Are we at war – or not?

For if we are at war, why is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed headed for trial in federal court in the Southern District of New York? Why is he entitled to a presumption of innocence and all of the constitutional protections of a U.S. citizen?

Is it possible we have done an injustice to this man by keeping him locked up all these years without trial? For that is what this trial implies – that he may not be guilty.

And if we must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that KSM was complicit in mass murder, by what right do we send Predators and Special Forces to kill his al-Qaida comrades wherever we find them? For none of them has been granted a fair trial.

When the Justice Department sets up a task force to wage war on a crime organization like the Mafia or MS-13, no U.S. official has a right to shoot Mafia or gang members on sight. No one has a right to bomb their homes. No one has a right to regard the possible death of their wives and children in an attack as acceptable collateral damage.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council on American-Islamic Relations, which represented the imams, said the settlement is “a victory for civil rights.”

“The six imams are pleased,” Hooper said. “Their rights were maintained by the settlement.”

This is no victory for civil rights. These imams gave reasonable cause for alarm, based as much upon behavioral profiling as much as religious and ethnic profiling. The settlement sends a message that favors stupidity over safety:

That lawsuit has now been settled out of court for an undisclosed amount — which might serve the defendants’ short-term interests but carries a long-term price for air safety.

Consider what the pilot and police knew, or thought they knew, at the time: Passengers reported the men had been praying loudly in the terminal, chanting “Allah, Allah” and cursing U.S. policies in Iraq. Once on board, the men took separate seats in the cabin’s front, middle and back. Two imams asked for seat belt extenders, which include a heavy metal buckle that could be used as a weapon, but left them on the floor. The pilot was told that three of the men had one-way tickets. A passenger who spoke Arabic said one imam expressed fundamentalist views. All told, the imams’ actions appeared to be either intentionally provocative or clueless as to how others might perceive them in the aftermath of 9/11.

Yet, after a federal judge ruled in July that the defendants could be liable for civil damages and authorities lacked probable cause to detain the imams, the airline and airport operators settled the case last week, without admitting any wrongdoing.

While the settlement spared them the uncertainly and expense of a trial, it could have a chilling effect on the ability of airline crews and officials to protect passengers from a perceived threat. Pilots have to make quick, tough judgment calls: Take off with frightening suspicions unresolved or err on the side of caution. The only way to determine whether a real threat existed was to remove the clerics from the plane and investigate.

In this case, some of the initial suspicions proved unfounded. It turned out that the imams, who had been attending a religious conference in Minneapolis, didn’t have one-way tickets and hadn’t changed their seat assignments, as first thought. They denied making remarks about Saddam Hussein or U.S. involvement in Iraq. Even so, that was the information available to the captain when he had to make a “go/no go” decision. Airlines and airport authorities need flexibility to act in the interest of safety without worrying about being sued.

This case was especially troubling because the imams initially attempted to drag into their lawsuit an unknown number of passengers and airline employees who had raised concerns. They were dismissed as potential defendants just before Congress enacted a law to give immunity to people who report suspicious behavior.

Ethnic profiling is wrong and violates American values. “Flying while Muslim” is no more an offense than “driving while black,” the common complaint of African Americans pulled over without credible cause. In this case, though, it was primarily the imams’ behavior that led to their detention.

I would disagree that ethnic profiling is “the big evil” that it is made out to be. I think we’ve become overly sensitive on matters of race. There is a certain logic to racial, religious, and national profiling- to all types of profiling- that have nothing to do with racism, religious bigotry, or national prejudice.

If there were a terror cult whose immediate, recognizably identifiable trait was a love for wearing white t-shirts and an addiction to sporting Casio F91W watches, then it would make sense to pay attention to those wearing white t’s and Casio F91Ws. It doesn’t mean you believe every frikkin’ person on planet earth wearing white t-shirts and a particular brand of watch is part of the terror cult; you’d even concede that the majority of people wearing white T’s and those Casios are not terrorists. But they are a part of the list of traits you have every reason to be looking for in a member of the cult. It warrants further investigation.

I do however, agree with the conclusion of the article post:

It would be sad if this settlement prompted others to act out in hopes of cashing in. And it could be tragic if it prevented passengers from speaking up, or airline crews from acting, when they have reasonable suspicions.

And I also agree with Dr. Zuhdi Jasser:

countering Islamism and combating Islamist terrorism should be a greater public responsibility for the organized American Muslim community than the obsession with civil rights and victimization in which current Islamist organizations like CAIR engage, and says the credibility of the Muslim community suffers because groups such as CAIR, ISNA, and the North American Imams Federation deny the interplay between Islamism and terrorism

L-R: Rev. Rob Schenck, president of the National Clergy, President Rev. Patrick Mahoney, of the Christian Defense Coalition and Father James Heyd hold a prayer service in front of the Supreme Court building in Washington. Today the high court will hear oral arguments in a case on involving the building of a memorial with a cross by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) in a remote area within what is now a federal preserve.
Mark Wilson-Getty Images

Is anyone really damaged by seeing the 10 Commandments displayed on a government building? Are any of you offended when you see a Christmas tree in a public square? When the White House hosts an Easter egg hunt each year, as well as iftar dinner and menorah lighting? Are your feelings hurt because we have national holidays that are Christian?

Why?

Religious expression is part of this nation’s history. The jihadist crusade of the ACLU and militant secular extremists is beyond reason in its successful attacks over the last several decades against public expression of Christian traditions and national heritage that has been a part of this country’s 200-plus year history.

Today, the Supreme Court began deliberations over the Mojave Desert Cross:

At issue was a cross that sits atop Sunrise Rock in a remote part of the Mojave National Preserve. Since 1934, the cross has existed, in one form or another, as a war memorial. Different court documents refer to it as 5 to 8 feet tall.

A decade ago, it came under legal attack from a former park service employee who, though a Catholic, thought it was inappropriate to favor one religion over another in the preserve. The National Park Service had turned down a request to have a Buddhist symbol erected nearby.

A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the stand-alone display of the cross in the national preserve was unconstitutional and, further, Congress’ move to transfer it to the private VFW did not solve the problem.

The Obama administration, joining with the VFW, urged the high court to uphold the display of the cross now that it is in private hands.

U.S. Solicitor General Elena Kagan said that the “sensible action by Congress” to give the VFW control of the cross and the land under it solved the 1st Amendment problem. The cross is no longer on government land and under government control, she said.

“It’s VFW’s choice” how to preserve it and maintain it now, she said.

Not all of the justices sounded convinced. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens noted that the Mojave cross was designated as a national memorial and that Congress said it must be preserved as a cross to honor America’s war dead. If not, the land and the cross would revert to government control, they said.

Eliasberg argued that the transfer was an obvious ploy to maintain the cross after it had been declared unconstitutional by a federal court.

He agreed that crosses in a national cemetery would not pose a constitutional problem because other religious symbols, such as a Star of David for Jewish soldiers, are included as well.

By the end of the hour, it was not clear what issue the justices would decide. They could decide whether the transfer of the cross to the VFW solved the legal problem. Or they could go further back and decide whether it was constitutional to erect the cross on public land.

Some lawyers thought the justices could focus on whether the original plaintiff, former park service employee Frank Buono, had legal standing to object to the cross. But that issue was hardly mentioned in the court Wednesday.

It will probably be several months before the court hands down a decision in the case of Salazar vs. Buono.

More here.

NYTimes:

WASHINGTON — As Congress prepares to consider extending crucial provisions of the USA Patriot Act, civil liberties groups and some Democratic lawmakers are gearing up to press for sweeping changes to surveillance laws.

Both the House and the Senate are set to hold their first committee hearings this week on whether to reauthorize three sections of the Patriot Act that expire at the end of this year. The provisions expanded the power of the F.B.I. to seize records and to eavesdrop on phone calls in the course of a counterterrorism investigation.

Is this really an “expansion” of power? Or a matter of updating existing powers in order for the F.B.I. to effectively do its job of protecting American lives in wake of 21st century technological advancements?

Laying down a marker ahead of those hearings, a group of senators who support greater privacy protections filed a bill on Thursday that would impose new safeguards on the Patriot Act while tightening restrictions on other surveillance policies. The measure is co-sponsored by nine Democrats and an independent.

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE- ain’t that cute?) Act is being introduced by U.S. Senators Russ Feingold (D-WI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Jon Tester (D-MT), Tom Udall (D-NM), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Daniel Akaka (D-HI) and Bernie Sanders (I-VT- who might as well carry a “D” by his name).

“Every single member of Congress wants to give our law enforcement and intelligence officials the tools they need to keep Americans safe,” Mr. Feingold said in a statement when filing the bill. “But with the Patriot Act up for reauthorization, we should take this opportunity to fix the flaws in our surveillance laws once and for all.”

Really?! Feingold (and every single member of Congress) wants to give our FBI and CIA the tools they need to keep Americans safe? Is that what he wanted in Oct. 2001 when he alone opposed the Patriot Act? If he had a chance to vote against the entire Patriot Act today, would he do so? 8 years following the events of 9/11, and we have not experienced another such terror attack. How has the Patriot Act not contributed to that success?

One of the witnesses Democrats have invited to testify at both hearings is Suzanne E. Spaulding, who has worked for lawmakers of both parties as a former top staffer on the House and Senate Intelligence committees.

I love when it’s always pointed out that she’s “worked for lawmakers of both parties”, as if that gives her credentials of being down the middle/bipartisan. But on this issue, she has always aligned herself against the Bush Administration on the Patriot Act, FISA, NSA surveillance program.

Mrs. Spaulding said she would urge Congress to tighten restrictions on when the F.B.I. could use the Patriot Act powers.

The rapid build-up of domestic intelligence authorities after the Sept. 11 attacks, she said, had overlooked “important safeguards,” which has resulted “in a greater likelihood at a minimum of the government mistakenly intruding into the privacy of innocent Americans, and at worst having a greater capability of abusing these authorities.”

Still, she acknowledged, the public record contains scant evidence that the F.B.I. has abused its powers under the three expiring Patriot Act sections.

Yet Spaulding and others of her mindset continue to fear-monger a characterization of “abuses”, “spying on AMERICANS (not terrorists)”, “civil rights intrusion”. That’s how they define this.

Republicans invited Kenneth L. Wainstein, a former assistant attorney general for national security for the Bush administration, to testify at both Patriot Act hearings.

“We have to be careful not to limit these tools to the point that they are no longer useful in fast-moving threat investigations,” Mr. Wainstein said. “There is an important place for oversight of national security tools, and that oversight is being exercised by Congress and by the federal judges on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.”

The first such provision allows investigators to get “roving wiretap” court orders authorizing them to follow a target who switches phone numbers or phone companies, rather than having to apply for a new warrant each time.

From 2004 to 2009, the Federal Bureau of Investigation applied for such an order about 140 times, Robert S. Mueller, the F.B.I. director, said at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing last week.

The second such provision allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to seize “any tangible things” deemed relevant to a terrorism investigation — like a business’s customer records, a diary or a computer.

From 2004 to 2009, the bureau used that authority more than 250 times, Mr. Mueller said.

The final provision set to expire is called the “lone wolf” provision. It allows the F.B.I. to get a court order to wiretap a terrorism suspect who is not connected to any foreign terrorist group or foreign government.

Mr. Mueller said this authority had never been used, but the bureau still wanted Congress to extend it.

I wonder if Dennis Kucinich sees that last fact as a reason for scrapping it. 5 years after the enactment of the Patriot Act, the number of searches conducted at libraries under the business records provision was just one, prompting Kucinich to say: “If they haven’t used it, they shouldn’t have any problems with our efforts to get it repealed.”

As Ron Kessler points out, “That was like saying that because a policeman had never used his gun, it should be taken away.” [pg 65, The Terrorist Watch]

Kucinich, btw, was on a FOX morning news show this weekend, crying foul over the timing of arrests made last week to foil a terror plot in NYC, in close proximity of the upcoming debate on the Patriot Act. That accusation is a bit akin to Nancy Pelosi’s smear of the CIA. However, who would engage in political timing and advocacy? Why, the national security-averse NYTimes in 2005:

Before yesterday’s vote, opponents of the legislation rallied around a front page article in Thursday’s New York Times that reported Mr. Bush had secretly lifted certain limits on spying inside the United States. After more than a year holding the story, the paper decided to run it on the day of the Patriot Act vote.

The rhetoric of the Senators who are introducing the JUSTICE Act is one of striking balance between giving law enforcement and intell officials the tools they need on the one hand; while protecting American civil liberties on the other. But are Americans really in danger of being targeted for civil rights abuses and violations under the current Patriot Act?

Many of the proposals under discussion involve small wording shifts whose impact can be difficult to understand, in part because the statutes are extremely technical and some govern technology that is classified.

But in general, civil libertarians and some Democrats have called for changes that would require stronger evidence of meaningful links between a terrorism suspect and the person whom investigators are targeting.

In the same way, some are proposing to use any Patriot Act extension bill to tighten when the F.B.I. may use “national security letters” — administrative subpoenas that allow counterterrorism agents to seize business records without obtaining permission from a judge. Agents use the device tens of thousands of times each year.

The Patriot Act section that expanded the F.B.I.’s power to issue those letters is not expiring, but they have become particularly controversial because the Justice Department’s inspector general issued two reports finding that F.B.I. agents frequently misused the device to obtain bank, credit card and telephone records.

National security letters are similar to grand jury subpoenas, issued in international terrorism and espionage investigations.

Ronald Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, has some things to say regarding this matter, Pg 73-5:

As it turns out, the actual number of national security letters issued by the FBI each year averages around 50,000. While that number may sound like a lot, an investigation of one suspected terrorist may entail issuance of hundreds of national security letters to track down data from each bank account, credit card, cell phone, telephone, e-mail, and Internet account he may have used over time.

~~~

In a later audit, Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine found minor deficiencies associated with 22 of the 293 national security letters he examined from 2003 to 2005. In some cases, the letters were issued after the authorized investigation period, or an agent had accidentally transposed the digits in a telephone number of a person under investigation.

In about half the cases, the problems were not the fault of the FBI: According to Fine’s report, recipients of the letters sometimes turned over more information than requested or provided information about the wrong phone number. These problems never should have been lumped in with FBI violations.

Mueller brought that up with Fine, who insisted he was right to do so.

Mueller says the reason the FBI did not keep proper track of requests for national security letters is that no separate system had been set up to keep track of them.

~~~

By the time the report came out, Mueller had already taken twelve steps to correct the problems,

~~~

Fine specifically found that the FBI had not intentionally violated any rules. He determined that, with the exception of situations where the recipient made an error, the FBI in most cases had obtained information to which it was, in fact, entitled. He noted the tremendous workload of FBI agents trying to stop the next attack. And he concluded that NSLs have contributed significantly to the FBI’s counterterrorism efforts.

The news accounts either ignored or downplayed these findings. Instead, they played up the story as a massive intrusion into people’s personal lives, suggesting NSLs had something to do with monitoring calls rather than simply obtaining subscriber information associated with telephone numbers and e-mail addresses or obtaining financial records.

The F.B.I and the C.I.A. are not interested in “spying” upon ordinary Americans. They are interested in being able to do their jobs and to do them well, which involves protecting their loved ones and ordinary Americans.

Whose rights were being violated more, those whose phones were tapped by court order or those who died in the 9/11 attacks?
- Ron Kessler, The Terrorist Watch, pg 64

JUSTICE Act 2009 fact sheet:

The Judicious Use of Surveillance Tools In Counterterrorism Efforts (JUSTICE) Act would reform the USA PATRIOT Act, the FISA Amendments Act and other surveillance authorities to protect the constitutional rights of Americans while ensuring the government has the powers it needs to fight terrorism and collect intelligence.

Title I – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Records

Sections 101-106 – National Security Letters

The bill rewrites the National Security Letter (NSL) statutes to ensure the FBI can obtain basic information without a court order, but also adds reasonable safeguards to ensure NSLs are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of NSLs and associated gag orders.

Section 107 – Section 215 Orders

The bill would reauthorize the use of Section 215 business records orders under FISA, but with additional checks and balances to ensure these orders are only used to obtain records of people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage, and to provide meaningful, constitutionally sound judicial review of Section 215 orders and associated gag orders.

Title II – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Homes

Section 201 – “Sneak & Peek” Searches

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s authorization of “sneak and peek” criminal searches but eliminate the overbroad catch-all provision that allows these secret searches in virtually any criminal case. It would shorten the presumptive time limits for notification, and create a statutory exclusionary rule.

Title III – Reasonable Safeguards to Protect the Privacy of Americans’ Communications

Section 301 – FISA Roving Wiretaps

The bill would reauthorize roving FISA wiretaps, but eliminate the possibility of “John Doe” roving wiretaps that identify neither the person nor the phone to be wiretapped. It would require agents to ascertain the presence of the target of a roving wiretap before beginning surveillance.

Section 302 – Pen Registers and Trap and Trace Devices

The bill would retain the Patriot Act’s expansion of the FISA and criminal pen/trap authorities to cover electronic communications, but would allow pen/traps to be used only to obtain information about people who have some connection to terrorism or espionage. It would impose additional procedural safeguards to serve as a check on these authorities.

Section 303 – Telecommunications Immunity

The bill would repeal the retroactive immunity provision in the FISA Amendments Act.

Section 304 – Bulk Collection

The bill retains the new warrantless authorities in the FISA Amendments Act but would prevent the government from using that law to conduct “bulk collection” of the contents of communications, including all communications between the United States and the rest of the world.

Section 305 – Reverse Targeting

The bill would ensure that the overseas warrantless collection authorities of the FISA Amendments Act are not used as a pretext to target Americans in the U.S.

Section 306 – Use of Unlawfully Obtained Information

The bill would limit the government’s use of information about Americans obtained under FISA Amendments Act procedures that the FISA Court later determines to be unlawful, while giving the court flexibility to allow such information to be used in appropriate cases.

Section 307 – Protections for International Communications of Americans

The bill would amend the FISA Amendments Act to create safeguards for communications not related to terrorism that the government knows have one end in the United States.

Section 308 – Computer Trespass

The bill would guard against abuse of a warrantless surveillance authority in the Patriot Act that allows computer owners who are subject to denial of service attacks or other episodes of hacking to give the government permission to monitor trespassers on their systems.

Title IV – Improvements to Further Congressional and Judicial Oversight

Section 401 – FISA Public Reporting

The bill would require limited additional public reporting on the use of FISA.

Section 402 – Use of FISA Evidence

The bill would apply the Classified Information Procedures Act to the use of FISA evidence in criminal cases, and allow the use of protective orders and other security measures in civil cases, to ensure that courts have discretion to allow litigants access to information where appropriate while still protecting sensitive information.

Section 403 – Nationwide Court Orders

The bill would permit a recipient of a nationwide court order to challenge it either in the district where it was issued or in the district where the recipient is located.

Title V – Improvements to Further Effective, Focused Investigations

Section 501 – Domestic Terrorism

The Patriot Act’s overbroad definition of domestic terrorism could cover acts of civil disobedience by political organizations. The bill would limit the qualifying offenses for domestic terrorism to those that constitute a federal crime of terrorism.

Section 502 – Material Support

The bill would amend the overly broad criminal definition of material support for terrorism by specifying that a person must know or intend the support provided will be used for terrorist activity.

Our enemies have been very savvy on the PR front of this war.

One of the things Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters have been made aware of, is the enormous pressure that is brought to bear upon the U.S. by human rights groups and public opinion, both American and world. Whether true or not, the allegations of abuse and torture in themselves do us harm. America is held to a different standard where in the eyes of the ACLU and other anti-American groups, we are guilty until proven innocent, with the benefit of the doubt given to terrorists.

When Guantanamo is compared to Soviet gulags, nothing could be further from the reality. Yet popular perception has been shaped to the point of Guantanamo being irredeemable; and even supporters who recognize the need for it have caved in to the demands of “world opinion” and public pressure in seeing the facility closed.

Torture may not work (remember: Bush and Cheney have both stated that they are against torture); but enhanced interrogations have relinquished results. I believe there is a difference; and for critics to keep trotting out the “we prosecuted Japanese soldiers in WWII for waterboarding” talking point…that’s been thoroughly dismantled in several comment threads, here at FA.

On November 12, 2002, Categories I and II techniques were approved of for interrogating Muhammad al Qahtani, the suspected 20th 9/11 hijacker. Category III methods, which included waterboarding, had not been approved (Interestingly, Rumsfeld approved of some of the Category III techniques in a memorandum dated December 2, 2002, but specifically disapproved waterboarding; on January 15, 2003, he rescinded the Dec 2nd directive).

On November 25th, Qahtani broke down. By spring of 2003, even after harsh interrogations had long ended (January 15, 2003), he was providing a wealth of information and valuable, actionable intelligence.

In October 2005, the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), along with co-c0ounsel from the law firm Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger in Vecchione, filed a habeas corpus petition on behalf of Qahtani. That December, Qahtani was visited by a CCR attorney at Guantanamo. He ceased talking to interrogators and ultimately changed his story.

By 2006, Qahtani had recanted previous confessions and testimony. He claimed that the information he gave was extracted from him using torture. In a nine-page letter submitted to the Combat Status Review Board, neatly handwritten entirely in English, Qahtani claimed that he was simply a businessman “kidnapped as a civilian” and illegally brought to Guantanamo. He retracted all his prior statements regarding al Qaeda and bin Laden.
-Pg 37-38, Inside Gitmo

Despite the legal complications,
Qahtani is anything but a “simple businessman”. He is one of the “worst of the worst” and not an innocent victim of injustice and wrongful detainment.

Primarily as a result of excesses done to Qahtani, in April 2003 Rumsfeld approved issuing new interrogation rules that closely followed and further amplified and clarified those detailed in FM 34-52. Helping to dispel confusion, in December 2005 the Detainee Treatment Act required a uniform standard of treatment for detainees held in military custody. This was formally implemented in September 2006 through publication of a new Army Field Manual, 2-22.3, that, among other constraints, specifically prohibits the use of military dogs, nudity, sexual acts or poses, beatings, and waterboarding, during interrogation.

Basically, Obama’s claims of taking credit for banning torture and waterboarding specifically have been meaningless PR pomp, as his January 21, 2009 EO basically amounted to saying the same thing as President Bush’s 2007 EO that it revoked: That torture’s prohibited.

One thing about many of these hardened terrorists, is that they have had extensive training in counter-interrogation.

From the outset, military interrogators concluded that the approved FM 34-52 techniques “were ineffective against detainees who had received interrogation resistance training.” This is hardly surprising when one considers not only counter-interrogation training received in camps such as al Farouk and detailed instructions guiding detainee conduct through al Qaeda’s so-called Manchester Manual, but the example of what al Qaeda and Taliban extremists chose to subject themselves to while fighting at Qala-i-Jangi.⁷

-pg 30, Inside Gitmo

~~~

These were extremely tough, defiant men familiar with giving and taking cruelty. The challenge faced by the military was to save lives by finding out what these men knew about al Qaeda, the Taliban, and, most critically, any future plots to attack the West. Military interrogators at Guantanamo thought that the approved FM 34-52 techniques would be ineffective in achieving this goal because they were dealing with incredibly hard men who had been drilled and trained to resist normal interrogations.
-Pg 31-32, Inside Gitmo

⁷The Manchester Manual, discovered in a counterterrorist police raid in Manchester, England, revealed specific instructions for captured operatives to make extravagant claims of torture. In the chapter entitled “Prisons and Detention Centers,” the al Qaeda “brothers” are instructed to “prove that torture was inflicted on them” and to “complain of mistreatment while in prison.” Al Qaeda operatives are told to memorize the names of guards and to “mention those names to the judge.” If brought to a trial, the terrorists need to make certain to “notify [the court] of any mistreatment.” While in confinement they are encouraged to establish clandestine communications links with each other and to “master the art of hiding messages.” Most important, the Manual stresses, is for the jihadists to “create an Islamic program for themselves inside the prison,” and to “shout Islamic slogans out loud” if exposed to the public. These enemy combatants were thoroughly prepared to resist interrogation, defy convention, upset the court pro cesses, and play to the interests of anti- American, pro- Islamic organizations to sow dissension and further their cause. The full text of the Manual can be found in translation.

We have seen an estimated 1 in 7 Guantanamo graduates return to the battlefield, having convinced those “harsh” interrogators that they had reformed their ways, loved Americans, or were never a hardened jihadi, but a simple carpenter, tax driver, or peasant farmer that was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Moazzam Begg, a former detainee released in 2005, understands the propaganda war: He now denies all previous statements as to his involvement in terrorism and claims they were coerced through torture and that “torture only generates lies”. He has learned to say all the right things.

Pg 58, Inside Gitmo by Gordon Cucullu:

Interrogators at Guantanamo told me that Begg in their opinion is a hardened terrorist who has used the opportunity of release to enter the public information forum in a big way. “He is doing more good for al Qaeda as a British poster boy than he would ever do carrying an AK-47,” Paul Rester said. Meanwhile in the United Kingdom, some of the more politically active crowd, such as actress Vanessa Redgrave, have vigorously supported the proposition that Begg stand for election to Parliament.”

From the released “torture” memos:

“This effort plus the cloth produces the perception of ‘suffocation and incipient panic,’ i.e., the perception of drowning. The individual does not breathe any water into his lungs. During those 20 to 40 seconds, water is continuously applied from a height of 12 to 24 inches. … The sensation of drowning is immediately relieved by the removal of the cloth. The procedure may then be repeated.”

“Although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. … Although the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition infliction of severe mental pain or suffering. … Indeed, you have advised us that the relief is almost immediate when the cloth is removed from the nose and mouth. In the absence of prolonged mental harm, no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.”

Waterboarding should only be used simultaneously with two other methods: dietary manipulation and sleep deprivation.

As we understand it, when the waterboard is used, the subject’s body responds as if the subject were drowning—even though the subject may be well aware that he is in fact not drowning. You have informed us that this procedure does not inflict actual physical harm. Thus, although the subject may experience the fear or panic associated with the feeling of drowning, the waterboard does not inflict physical pain. as we explained in the Section 2340A Memorandum, “pain and suffering” as used in Section 2340 is best understood as a single concept, not distinct concepts of “pain” as distinguished from “suffering”… The waterboard, which inflicts no pain or actual harm whatsoever, does not, in our view, inflict “severe pain and suffering”. Even if one were to parse the stature more “finely” to attempt to treat suffering as a distinct concept, the waterboard could not be said to inflict severe suffering. The waterboard is simply a controlled acute episode, lacking the connotation of a protracted period of time generally given to suffering… We find the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death… Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure who will ensure the subject’s mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at the very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Thus, this procedure cannot be viewed as too uncertain to satisfy the imminence requirement. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute. Although the waterboard constitutes the real threat of imminent death, prolonged mental harm must nonetheless result to violate the statutory prohibition on infliction of severe mental pain or suffering… We have previously concluded that prolonged mental harm is mental harm of some lasting duration, e.g., mental harm lasting months or years. Based on your research into the use of these methods at the SERE school and consultation with others with expertise in the field of psychology and interrogation, you do not anticipate that any prolonged mental harm would result from the use of the waterboard… In the absence of prolonged mental harm,no severe mental pain or suffering would have been inflicted, and the use of these procedures would not constitute torture within the meaning of the statute.

Given that the practice of waterboarding ended on Bush’s watch, President Obama’s so-called “ban on waterboarding and torture” is all but window-dressing rhetoric; all the public scrutiny and attention to it has all but effectively eliminated its usefulness as an interrogation tool. Even if it were still in practice, our enemy could be trained to endure as much as they can, the simulated drowning that is based upon SERE methods. The enemy now knows that should they be waterboarded, they would not in fact drown. Much of the fear and panic was created by the uncertainty; by the “not knowing” that drowning wasn’t in fact, taking place.

al Qaeda fighters today don’t even have to worry about training to resist its effects since they know the practice was discarded years ago, let alone “outlawed” under the current Administration.

In 2007:

Congress wants the OLC memos made public, but the reason to keep them secret is so enemy combatants can’t use them as a resistance manual. If they know what’s coming, they can psychologically prepare for it. We know al Qaeda training often involves its own forms of resistance training, and publicly describing the rules offers our enemies a road map for resistance.

Hugh McManners review of The Interrogator’s War-inside the secret war against Al Qaeda, by Chris Mackey with Greg Miller :

The Geneva Conventions were strictly adhered to, especially Article 3, which forbids “violence to life and person…. mutilations, cruel treatment and torture…. outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment.” One lapse of self-control would earn an interrogator several years in the notorious Fort Leavenworth military jail. Mackey says the abuses at Abu Ghraib set back all the good work he and his team carried out: “The more a prisoner hates America, the harder he will be to break. The more a population hates America, the less likely its citizens will be to lead us to a suspect.”

The learning process was difficult, especially once the prisoners realised the Americans were not going to hurt them. In mid February, a pile of documents from a Special force raid on the Al Farook terrorist training camp was found to contain the Al Qaeda guide to resisting interrogation. Mackey and his team immediately recognised the tactics described in this training manual from the many interrogations they had already carried out, including baiting the Americans to trick them into violence that leaves bruises or scars that can be shown to the Red Cross. The American aversion to using torture was presented as a weakness – “because they are not warriors”. But other sections of the Al Qaeda manual described what “brothers can expect” from interrogators in Arab countries: “Hanging with arms tied behind backs, filleting people, skinning arms with knives, drilling knee caps, gouge out eyes, cut out tongue…”

Mackay was infuriated to learn that the manual was absolutely right about the Americans being unable to do anything to their prisoners, apart from feeding them “halal meals-ready-to-eat and giving them showers a couple of times a week. …At the time it felt like a terrible weakness.”

It’s generally agreed that torture does not produce reliable intelligence. Mackey takes this one stage further by quoting various examples of prisoners who only started giving reliable information once they were convinced that the Americans were not going to torture them. But interrogations only started to produce results after 12 to 16 hours, which runs contrary to the Geneva Conventions rules regarding sleep deprivation. So Mackey ensured that prisoner and interrogator had the same amount and quality of sleep and food. Hitherto, the prisoners had enjoyed far more sleep and more regular meals than their hard-worked inquisitors, and unsurprisingly were better able to resist interrogation.

Annie Lowrey:

Obama said, “I want to emphasise that these photos that were requested in this case are not particularly sensational, especially when compared to the painful images that we remember from Abu Ghraib.” He also later said the small number of perpetrators were charged and tried in 2004.

The administration then abruptly changed course, saying it would not release the photographs. The White House spokesman, Robert Gibbs, explained, “The president believes that the specific case surrounding the damage that would be done to our troops and our national security has not fully been developed and put in front of the court.”

According to Thomas Ricks, General Odierno had a direct influence on President Obama’s reversal.

When photos from abu Ghraib went public (during a time of war)….did that sort of transparency help our efforts in securing a more stable and peaceful Iraq? Did it cost the lives of U.S. and Coalition soldiers? Undoubtedly, it did.

Certainly, the public outrage over the ugly incidents contributed to needed improvements that might not have occurred as stringently had there not been a vast media uproar over the abuses. That kind of transparency can lead to healthy reform; but in a time of war, I question the wisdom in such news releases that endangers the lives of our soldiers, creates public hysteria and misperceptions, and fuels and inflames anti-American sentiments that threaten to undo the overwhelming amount of good we have been trying to accomplish in Iraq.

Lowrey continues:

The ACLU accused the White House of betrayal and stonewalling.

Today — the day the Obama administration would have been required to release the photos, incidentally — we may have found out why.

Ret. Major General Antonio Taguba, the author of the Abu Ghraib report, described their content to the Daily Telegraph:

These pictures show torture, abuse, rape and every indecency. I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one and the consequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan. The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.

To be honest, I’m not sure I have much to say about this, beyond that it’s deeply unsettling, and raises more questions than it answers.

For one, I can’t verify that Taguba is speaking about the same set of photos as Obama and the ACLU; I don’t think Obama would have agreed to release the photos if the content were so graphic and dangerous, to the coalition forces and to the victims.

Second, I don’t know why Taguba, who has been retired for two years, who no longer speaks for the military, gave this interview. The Pentagon has already discredited the paper and said that the description of the photos is inaccurate.

Third, we know of incidences of sexual abuse at Abu Ghraib. If these photos concern new incidences, I hope that all the perpetrators have been court-martialled and tried, already. The “few bad apples” line is only valid if we have confidence in the oversight and governance of U.S. prisons abroad. (Not really a comparison here, but an n.b., that sexual abuse and prison rape is a systemic problem in the U.S.)

And finally, nothing yet from the ACLU on their site. I’ll be interested to see what they have to say about this.

Reuters:

Taguba was quoted in the Telegraph as saying he supported Obama’s decision not to release the pictures.

“I am not sure what purpose their release would serve other than a legal one,” he said. “The sequence would be to imperil our troops, the only protectors of our foreign policy, when we most need them, and British troops who are trying to build security in Afghanistan.”

He added: “The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it.” (Reporting by Andrew Gray in Washington and Luke Baker in London; Editing by David Storey)

The problem here, is that the damage is already done. Taguba should have kept his mouth shut if he’s so concerned about the effect the images will have. Saying “The mere depiction of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it” does nothing to alleviate the effects of seeing the actual photos, because suppression of them merely stirs the imagination of the conspiratorial-minded and anti-Americans who will believe in the worst. At this point, we’re “damned if we release, damned if we don’t release”. If the photos are not as bad as how Taguba is hyping them to be, then perhaps releasing them and quelling those who demand full transparency is less dangerous than suppressing the images. If, however, Taguba is accurate, then not releasing the photos is an indictment of “guilt” as to the severity of the images.

Nothing has been more damaging to our efforts in the war on terror Overseas Contingency Operations than the leakage of information that are of national security concerns.

Lesson yet to be learned by President Obama: Don’t make promises you can’t deliver on.

By Craig Whitlock and Karen DeYoung
Washington Post Foreign Service:

BERLIN, May 28 — The Obama administration’s push to resettle at least 50 Guantanamo Bay prisoners in Europe is meeting fresh resistance as European officials demand that the United States first give asylum to some inmates before they will do the same.

Rising opposition in the U.S. Congress to allowing Guantanamo prisoners on American soil has not gone over well in Europe. Officials from countries that previously indicated they were willing to accept inmates now say it may be politically impossible for them to do so if the United States does not reciprocate.

“If the U.S. refuses to take these people, why should we?” said Thomas Silberhorn, a member of the German Parliament from Bavaria, where the White House wants to relocate nine Chinese Uighur prisoners. “If all 50 states in America say, ‘Sorry, we can’t take them,’ this is not very convincing.”

Here’s a novel idea: Do a complete about face and salvage Guantanamo’s reputation as the most transparent and humanely run detention facility in the world.

Out of more than 24,000 interrogations that took place between 2002 through 2005, the FBI reported only 3 instances of abuse.

Admittedly, there were problems in the early days, but that’s not the case now.

Opening Guantanamo for business was a crisis response to the aftermath of the overthrow of the Taliban, when upwards of 70,000 Taliban and al Qaeda fighters were captured. Less than 800 were deemed potentially valuable for intelligence extraction; or thought too dangerous to be let loose.

DoD release:

“Detention of enemy combatants in wartime is not an act of punishment. It is a matter of security and military necessity. It prevents enemy combatants from continuing to fight against the U.S. and its partners in the war on terror. Releasing enemy combatants before the end of the hostilities and allowing them to rejoin the fight would only prolong the conflict and endanger coalition forces and innocent civilians.”

From Douglas Feith’s War and Decision, pg 160:

Rumsfeld was displeased to have the Defense Department take on the detention mission and protested the idea repeatedly. But he knew that intelligence from these detainees could help save lives. We could not count on any other country to perform the mission- and no other agency of the U.S. government was ready to do it. So Rumsfeld accepted the task, though he told his staff from the outset that the responsibility would be a source of more trouble and more criticism than anyone could predict. It proved every bit as bad as he anticipated.

Out of the many places considered by the Dept of Justice, CIA, and FBI, as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld put it, “Guantanamo is the least bad option”

I believe it still qualifies as the “least bad option”.

The damage may be irreparably done in the “high” court of world opinion (which led even the Bush Administration to seek possibilities in closing it down); but given the enormous difficulties in figuring out what to do with 240 of “the worst of the worst”, this may be a case where appeasement to “world opinion” should give way to “setting the record straight” and shifting public perception and Guantanamo’s image to reflect the reality of it.

If anyone can change America’s image and salvage its damaged reputation it should be President Obama, the great repudiator of all things Bush. Let him even claim credit for “turning Gitmo around”. Use his political capital to convince the world that he will guarantee that Guantanamo will be the most humanely run detention facility than any prison in the world (it already is- so it should make President Obama’s job a “cakewalk”; he’s good at words, afterall).

The myths of Guantanamo as “the gulag of our time” deserve to be repelled, as I believe much of it has amounted to slander.

OBAMA’s PLAN:(quotes below)
1) Try criminals in Federal courts
2) Military Tribunals
3) Release ones ordered released by courts
4) Transfer as many as possible to other countries
5) Hold really bad guys until we can figure out how to hold them w out trial indefinitely by legal means

BUSH’S Sept 6, 2006 PLAN: (quotes below)
1) Transfer as many as possible to other countries
2) Try criminals in Federal courts
3) Military Tribunals
4) Beg Congress to figure out how to hold the really bad guys without trial indefinitely by legal means
[note: President Bush’s plan didn’t include a provision for letting go Gitmo detainees who had been ordered released, but had yet to be released. This is because no one would take them, and they remain at Gitmo, but President Obama has said that somehow, someplace he wants them released.

OBAMA:

• “First, when feasible, we will try those who have violated American criminal laws in federal courts – courts provided for by the United States Constitution.”
• “The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are best tried through Military Commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War.”
• “The third category of detainees includes those who we have been ordered released by the courts.”
• “The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country.”
• “I want to be honest: this is the toughest issue we will face. We are going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who have received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, commanded Taliban troops in battle, expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.
• As I said, I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture – like other prisoners of war – must be prevented from attacking us again. However, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. That is why my Administration has begun to reshape these standards to ensure they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible and lawful standards for those who fall in this category. “

BUSH’S PLAN:

• “The CIA program has detained only a limited number of terrorists at any given time — and once we’ve determined that the terrorists held by the CIA have little or no additional intelligence value, many of them have been returned to their home countries for prosecution or detention by their governments.”
• “Others have been accused of terrible crimes against the American people, and we have a duty to bring those responsible for these crimes to justice. So we intend to prosecute these men, as appropriate, for their crimes.”
• “Soon after the war on terror began, I authorized a system of military commissions to try foreign terrorists accused of war crimes. Military commissions have been used by Presidents from George Washington to Franklin Roosevelt to prosecute war criminals, because the rules for trying enemy combatants in a time of conflict must be different from those for trying common criminals or members of our own military.”
• “So today, I’m asking Congress to pass legislation that will clarify the rules for our personnel fighting the war on terror. “

During a 90 minute meeting with human rights advocates today, President Barack Obama said that he was considering coming up with some sort of “preventive detention” system which would provide him a legal basis to detain suspects as a threat without having to charge them with any crimes.

The meeting was intended to be “off the record,” but some of the participants left seriously concerned that the president, who only last week resumed the long criticized system of military tribunals for suspects at Guantanamo Bay, was now looking for ways to hold people legally without having to present any evidence of wrong-doing.

I find myself wondering a lot lately. How can people discuss an issue while removing left/right bias? The most common idea I have is to ask a perspective provoking question, “If Bush had tried this, would you oppose, support, or accept this the same way?”

Watch this, and consider that we’re not talking about beating up a Marine, but getting rough with the people who planned and executed the 911 attacks, who tried to kill hundreds of thousands of Americans, who SUCCESSFULLY MURDERED 3000 civilians.

Chris,

YOU CAN’T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Poor Ford. He knows torture’s an issue that-in the end-causes more damage to Democrats than to Republicans. He knows the reality that in 2001, 2002, and 2003 the US intel community was freaking out, dazed, and confused (as every 911 and Iraq investigation shows), and he just can’t tell the Bush haters to stop, let it go, MOVEON.

Why?

Because torture, 911, BUSHLIED, etc are all distortions of the truth that come out if there’s an investigation.

Good luck Harold. I’m with CHEEENY-Show the docs. Show em all!

Andrew Sullivan:

The man who wants to export human rights and also torture prisoners in the US tangled with Jon Stewart last night. Their conversation went far beyond the edited show, and you can watch the video of it here. I should repeat that I long admired Cliff’s defense of American and Western values and find his current position – that America should retain the right to torture with the same techniques as the Khmer Rouge and the Gestapo – as demoralizing as it is abhorrent.

Stewart’s liberalism is encapsulated in his views on the dropping of the A-bomb on Hiroshima and thinking Harry S Truman should have been tried as a war criminal.

Bill Whittle takes Jon Stewart through a history lesson you’ll not want to miss.

After viewing it, please realize:

Who is Jon Stewart? Jon is a self-deprecating 43-year-old New York native who grew up in New Jersey. Dad was a physicist and mom a teacher, so education was valued in his childhood home.

More like “liberal indoctrination was valued in his childhood home.”

Also blogging:
wizbang

“The Obama administration is moving toward reviving the military commission system for prosecuting Guantánamo detainees, which was a target of critics during the Bush administration, including Mr. Obama himself.”

Make Terrorists Choose Between Jumping or Burning: Now That Would Be Torture

So now the president is considering show trials of Bush Administration officials who issued opinions on permissibility of “harsh” interrogation techniques on Al Qaeda terrorists.

Once again, folks, this is not hard.

Let’s flash back to the sunny September day when hell was unleashed on our nation. Many horrors could be recalled from 9/11, but I’d like to bring to remembrance just one: The roughly 200 innocent souls, by one estimate, forced into the inconceivable choice to hurl themselves from the towers to escape the searing heat and smothering smoke from flaming jet fuel.

Author Michael Daly recounted the scene: “Some jumped together, holding hands. Most leapt singly, often tumbling as they fell . . . most were on their backs as they reached the lower floors, facing the heavens if not necessarily heaven. Their last sight was of the perfect baby-blue sky as they struck the pavement with a velocity that instantly turned a living person into a bright red splatter. The sound was jarring, loud, a body becoming a bomb.”

You say Khalid Sheik Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times? Cry me a river.

How about if we had tossed this cold-hearted butcher into a room on a platform some 1,300 feet up, fired it up to a toasty 2000oF, pumped in the acrid smoke of combusting fuel, and given KSM a better choice than his blameless victims got: Talk, jump or feel your flesh sizzle off?

Now that might have been torture.

In the wake of the release of OLC memos authorizing torture, Bush apologists are frantically trying to show that torture worked. Former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post that claimed that torturing Khalid Sheik Mohammed had foiled a second plot to use airplanes to attack the highest skyscraper on the West Coast, the Library Tower.

The author of the post then goes on to cite Timothy Noah in “debunking” Thiessen’s piece.

Primarily at issue is the timeline of having captured KSM in March of 2003, whereas the cell leader of the Library Plot was captured in 2002, leading to the assumption that the entire plot was then foiled- even though other terrorists within the cell were still roaming free to plot and plan and carry out future marching orders.

Purportedly, because the cell leader of the Library Tower plot was captured before KSM’s capture and (enhanced) interrogations took place, then this demolishes the claims that actionable intelligence was obtained through coercive techniques.

Well, here I cite Thiessen in debunking the debunkers, namely going directly after his critic, Timothy Noah:

In his post, Noah calls the West Coast plot “Thiessen’s claim” and Anderw Sullivan calls it “Thiessen’s LA Tower Canard.” What these two fail to appreciate is that the story of how enhanced interrogation broke up the West Coast plot is not my story — it is the official position of the intelligence community.

In my Washington Post piece, I was citing the very documents which President Obama released, which quote the CIA saying that interrogation with enhanced techniques “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.” The memo released by Obama goes on the explain 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 Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the ‘Second Wave.’ ”

Again, those are not my words. That is the position of our intelligence community.

And not just in the released memos. In his September 2006 speech revealing the existence of the CIA program, President Bush described specifically how the interrogation of KSM led to the capture of the key operatives in this attack. This was the most carefully vetted speech in presidential history — reviewed by all the key players from the individuals who ran the program all the way up to the director of national intelligence, who personally attested to the accuracy of the speech in a memo to the president. And just last week on Fox News, former CIA Director Michael Hayden said he went back and checked with the agency as to the accuracy of that speech and reported: “We stand by our story.”

In numerous subsequent speeches, President Bush said that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program. Each of those speeches was carefully reviewed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence — and each time the DNI provided the White House with a classified memo stating that the contents of the speech was accurate and did not compromise sources and methods. So the Director of National Intelligence has repeatedly affirmed the accuracy of the statement that the West Coast plot was disrupted because of the CIA program. And Noah himself acknowledges in his post a CIA spokesman affirmed the accuracy of the story.

So bottom line: The intelligence community says it is so.

In his blog, Noah cites the fact that Fran Townsend, the Bush administration’s homeland-security adviser, told reporters in a February 2006 press briefing that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was arrested February of 2002. This, Noah points out, is before KSM came into CIA custody and underwent enhanced interrogation. He also notes Townsend said that after the cell leader’s capture other cell members “believed” that the plot was not going forward.

I hate to break it to Noah, but this does not refute the fact that KSM’s interrogation disrupted the West Coast plot.

It is true that a key cell leader in the West Coast plot was detained in February 2002. According press accounts, his name was Marsan bin Arshad. What is also demonstrably true is that the captured terrorist did not lead us to the members of the cell tasked with carrying out the West Coast plot. Indeed, when KSM was captured 13 months later — in March of 2003 — almost all of the key operatives in the plot were still at large and operating with impunity.

This is what happened next:

· * In March of 2003, the CIA captured another key operative in the West Coast plot — a terrorist named Majid Khan.

· * When KSM was captured later that same month, he knew that Khan was in CIA custody — and assumed that Khan had given us the details of the West Coast plot.

· * KSM refused to provide any information about active plots, telling his interrogators: “Soon you will find out.”

· * After undergoing enhanced-interrogation techniques, KSM revealed that Khan had been told to deliver $50,000 to individuals working for a terrorist named Hambali — the leader of al-Qaeda’s Southeast Asian affiliate Jemmah Islamiyah and KSM’s partner in developing the West Coast plot.

· * CIA officers then confronted Khan with this information from KSM. Khan confirmed that the money had been delivered to an operative named Zubair. He provided both a physical description and contact number for this operative — which led to the capture of Zubair in June 2003.

· * Zubair then provided information that led to the capture of Hambali in August 2003, along with another key operative, a JI terrorist named Bashir bin Lep (aka “Lillie”).

· * Told of Hambali’s capture, KSM then identified Hambali’s younger brother Rusman Gunawan (aka “Gun Gun”) as Hambali’s conduit for communications with al-Qaeda, and the leader of the JI cell that was to carry out the West Coast plot. This information led to the capture of “Gun Gun” in September 2003 in Pakistan.

· * Hambali’s brother then gave us information that led to a cell of 17 JI operatives — the Guraba Cell — that was going to carry out the West Coast plot.

All of these operatives were captured because of information gained from the interrogation of KSM using enhanced interrogation techniques.

To buy Noah’s argument that the plot was over before KSM’s capture, you would have to accept that premise that if Zubair … and Hambali … and Lillie … and Gun Gun … and the 17-member Guraba cell were all left at large and unmolested, they would not have eventually carried out the West Coast plot.

No, I’m sure today they’d have given up and opened up a falafel stand in a Kansas City small town to never plot again.

Thiessen goes on to point out the other information extracted from KSM due to enhanced interrogations.

What is appalling, is the announcement to our enemies on what our limitations are (note that waterboarding hasn’t been done since 2005) and what to expect. It’s similar to taking nukes off the table and saying, “We will never use our nuclear arsenal under any circumstances.”

From Gordon Cucullu’s Inside Gitmo, pg 205:

Military analyst Chuck Nash makes the point that “uncertainty is what scares people the most. If the prisoner knows what the U.S. can and cannot do, much of the uncertainty is removed and thus the element of fear that can be an instrument that wears down the prisoner much sooner than cold and lack of sleep. It is ludicrous that we publish what we are prepared to do. It exposes critical elements to our enemies that they use in their training.”

Compound this endangerment of our national security with what appears to be a politically motivated witch-hunt by obfuscating the truth via half-truths:

His administration’s selective and highly prejudicial release of only partial information about CIA interrogations clearly was designed to gin up outrage against former Bush officials. The release of the information was a pure political hit job masquerading as an act of openness.

The administration ignored near-uniform pleadings by respected intelligence professionals to keep the interrogation descriptions classified, yet refused to declassify the evidence that the interrogations saved countless American lives. Obama highlighted the alleged sins while withholding (often directly redacting) the context, the justifications, and the practical benefits gained. Then his administration went even farther. Not only did it refuse to declassify the exculpatory intelligence, but also it selectively and misleadingly edited a memo by its own national intelligence director about the program.

As reported by the New York Times’ Peter Baker, intelligence director Dennis Blair wrote a memo that included these lines: “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qa’ida organization that was attacking this country.” Baker then reported: “Admiral Blair’s assessment that the interrogation methods did produce important information was deleted from a condensed version of his memo released to the media last Thursday. Also deleted was a line in which he empathized with his predecessors who originally approved some of the harsh tactics after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.”

That last deleted line read as follows: “I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past,” he wrote, “but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time….”

Without Baker’s reporting, those highly important judgments by Obama’s own appointee would have been buried from public view, thus stacking the deck against those whom Blair would absolve.

The Bush Administration was accused of being the most secretive in American history and of being divisive; the Obama Administration claims it will govern as the most transparent and bipartisan.

At this rate, it will go down in history as the most deceptive and partisanly divisive.