Was Waterboarding Worth It?

[California Girl]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

Years of intelligence gathering, including details gleaned from controversial interrogations of Al Qaeda members during the Bush administration, ultimately led the Navy SEALs who killed Usama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan.

Read more: Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com

why can't we assume we'd have gotten it sooner because it wouldn't have taken years to sort through all the falsely given info?

gotta love fox, though.

It's never a good idea to assume. Unless you know the details of what information was obtained, from who and under what circumstances, it is ridiculous to think we could have gotten it sooner or had less shit to wade through.

And.... for the record... just because it's reported on Fox does not necessarily mean it's inaccurate.

Personally, I view all these media reports as suspect. We are rarely given the full picture, for national security reasons.

 

[QUENTIN]

Oh this is gold Jerry, gold.

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.

You were saying?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tourtoure leaves permanent scars and injury, scaring someone into giving you clues is normal.
Worth it?
If you dont mind taking the time .easier to stage capping a couple of "ragheads " then asking some questions,
Have we tried fireboarding?

Looks like liberals would want to ban Halloween, no telling how many little children have been tortured in hopes of getting a Halloween treat.

 

[masquerade]

at times yes, it was a very uncomfortable feeling. But there was no physical pain....i didn't consider it torture.

Christ man, i felt far more pain during rip, than i felt at anytime in s.e.r.e.s.

s.e.r.e.s ?

Sorry, I added an s..........shoot me.

No, not shot. Waterboarded!

 

[Bfgrn]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

Years of intelligence gathering, including details gleaned from controversial interrogations of Al Qaeda members during the Bush administration, ultimately led the Navy SEALs who killed Usama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan.

Read more: Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com

Don't ASSume. Torture only delayed getting intel.

How One Phone Call Led U.S. To Bin Laden's Doorstep

In a secret CIA prison in Eastern Europe years ago, al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, gave authorities the nicknames of several of bin Laden's couriers, four former U.S. intelligence officials said. Those names were among thousands of leads the CIA was pursuing.

Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.

 

[masquerade]

Tourtoure leaves permanent scars and injury, scaring someone into giving you clues is normal.
Worth it?
If you dont mind taking the time .easier to stage capping a couple of "ragheads " then asking some questions,
Have we tried fireboarding?

Though I agree the waterboarding was worth it, I do believe that torture can also leave permanent emotional scars.

 

[Ravi]

A fairy tale thread.

Amusing.

 

[QUENTIN]

Oh this is gold Jerry, gold.

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.

You were saying?

I really just want to post this again and again. C'mon guys, don't run away now. Just because this new information from torture-defender Donald Rumsfeld and torture-practitioners the CIA was perfectly timed to show you were totally and completely wrong, that's no reason to stop chiming in.

So, now that we know your wishful thinking that waterboarding led to killing bin Laden is false and that in reality those we waterboarded successfully held that real, valuable, actionable intelligence from us despite being waterboarded hundreds of times, instead giving us false information (some of which was used to make the case for the war in Iraq) and only gave the valuable information years later during normal interrogation, how do you feel? What are your thoughts on the subject?

Is waterboarding worth it if it results in bad, bogus, phony intelligence that leads us astray and doesn't at all elicit the good, worthwhile, actionable intelligence that normal interrogation actually does that leads us right to our targets? If waterboarding didn't help us get bin Laden and kept our highest value detainees' mouths shut on the subject for 4 years but regular interrogation got our highest value detainees to sing and led us directly to killing bin Laden, is waterboarding still preferable to normal interrogation? Even though it's proven inferior and counterproductive now, is it still a good idea?

I'm all ears.

 

[Flagwavrusa]

Torture is probably not that useful for eliciting general information, ie inflicting pain as part of some fishing expedition when you don't know specifically what you're looking for. Im sure terrorists have probably been trained to divulge disinformation to stymy their captors under those circumstances. Its probably more useful in the long run to employ long term psychological techniques to turn the bad guys to give helfpul information. That apparently is the kind of tactic that produced the intelligence that eventually led to bin Laden.

But if you capture a guy and you know he knows where the bomb is and when it's going to go off, and is refusing to tell, hell yeah torture the bastard. Start with waterboarding and move up from there.

 

[xsited1]

Yes no it doesn't matter. It happened and it will happen again. Yes it was and is worth it.

Battlestar Galactica.

Which means some of us are descendants of a human/Cylon hybrid.

 

[QUENTIN]

Torture is against everything that America stands for. I don't give a damn what it accomplishes... it is NEVER right.

We just killed OBL. Seems that is much worse than torture. Are OK with killing OBL? If so, I don't see where torture should cause you a problem. If you are not Ok with the killing, at least there is no hypocrisy with your stance against torture.

Torture is probably not that useful for eliciting general information, ie inflicting pain as part of some fishing expedition when you don't know specifically what you're looking for. Im sure terrorists have probably been trained to divulge disinformation to stymy their captors under those circumstances. Its probably more useful in the long run to employ long term psychological techniques to turn the bad guys to give helfpul information. That apparently is the kind of tactic that produced the intelligence that eventually led to bin Laden.

But if you capture a guy and you know he knows where the bomb is and when it's going to go off, and is refusing to tell, hell yeah torture the bastard. Start with waterboarding and move up from there.

Nice spin.

KSM and al-Libbi knew how to get to bin Laden when we captured them. They knew the identity of people who had regular contact with him and would lead us to him. That was about as high priority a piece of information as we could imagine. We asked them for the whereabouts or a lead on bin Laden while we waterboarded them. Neither of them gave us any useful information.

When we interrogated them according to the tried-and-true, field tested Army Field Manual, with no waterboarding or harsh techniques, they gave us the information we wanted - the name of the guy who led us to bin Laden - and it allowed us to find and kill our top target.

So clearly, in the real world rather than the plot of 24, if someone has information we desperately need we shouldn't torture them but interrogate them if we want the actionable, valuable intel they possess.

 

[Spoonman]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

Years of intelligence gathering, including details gleaned from controversial interrogations of Al Qaeda members during the Bush administration, ultimately led the Navy SEALs who killed Usama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan.

Read more: Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com

I'd say yes it was worth it. An anyone who is prasing Obama right now for killing Osama is saying yes as well


(edited for a very nice person)

 

[QUENTIN]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

Years of intelligence gathering, including details gleaned from controversial interrogations of Al Qaeda members during the Bush administration, ultimately led the Navy SEALs who killed Usama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan.

Read more: Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com

I'd say yes it was worth it. An anyone who is prasing Obama right now for killing Obama is saying yes as well

You must have missed this:

Oh this is gold Jerry, gold.

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.

 

[Spoonman]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

I'd say yes it was worth it. An anyone who is prasing Obama right now for killing Obama is saying yes as well

You must have missed this:

Oh this is gold Jerry, gold.

From NewsMax, well-known diehard conservative news site's exclusive interview with Rumsfeld:

Rumsfeld Exclusive: There Was No Waterboarding of Courier Source

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.

yea, but i didn't miss this. without bush era intel and interogation techniques osama would still be walking

Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, detainees in the CIA's secret prison network told interrogators about an important courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti who was close to bin Laden. After the CIA captured al-Qaida's No. 3 leader, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, he confirmed knowing al-Kuwaiti but denied he had anything to do with al-Qaida.

Then in 2004, top al-Qaida operative Hassan Ghul was captured in Iraq. Ghul told the CIA that al-Kuwaiti was a courier, someone crucial to the terrorist organization. In particular, Ghul said, the courier was close to Faraj al-Libi, who replaced Mohammed as al-Qaida's operational commander. It was a key break in the hunt for in bin Laden's personal courier.

"Hassan Ghul was the linchpin," a U.S. official said.

Finally, in May 2005, al-Libi was captured. Under CIA interrogation, al-Libi admitted that when he was promoted to succeed Mohammed, he received the word through a courier. But he made up a name for the courier and denied knowing al-Kuwaiti, a denial that was so adamant and unbelievable that the CIA took it as confirmation that he and Mohammed were protecting the courier. It only reinforced the idea that al-Kuwaiti was very important to al-Qaida.

If they could find the man known as al-Kuwaiti, they'd find bin Laden.
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA's so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
The CIA Gets a Rare Public Victory - Yahoo! News

 

[High_Gravity]

In reality the torture methods used by the US are childs play compared to countries like Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Sudan etc do.

 

[xsited1]

Let's assume for a moment that information gleaned during enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL. Was it worth it?

Years of intelligence gathering, including details gleaned from controversial interrogations of Al Qaeda members during the Bush administration, ultimately led the Navy SEALs who killed Usama bin Laden to his compound in Pakistan.

Read more: Bush-Era Interrogations Provided Key Details on Bin Laden's Location - FoxNews.com

why can't we assume we'd have gotten it sooner because it wouldn't have taken years to sort through all the falsely given info?

gotta love fox, though.

Good point and that's certainly a possibility! However, the point of this thread is to ask a "what if" question. If enhanced interrogation techniques of Al Qaeda members at Gitmo led to the killing of OBL, was it worth it? Furthermore, if Obama used this intelligence, what of it? Do the ends justify the means?

(And, "yes," I agree that Fox will try to link the two. No question about that.)

 

[Meister]

In reality the torture methods used by the US are childs play compared to countries like Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Sudan etc do.

Spot on, H.G. You couldn't be more right. When I can rep again...You have it

 

[xsited1]

Oh this is gold Jerry, gold.

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.

You were saying?

So waterboarding was never used at Gitmo?

the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

So when was waterboarding used? If it was never used, why the uproar?

(BTW, let's put this article in perspective: This is Newsmax and this is Donald Rumsfled we're talking about.)

 

[Spoonman]

Oh this is gold Jerry, gold.

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.”

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

You were saying?

So waterboarding was never used at Gitmo?

the notion that terrorist suspects were waterboarded at Guantanamo Bay is a “myth.”

So when was waterboarding used? If it was never used, why the uproar?

(BTW, let's put this article in perspective: This is Newsmax and this is Donald Rumsfled we're talking about.)

I know, for years it was Bush the torturer and illegal evesdropper. now it appears both techniques led to intelligence used to find bin laden and all of a sudden it never happened?

 

[High_Gravity]

In reality the torture methods used by the US are childs play compared to countries like Iran, North Korea, Egypt, Sudan etc do.

Spot on, H.G. You couldn't be more right. When I can rep again...You have it

No doubt, waterboarding is an appetizer compared to what other countries do.