Jump to content

waterboarding led to FALSE leads & wasted time of intelligence agencies. NOT A SINGLE terrorist plot was uncovered using the technique...


mizzufalcfan
 Share

Recommended Posts

long read, but worth it for those who still believe torturing people leads to reliable, actionable intelligence. the last two sentences are especially telling.

Detainee's Harsh Treatment Foiled No Plots

Waterboarding, Rough Interrogation of Abu Zubaida Produced False Leads, Officials Say

By Peter Finn and Joby Warrick

Washington Post Staff Writers

Sunday, March 29, 2009; A01

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

Moreover, within weeks of his capture, U.S. officials had gained evidence that made clear they had misjudged Abu Zubaida. President George W. Bush had publicly described him as "al-Qaeda's chief of operations," and other top officials called him a "trusted associate" of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and a major figure in the planning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. None of that was accurate, the new evidence showed.

Abu Zubaida was not even an official member of al-Qaeda, according to a portrait of the man that emerges from court documents and interviews with current and former intelligence, law enforcement and military sources. Rather, he was a "fixer" for radical Muslim ideologues, and he ended up working directly with al-Qaeda only after Sept. 11 -- and that was because the United States stood ready to invade Afghanistan.

Abu Zubaida's case presents the Obama administration with one of its most difficult decisions as it reviews the files of the 241 detainees still held in the U.S. military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Abu Zubaida -- a nom de guerre for the man born Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein -- was never charged in a military commission in Guantanamo Bay, but some U.S. officials are pushing to have him charged now with conspiracy.

The Palestinian, 38 and now in captivity for more than seven years, had alleged links with Ahmed Ressam, an al-Qaeda member dubbed the "Millennium Bomber" for his plot to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve 1999. Jordanian officials tied him to terrorist plots to attack a hotel and Christian holy sites in their country. And he was involved in discussions, after the Taliban government fell in Afghanistan, to strike back at the United States, including with attacks on American soil, according to law enforcement and military sources.

Others in the U.S. government, including CIA officials, fear the consequences of taking a man into court who was waterboarded on largely false assumptions, because of the prospect of interrogation methods being revealed in detail and because of the chance of an acquittal that might set a legal precedent. Instead, they would prefer to send him to Jordan.

Some U.S. officials remain steadfast in their conclusion that Abu Zubaida possessed, and gave up, plenty of useful information about al-Qaeda.

"It's simply wrong to suggest that Abu Zubaida wasn't intimately involved with al-Qaeda," said a U.S. counterterrorism official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much about Abu Zubaida remains classified. "He was one of the terrorist organization's key facilitators, offered new insights into how the organization operated, provided critical information on senior al-Qaeda figures . . . and identified hundreds of al-Qaeda members. How anyone can minimize that information -- some of the best we had at the time on al-Qaeda -- is beyond me."

Until the attacks on New York and Washington, Abu Zubaida was a committed jihadist who regarded the United States as an enemy principally because of its support of Israel. He helped move people in and out of military training camps in Afghanistan, including some men who were or became members of al-Qaeda, according to interviews with multiple sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. He was widely known as a kind of travel agent for those seeking such training.

That role, it turned out, would play a part in deciding his fate once in U.S. hands: Because his name often turned up in intelligence traffic linked to al-Qaeda transactions, some U.S. intelligence leaders were convinced that Abu Zubaida was a major figure in the terrorist organization, according to officials engaged in the discussions at the time.

But Abu Zubaida had strained and limited relations with bin Laden and only vague knowledge before the Sept. 11 attacks that something was brewing, the officials said.

His account was echoed in another U.S. interrogation going on at the same time, one never previously described publicly.

Noor al-Deen, a Syrian, was a teenager when he was captured along with Abu Zubaida at a Pakistani safe house. Perhaps because of his youth and agitated state, he readily answered U.S. questions, officials said, and the questioning went on for months, first in Pakistan and later in a detention facility in Morocco. His description of Abu Zubaida was consistent: The older man was a well-known functionary with links to al-Qaeda, but he knew little detailed information about the group's operations.

The counterterrorism official rejected that characterization, saying, "Based on what he shared during his interrogations, he was certainly aware of many of al-Qaeda's activities and operatives."

One connection Abu Zubaida had with al-Qaeda was a long relationship with Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the self-proclaimed mastermind behind the Sept. 11 attacks, officials said. Mohammed had approached Abu Zubaida in the 1990s about finding financiers to support a suicide mission, involving a small plane, targeting the World Trade Center. Abu Zubaida declined but told him to try bin Laden, according to a law enforcement source.

Abu Zubaida quickly told U.S. interrogators of Mohammed and of others he knew to be in al-Qaeda, and he revealed the plans of the low-level operatives who fled Afghanistan with him. Some were intent on returning to target American forces with bombs; others wanted to strike on American soil again, according to military documents and law enforcement sources.

Such intelligence was significant but not blockbuster material. Frustrated, the Bush administration ratcheted up the pressure -- for the first time approving the use of increasingly harsh interrogations, including waterboarding.

Such treatment at the hands of the CIA has raised questions among human rights groups about whether Abu Zubaida is capable of standing trial and how the taint of torture would affect any prosecution.

The International Committee of the Red Cross said in a confidential report that the treatment of Abu Zubaida and other, subsequent high-value detainees while in CIA custody constituted torture. And Abu Zubaida refused to cooperate with FBI "clean teams" who attempted to re-interview high-value detainees to build cases uncontaminated by allegations of torture, according to military sources.

"The government doesn't retreat from who KSM is, and neither does KSM," said Joseph Margulies, a professor of law at Northwestern University and one of Abu Zubaida's attorneys, using an abbreviation for Mohammed. "With Zubaida, it's different. The government seems finally to understand he is not at all the person they thought he was. But he was tortured. And that's just a profoundly embarrassing position for the government to be in."

His lawyers want the U.S. government to arrange for Abu Zubaida's transfer to a country besides Jordan -- possibly Saudi Arabia, where he has relatives.

The Justice Department declined repeated requests for comment.

Even before President Obama suspended military commissions at the military base in Cuba, prosecutors had expunged Abu Zubaida's name from the charge sheets of a number of detainees who were captured with him and stood accused of conspiracy and material support for terrorism.

When they were first charged in 2005, these detainees were accused of conspiring with Abu Zubaida, and the charge sheets contained numerous references to Abu Zubaida's alleged terrorist activities. When the charges were refiled last year, his name had vanished from the documents.

Abu Zubaida was born in 1971 in Saudi Arabia to a Palestinian father and a Jordanian mother, according to court papers. In 1991, he moved to Afghanistan and joined mujaheddin fighting Afghan communists, part of the civil war that raged after the 1989 withdrawal of the Soviet Union. He was seriously wounded by shrapnel from a mortar blast in 1992, sustaining head injuries that left him with severe memory problems, which still linger.

In 1994, he became the Pakistan-based coordinator for the Khalden training camp, outside the Afghan city of Khowst. He directed recruits to the camp and raised money for it, according to testimony he gave at a March 2007 hearing in Guantanamo Bay.

The Khalden camp, which provided basic training in small arms, had been in existence since the war against the Soviets. According to the 9/11 Commission's report, Khalden and another camp called Derunta "were not al Qaeda facilities," but "Abu Zubaydah had an agreement with Bin Laden to conduct reciprocal recruiting efforts whereby promising trainees at the camps could be invited to join al Qaeda."

Abu Zubaida disputes this, saying he admitted to such a connection with bin Laden only as the result of torture.

When the Sept. 11 attacks occurred, Abu Zubaida was in Kabul, the Afghan capital. In anticipation of an American attack, he allied himself with al-Qaeda, he said at a 2007 hearing, but he soon fled into hiding in Pakistan.

On the night of March 28, 2002, Pakistani and American intelligence officers raided the Faisalabad safe house where Abu Zubaida had been staying. A firefight ensued, and Abu Zubaida was captured after jumping from the building's second floor. He had been shot three times.

Cowering on the ground floor and also shot was Noor al-Deen, Abu Zubaida's 19-year-old colleague; one source said that he worshiped the older man as a hero. Deen was wide-eyed with fear and appeared to believe that he was about to be executed, remembered John Kiriakou, a former CIA officer who participated in the raid.

"He was frightened -- mostly over what we were going to do with him," Kiriakou said. "He had come to the conclusion that his life was over."

Deen was eventually transferred to Syria, but attempts to firmly establish his current whereabouts were unsuccessful.

His interrogations corroborated what CIA officials were hearing from Abu Zubaida, but there were other clues at the time that pointed to a less-than-central role for the Palestinian. As a veritable travel agent for jihadists, Abu Zubaida operated in a public world of Internet transactions and ticket agents.

"He was the above-ground support," said one former Justice Department official closely involved in the early investigation of Abu Zubaida. "He was the guy keeping the safe house, and that's not someone who gets to know the details of the plans. To make him the mastermind of anything is ridiculous."

As weeks passed after the capture without significant new confessions, the Bush White House and some at the CIA became convinced that tougher measures had to be tried.

The pressure from upper levels of the government was "tremendous," driven in part by the routine of daily meetings in which policymakers would press for updates, one official remembered.

"They couldn't stand the idea that there wasn't anything new," the official said. "They'd say, 'You aren't working hard enough.' There was both a disbelief in what he was saying and also a desire for retribution -- a feeling that 'He's going to talk, and if he doesn't talk, we'll do whatever.' "

The application of techniques such as waterboarding -- a form of simulated drowning that U.S. officials had previously deemed a crime -- prompted a sudden torrent of names and facts. Abu Zubaida began unspooling the details of various al-Qaeda plots, including plans to unleash weapons of mass destruction.

Abu Zubaida's revelations triggered a series of alerts and sent hundreds of CIA and FBI investigators scurrying in pursuit of phantoms. The interrogations led directly to the arrest of Jose Padilla, the man Abu Zubaida identified as heading an effort to explode a radiological "dirty bomb" in an American city. Padilla was held in a naval brig for 3 1/2 years on the allegation but was never charged in any such plot. Every other lead ultimately dissolved into smoke and shadow, according to high-ranking former U.S. officials with access to classified reports.

"We spent millions of dollars chasing false alarms," one former intelligence official said.

Despite the poor results, Bush White House officials and CIA leaders continued to insist that the harsh measures applied against Abu Zubaida and others produced useful intelligence that disrupted terrorist plots and saved American lives.

Two weeks ago, Bush's vice president, Richard B. Cheney, renewed that assertion in an interview with CNN, saying that "the enhanced interrogation program" stopped "a great many" terrorist attacks on the level of Sept. 11.

"I've seen a report that was written, based upon the intelligence that we collected then, that itemizes the specific attacks that were stopped by virtue of what we learned through those programs," Cheney asserted, adding that the report is "still classified," and, "I can't give you the details of it without violating classification."

Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said.

Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 69
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Some of these guys want to be martyrs and look to kill themselves at Gitmo. They want those 72 virgins as quickly as possible. I guess if I were one of them the first thing I might tell those going to water board me is I won't be fighting for my life at all. I will be swallowing the water hoping you will kill me so it will recruit more people to fight Jahid. I guess if I was Al Qaeda I might even allow some of my people to get captured and killed by the Americans while they were being questioned just so this might help recruit people. When people want to die water boarding might give them a way out of their situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some of these guys want to be martyrs and look to kill themselves at Gitmo. They want those 72 virgins as quickly as possible. I guess if I were one of them the first thing I might tell those going to water board me is I won't be fighting for my life at all. I will be swallowing the water hoping you will kill me so it will recruit more people to fight Jahid. I guess if I was Al Qaeda I might even allow some of my people to get captured and killed by the Americans while they were being questioned just so this might help recruit people. When people want to die water boarding might give them a way out of their situation.

do you understand the reflexive, non-voluntary nature of asphyxiation? even if someone wanted to die they couldn't just sit there & suck water until they passed out. that's impossible.

try this little experiment if you don't believe me. have a friend watch & try to stay under water in a pool or someplace until you pass out. you won't be able to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather torture a terrorist and get no useful information than not torture them and get the same information.

alright, there you have it. you are okay w/ torturing prisoners.

just so long as you don't pretend it's not torture & don't whine & cry about how evil the terrorists are when they torture americans. b/c morally, you are just like al qaeda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would rather torture a terrorist and get no useful information than not torture them and get the same information.

also, you might actually read the article before responding again. it's not that we got NO information out of them. it's that we got BAD information that wasted precious intelligence resources. that time could have been spent on useful techniques or tracking actionable intelligence instead of running down wild goose chases.

it's not even that torture is not effective. it's that torture is LESS EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT than other, more reliable techniques. IOW, torture makes us MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS b/c it diverts attention from reliable intelligence.

who knows, maybe instead of wasting a bunch of time chasing down false leads from torture techniques we might have actually found bin laden & brought him to justice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also, you might actually read the article before responding again. it's not that we got NO information out of them. it's that we got BAD information that wasted precious intelligence resources. that time could have been spent on useful techniques or tracking actionable intelligence instead of running down wild goose chases.

it's not even that torture is not effective. it's that torture is LESS EFFECTIVE & EFFICIENT than other, more reliable techniques. IOW, torture makes us MORE SUSCEPTIBLE TO TERRORIST ATTACKS b/c it diverts attention from reliable intelligence.

who knows, maybe instead of wasting a bunch of time chasing down false leads from torture techniques we might have actually found bin laden & brought him to justice.

I agree. We should have shot and killed him in Faisalabad.

"Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said."

Do you or the the author really think that the CIA is going tell a Senate committee things that are classified and things that they have no reason to know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright, there you have it. you are okay w/ torturing prisoners.

just so long as you don't pretend it's not torture & don't whine & cry about how evil the terrorists are when they torture americans. b/c morally, you are just like al qaeda.

I'm fine with torturing certain prisoners. Don't be a terrorist, k?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. We should have shot and killed him in Faisalabad.

"Since 2006, Senate intelligence committee members have pressed the CIA, in classified briefings, to provide examples of specific leads that were obtained from Abu Zubaida through the use of waterboarding and other methods, according to officials familiar with the requests.

The agency provided none, the officials said."

Do you or the the author really think that the CIA is going tell a Senate committee things that are classified and things that they have no reason to know?

i don't mind not taking prisoners. i do mind torture as an intelligence-gathering tool.

yes, they would make public specific plots uncovered & foiled using torture if they had any. jose padilla ring a bell? they held a prime-time press conference announcing they had stopped a dirty bomb plot on US soil (nevermind that there was never an actual plot in the works). intelligence officials would have splashed teh front pages w/ information about a foiled terrorist plot stopped by the techniques they are defending.

as it turns out, they go to congress & lie about getting actionable intelligence using torture. when pressed on that actionable intelligence, they clam up. now we find out that the intelligence gathered led to false leads that wasted intelligence resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

except that you are acting like a terrorist by promoting torture of prisoners. morally, you are identical to the taliban.

ironic that you are telling others not to be a terrorist, huh?

Yep, torturing someone who kills innocent people for information is the same as killing innocent people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't mind not taking prisoners. i do mind torture as an intelligence-gathering tool.

yes, they would make public specific plots uncovered & foiled using torture if they had any. jose padilla ring a bell? they held a prime-time press conference announcing they had stopped a dirty bomb plot on US soil (nevermind that there was never an actual plot in the works). intelligence officials would have splashed teh front pages w/ information about a foiled terrorist plot stopped by the techniques they are defending.

as it turns out, they go to congress & lie about getting actionable intelligence using torture. when pressed on that actionable intelligence, they clam up. now we find out that the intelligence gathered led to false leads that wasted intelligence resources.

The CIA, or any other government security branch of the federal government, should not have to make public any specific plots that they uncover regardless of how they foiled potential plans. For many reasons, including the security and safety of agents amongst other things, they should never go to the press or Senators and tell about foiled plans or how they discovered potential terrorist plans. The CIA should be allowed to use all necessary means of gathering information from held suspected terrorists. Personally, I wouldn't take them alive and rely on other intelligence gathering methods, but that is just me.

After the first false lead that we were given by any suspected terrorists, the suspected terrorist should have to pay for their false information. Three strikes and you're out. Then again, that is just my own views on the matter at hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, torturing someone who kills innocent people for information is the same as killing innocent people.

1. several of the people locked up in gitmo were innocent by the government's own admission.

2. it's torture, the same as they do to our prisoners. the US sentenced a japanese officer to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding US soldiers. now you are condoning the same criminal behavior just b/c your political party tells you it's okay. try some critical thinking for a change.

3. i recommended that you read teh article before responding so you wouldn't make a fool of yourself once again. obviously you didn't take that advice. the information we got led to false leads that wasted valuable intelligence resources. torturing prisoners made us less safe. not sure how many times that has to be repeated before it sinks into your skull, but perhaps this time around you will go back & read teh article before replying again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

alright, there you have it. you are okay w/ torturing prisoners.

just so long as you don't pretend it's not torture & don't whine & cry about how evil the terrorists are when they torture americans. b/c morally, you are just like al qaeda.

Overstate much?

This assumes -- falsely -- that waterboarding is morally equivalent to beheading, as one example.

If also assumes -- almost certainly also falsely -- that the original poster is in favor of torturing and killing innocents to achieve the greater good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The CIA, or any other government security branch of the federal government, should not have to make public any specific plots that they uncover regardless of how they foiled potential plans. For many reasons, including the security and safety of agents amongst other things, they should never go to the press or Senators and tell about foiled plans or how they discovered potential terrorist plans. The CIA should be allowed to use all necessary means of gathering information from held suspected terrorists. Personally, I wouldn't take them alive and rely on other intelligence gathering methods, but that is just me.

After the first false lead that we were given by any suspected terrorists, the suspected terrorist should have to pay for their false information. Three strikes and you're out. Then again, that is just my own views on the matter at hand.

red herring.

the cia & intelligence agencies DO GO TO THE PRESS when they foil a plot, as they did after taking jose padilla into custody. it's not whether they SHOULD or not, it's a fact that they DO IT AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE. given that simple fact, their inability to point to specific plots uncovered using torture is damning.

first, torture is a war crime. as i mentioned before, our country has prosecuted foreign soldiers as war criminals for doing the very thing you are advocating.

second, it's short-sighted to condone torture b/c this is not going to be the last war we ever fight. you have zero moral standing to criticize countries in future wars who torture our prisoners. & now our country has no moral standing to prosecute others for war crimes that we have committed ourselves. put simply, next time a US prisoner is tortured & you get upset, you will be a rank hypocrite.

finally, torture is an immoral act. i thought republicans were supposed to be the party of values & morality. i'm starting to see now why the GOP is getting labeled as the "american taliban".

you are ASSuming that the prisoner has actual information about terrorist plots. the prisoner says "i don't know", so they torture him. to make the pain stop, he makes up some fake stories. they check it out & it proves false. so they demand he tell them information about a terrorist plot. he says, "i don't know" (b/c, you know, he really doesn't know), so they torture him some more. he makes up a more believable story in order to make the pain stop. they check it out & find another wild goose chase, & so it goes. again, go read the story. the person they were torturing was not connected enough to have hte information the military wanted. so they tortured a guy who DID NOT HAVE THE INFORMATION THEY WANTED & who had to resort to lying to get temporary relief from the torture.

my god, use some critical thinking skills for a change instead of blindly gobbling up whatever partisan crap the people in your party tell you. torture has zero chance of working when the prisoner doesn't have the information. & in that situation, you waste a lot of precious intelligence resources chasing down the lies told by the person trying to stop the torture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. several of the people locked up in gitmo were innocent by the government's own admission.

2. it's torture, the same as they do to our prisoners. the US sentenced a japanese officer to 15 years hard labor for waterboarding US soldiers. now you are condoning the same criminal behavior just b/c your political party tells you it's okay. try some critical thinking for a change.

3. i recommended that you read teh article before responding so you wouldn't make a fool of yourself once again. obviously you didn't take that advice. the information we got led to false leads that wasted valuable intelligence resources. torturing prisoners made us less safe. not sure how many times that has to be repeated before it sinks into your skull, but perhaps this time around you will go back & read teh article before replying again.

1. Don't lock up innocent people.

2. I know it's torture. That's why I said it's torture. Americans are going to get tortured regardless. And just because I think you're a lame troll and I don't care about the feelings of terrorists doesn't make me a Republican. I don't claim a party, but I voted for Obama because the alternative was McCain. Try not being a d-bag for a change.

3. I never said I think we should torture everyone we get our hands on and blindly follow everything they tell us. Obviously in my ideal world the people conducting these interrogations would be intelligent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

terrorist use terror tactics to get what they want. torturing someone is terrorizing him. who knows if they are terrorist??

There is a difference terrorizing someone who was found on a battlefield with his weapon pointing the wrong way, and torturing someone who had the nerve to teach girls to read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overstate much?

This assumes -- falsely -- that waterboarding is morally equivalent to beheading, as one example.

If also assumes -- almost certainly also falsely -- that the original poster is in favor of torturing and killing innocents to achieve the greater good.

torture IS a terrorist act. the intent is to instill terror in a person to force that person to give up certain information. waterboarding & the other torture techniques used by the military are morally equivalent to beheading & murder.

we DID torture innocent people, & this person has not spoken out against that. in fact, this person supports torturing anyone SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, whether that suspicion is warranted or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

torture IS a terrorist act. the intent is to instill terror in a person to force that person to give up certain information. waterboarding & the other torture techniques used by the military are morally equivalent to beheading & murder.

we DID torture innocent people, & this person has not spoken out against that. in fact, this person supports torturing anyone SUSPECTED of being a terrorist, whether that suspicion is warranted or not.

Where did I say I support torturing innocent people? I said I don't care if we torture terrorists. Terrorists meaning actual terrorists.

And chasing my dog around the house with the vacuum cleaner is terrorizing. Is that the moral equivalent of beheading my dog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...