaeda sleeper cells had "hidden a nuclear bomb in Europe which will unleash a 'nuclear hellstorm' if Osama bin Laden is captured" -- yet more faulty information. He did not reveal the courier's name or information during waterboarding, only providing that information during regular interrogation over four years later.

So waterboarding led to the phony intelligence that got us into Iraq and was not responsible for helping us capture Bin Laden.
 
Last edited:
Somehow they jsut refuse to believe the experts on torture.

The experts have said repetedly that torture produces false leads.

The only reason some wanted to have torture at their disposal was to create the intell they wanted.
 
From the CIA:

According to the CIA, regarding the courier who led us to bin Laden:

Detainees gave us his nom de guerre or his nickname and identified him as both a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of September 11th, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of al Qaeda who was captured in 2005.

Detainees also identified this man as one of the few al Qaeda couriers trusted by bin Laden. They indicated he might be living with and protecting bin Laden. But for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location.

Four years ago, we uncovered his identity, and for operational reasons, I can’t go into details about his name or how we identified him, but about two years ago, after months of persistent effort, we identified areas in Pakistan where the courier and his brother operated.

So despite being waterboarded dozens and dozens of times in a secret prison, neither al-Libbi nor KSM revealed the name of Osama's courier... until, at least 4 years after their waterboarding stopped and they had been transferred back to American custody to be interrogated by the FBI and military interrogators explicitly NOT using harsh interrogation techniques. Then they finally gave up his real name during "normal interrogation" which allowed us in 2009 to find out where he was, this August track him down, and this weekend kill him after he led us to Osama bin Laden.

So during waterboarding? No intel used to get bin Laden.
During regular interrogation? Intel used to get bin Laden.

According to the CIA's own timeline and champion of waterboarding Donald Rumsfeld's own comments.

Can't claim this one as a victory for torture, sorry to burst your bubble.
 
Last edited:
From NewsMax, well-known diehard conservative news site's exclusive interview with Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source


Former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld tells Newsmax the information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden was obtained through “normal interrogation approaches.”

...

“The United States Department of Defense did not do waterboarding for interrogation purposes to anyone. It is true that some information that came from normal interrogation approaches at Guantanamo did lead to information that was beneficial in this instance. But it was not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

A number of news reports suggest that information obtained from Abu Faraj al-Libbi, a former senior al Qaeda officer who was captured in 2005, was the key to finding Bin Laden. Like the al Qaeda figurehead, he was not found on a battlefield in Afghanistan or Iraq. American intelligence agents tracked al-Libbi's cell phone to Mardan, Pakistan, about 75 miles north of Islamabad. They tipped off Pakistani intelligence agents who picked him up and eventually transferred him to U.S. custody.

As one might expect, some observers are claiming that the intelligence gleaned from these "high value detainees" is proof that torture works. But that claim isn't supported by what we know so far. According to Newsweek's Evan Thomas, al-Libbi was first interrogated by the FBI, “but when the FBI wanted to use its normal, go-slow methods, the prisoner was turned over to the CIA—who promptly turned him over to the Egyptians.” He was later returned to American custody and interrogated again by the FBI, where former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld insists that he yielded the information under “normal interrogation approaches ...[it was] not harsh treatment and it was not waterboarding.”

But we know that while being tortured by the Egyptians, “al-Libbi talked of plots and agents,” and the information he provided “was used to make the case for war against Iraq.” As Evan Thomas noted, “there was only one problem: al-Libbi later recanted, saying that he had lied to stop the torture.”

So waterboarding led to the phony intelligence that got us into Iraq and was not responsible for helping us capture Bin Laden.

gop-quit-crying9.jpg


*

thankarepublican.jpg
 
No, torture is good no matter what anybody says. It's an a priori truth which needs no reasoning, evidence or justification. I feel it in my "gut," you know. I think we should torture anyone we suspect of doing anything bad, because I believe they deserve it, and I have enough faith in the government to believe it could never happen to me.

<_<

>_>

<_>
 
I just cant understand why people want to buy these lines of thinking.

What is it in some of us Americans that WANTS to see torture as a good thing?
 
But see in wingnutworld, interrogation reads automatically as waterboarding because they want it to be true so bad. They WANT to say, "see?! Tor--I mean water-boarding works!"

Why? I don't know.
 
Simple fact. We will probably never know exactly how the original information was obtained, or the details of the trail that led to the compound. Because it's better not to tell our enemies exactly how we do what we do.

I would have thought that those with an IQ over 10 would understand that.

However, please carry on taking everything your chosen media source says as gospel and dismiss Fox when it gives you a time and date stamp.

You make me laugh.
 
Simple fact. We will probably never know exactly how the original information was obtained, or the details of the trail that led to the compound. Because it's better not to tell our enemies exactly how we do what we do.

I would have thought that those with an IQ over 10 would understand that.

However, please carry on taking everything your chosen media source says as gospel and dismiss Fox when it gives you a time and date stamp.

You make me laugh.

Or in other words:

"Hey, look over there!"

No one is on your pro-torture side more than Rumsfeld, CG, nor the CIA that carried it out, they've been looking for and making excuses to justify waterboarding for the last 7 years but on this one even they admit it had nothing to do with it. But you can't of course, no matter what even the reliable sources on your side say.

If you had the government claiming torture led to OBL's death, you'd be shouting "You see!" and posting links until your throat was sore and fingers bled, just like every other torture-lover here.

When they emphatically assert torture had nothing to do with it, "Well you can't trust what you read in the news, everyone smart knows that."

They specifically mention they can't give details that they can't give. But saying we got the intel in 2009 rather than 2003 when we say we got it from the same source doesn't reveal anything more about "how we do what we do" and that's a terribly lame copout that doesn't apply here.

I'll give you a D- for effort.
 
Last edited:
Its a symbol of just how far the right was willing to follow whatever Bush did.

I still can not believe the fervent defense of this tactic I heard for so many years.

The facts were all on the table about torture not even being useful in a real investigation yet people just wanted to believe it was the right thing to do.


What is it about some Americans that make them accept such propaganda?
 
I just cant understand why people want to buy these lines of thinking.

What is it in some of us Americans that WANTS to see torture as a good thing?

Because some Americans would LIKE to live in a feudal society modeled upon that golden past where aristos controlled everything and the people were serfs.

Of course those holding this view seldom think they're going to be field slaves.

Most of them believe that they're going to be the house servants or the whip handlers in that society.

Hell, many of them ALREADY are house servants and whip handlers for today's masters, so they might have a point.
 
Last edited:
We've known since the Inquisition that torture only works as a means to get someone to say what you WANT them to say...

It's why Cheney liked it so much. He was able to justify invading a country thanks to that fact.
 
But...but

We NEED torture. They deserve it and they make us do it
 
Seriously, we will probably never know exactly how we gathered the intel that led to this result. And rightly so. It is better that our national security guys are able to do their work without worrying about their methodology becoming common knowledge. It's always best not to tell your enemy how you do what you do.
 
Must really piss off the rightwing that they do not have a justification to use torture
 

Forum List

Back
Top