Report on CIA details 'brutal' post-9/11 interrogations

[chuckd]

I think what amazes me more than anything else about this is the level of cooperation received by the Democrat led Senate Intelligence Committee from a branch of the Executive Department when compared to the level of cooperation currently being received by House Republican Committees who are trying to investigate any of several current administration scandals.

Having said that, here is another viewpoint of the Feinstein report.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECLASSIFIED

CIA Torture Report: Bush Was Kept in the Dark for Years

DEC 9, 2014 11:13 AM EST

By Josh Rogin & Eli Lake

President George W. Bush was never briefed by the Central Intelligence Agency on the details of harsh interrogation techniques and secret detention of terror suspects for the first four years of its controversial program, and when he did find out the details, he was uncomfortable with some of the practices, according to a long-awaited report by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

The 500-page declassified executive summary of the majority staffs 6,700-page investigation into CIA rendition, detention and interrogation practices after Sept. 11 states that despite agency efforts to keep the Bush administration informed about the program, top White House officials repeatedly resisted having the CIA brief cabinet-level figures about the details, and CIA officials were not permitted to brief Bush directly until mid-2006, more than four years after the president signed a broad executive order authorizing the program, according to Senate Democratic aides who briefed reporters ahead of todays release.

When Bush finally heard the details of the harsh interrogation techniques that were used against CIA detainees, he was uncomfortable with some of them and expressed dismay that some detainees were required to remain in stress positions for long amounts of time, to the point that they had no choice but to soil themselves, the aides said.

Based on CIAs internal correspondence, the committees investigation will also state that CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss admitted they had never briefed Bush directly on the techniques, despite that in 2004, the CIA Inspector General recommended they do so:

Entire article here: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-12-09/cia-torture-report-bush-was-kept-in-the-dark

This article is more bs political spin. Both Republicans and Democrats knew what was going on as early as August of 2002 and were briefed regularly on what was going on from August 2002 to 2009. At least Chemney, as much as I dislike him, has some balls here. I suppose the Bush clan are too worried about public image with Jeb's bid to have any balls and man up to what they did or endorsed. Speaks volumes about that entire family.

Care to attack the article with something other than conjecture?

See above from current CIA director Brennan and Jose Rodriquez.

--------

Former CIA official Jose Rodriguez joined Sean Hannity on "Hannity" tonight to discuss the release of a report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation methods.

"It's a very dark day for the CIA," Rodriguez, the former Director of the National Clandestine Service, said. "I think the CIA's being thrown under the bus."

He explained that politicians are playing "political football" with the agency, and asserted that both the Senate and the committee were briefed multiple times on what the CIA was doing.

"We feel that we briefed them, we briefed them thoroughly, and they are hypocritical," Rodriguez said.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/09/ex-cia-head-report-fallout-obama-admin-prefers-kill-afar

You missed the mark with your post.

1. My original post concerned information that George Bush was not personally informed of the procedures for the first four years of its existence. I then provided a link to the Bloomberg article containing information to that affect. My initial post contained the following sentence.

"Based on CIA’s internal correspondence, the committee’s investigation will also state that CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss admitted they had never briefed Bush directly on the techniques, despite that in 2004, the CIA Inspector General recommended they do so:"

2. You then responded with a rant against the entire Bush family and claimed my post was, in your words, "bs political spin".

3. I questioned your response and asked for proof of your "bs" statement.

4. You then responded with a link containing the following statement which states the Senate and the committee were briefed yet it fails to support your "bs political spin" assertion.

"He explained that politicians are playing "political football" with the agency, and asserted that both the Senate and the committee were briefed multiple times on what the CIA was doing."

Nowhere in any of the four links you have recently provided does it say anything about Bush being informed during the first four years nor does it even relate to any former Presidential briefings.

A judge would likely dismiss your case based on the evidence you have presented.

[mania]

John McCain. I respect and get it.

Letting McCain dictate policy here, however, is a bit like permitting a rape victim to draft the laws regarding the rights of those committing rape.

Oh come now.... Your saying a rape victim is less qualified to talk about the violence associated with forced sex

As opposed to what????

A bunch of lawyers & keyboard warriors raised on John Wayne movies?

Such fools that utter such do not have the strength to lift John McCains spit off the ground

Show some respect if not intelligence in lieu of zero actual experience

[chuckd]

Easy there, pardner. You might want to watch that John Wayne talk.

[DeepInTheForest]

I call out the despicable pro-torture comments in this thread. All the more so because the use of torture endangers innocent Western lives. There will be blowback. There already has been. But even if it did not endanger Western lives, it should be opposed. Because torture is wrong.

Facts:

1) The sadists posting pro-torture rants here would have us believe that those tortured were all terrorists. Far from true. Many, if not most, of the detainees subjected to torture were innocent. They were turned in by personal enemies who wanted their land, or had some personal feud. Janat Gul was delivered to the CIA in July 2003 by a foreign ally. He was tortured so badly that he was begging the CIA to kill him. By October, he was freed-- his accuser had recanted. Before the release of this report, his case was unknown, because they don't want us to know these things.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/dec/09/cia-report-torture-program-disarray

2) Even the former head of the CIA admits that torture was not how Bin Laden's location was determined.

Leon Panetta, in a letter to John McCain: " ...no detainee in CIA custody revealed the facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information was discovered through other intelligence means."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum%E2%80%90line/post/exclusive%E2%80%90private%E2%80%90letter%E2%80%90from%E2%80%90cia%E2%80%90chief%E2%80%90undercuts%E2%80%90claim%E2%80%90torture%E2%80%90was%E2%80%90key%E2%80%90to%E2%80%90killing%E2%80%90bin%E2%80%90laden/2011/03/03/AFLFF04G_blog.html#pagebreak

3) Former Attorney General Mukasey backpedaled on his assertions that torture was effective in obtaining critical information:

"... it appears that Mukasey is straining to make a connection between the killing of bin Laden and the harsh interrogation techniques that appears, at best, tangential. Otherwise, he would not have had to resort to verbal sleight of hand to make his case. McCain, by contrast, appears to clearly connect the dots from the courier to bin Laden, citing information derived from conventional techniques."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/mccain-vs-mukasey-on-cia-tactics-and-the-trail-to-osama-bin-laden/2011/05/13/AFbA112G_blog.html?hpid=z3

4) From the Associated Press:

The most high-profile detainee linked to the bin Laden investigation was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, whom the CIA waterboarded 183 times. Mohammed, intelligence officials have noted, confirmed after his 2003 capture that he knew an important al-Qaeda courier with the nom de guerre Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti.

But the report concludes that such information wasn't critical, according to the aides. Mohammed only discussed al-Kuwaiti months after being waterboarded, while he was under standard interrogation, they said. And Mohammed neither acknowledged al-Kuwaiti's significance nor provided interrogators with the courier's real name.

....The CIA also has pointed to the value of information provided by senior al-Qaeda operative Abu Faraj al-Libi, who was captured in 2005 and held at a secret prison.

.... But the report concludes evidence gathered from al-Libi wasn't significant either, the aides said.

Essentially, they argued, Mohammed, al-Libi and others subjected to harsh treatment confirmed only what investigators already knew about the courier. And when they denied the courier's significance or provided misleading information, investigators would only have considered that significant if they already presumed the courier's importance.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-panel-says-torture-didnt-help-us-in-hunt-for-osama-bin-laden-ap/

Anyone who believes that torturing people is going to help win the now-endless "war on terror" is, in my opinion, out of their minds. Who are the terrorists? You don't think torturing innocent people qualifies as terrorism? And the bestial cruelty displayed in this thread is guaranteed to perpetuate an endless conflict. Being of sound mind, I don't think that's a path I want for myself or my descendants. I don't expect to change any of their minds, but for those who think torture is so effective: why haven't we won yet? And if there were demonstrable cases where it worked, don't you think we would have heard its defenders in government crowing about it from the rooftops?

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Anyone who believes that torturing people is going to help win the now-endless "war on terror" is, in my opinion, out of their minds. Who are the terrorists?

They are religious zealots who no one is going to change. They deserve whatever they get.

You don't think torturing innocent people qualifies as terrorism?

I don't know. War is hell. You'd have to ask the scores of people who jumped from the Twin Towers to avoid being burned to death.

And the bestial cruelty displayed in this thread is guaranteed to perpetuate an endless conflict. Being of sound mind, I don't think that's a path I want for myself or my descendants. I don't expect to change any of their minds, but for those who think torture is so effective: why haven't we won yet?

The idea isn't to win because we can't. Again it's a religious zealotry which demands killing as many as possible.

And if there were demonstrable cases where it worked, don't you think we would have heard its defenders in government crowing about it from the rooftops?

No. That information is supposed to be classified until some traitors yell about it from the rooftops.

[Lissos]

........During the communist uprisings in Burma the British interrogated and got valuable information from the insurgents. During the Vietnam war the Americans remembered this and asked for advice from the British for their interrogations of the Vietcong, their advice was ignored because it involved speaking with the insurgents in a civilized manner over tea and cakes and making sure that their dependents received food and health care as long as the insurgent was in prison, the Americans couldn't believe that you could get information this way despite having had the proof that this worked.

Arguable if this is directly linked to the subject or not, but here is an interesting free read.

Puncturing the Counter Insurgency Myth, by Andrew Mumford (Link)

Synposis :

This monograph holds that an aura of mythology has surrounded conventional academic and military perceptions of British performance in the realm of irregular warfare. It identifies 10 myths regarding British counterinsurgency performance and seeks to puncture them by critically assessing the efficacy of the British way of counterinsurgency from the much-vaunted, yet over-hyped, Malayan Emergency to the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in 2009. It challenges perceptions of the British military as an effective learning institution when it comes to irregular warfare and critically assesses traditional British counterinsurgency strategic maxims regarding hearts and minds and minimum force"

direct link to a .Pdf download of the article.

[Jay Sata]

Note to terrorists and would be terrorists.. no body promise you a rose garden, you knew

very well what are the risks associated with those terrorist actives, we see you on Al-Jazeera

looking so smug and macho walking around with the ninja outfits and tone of emmo and guns,

now take it like the piece of crap that you're,

just say thanks to your Allah the Israelis didn't interrogate you...

Your post reflects badly on you and maybe attitudes like yours are the reason USA is targeted in the first place.

Why do you constantly make excuses and justifications for terrorists and try to demonize anyone trying to stop them?

The problem is the USA has found their techniques come back to haunt them. The orange jump suits and public torture have taken on a new dimension in the ISIS terrorists using similar tactics but with the added horror of beheading American and other captives.

Let us not forget Bush ,Rumsfeld and Cheney started all this and have unleashed a massive hornets nest.

Everywhere the USA goes with their crazy foreign policy they leave a mess in their wake.

Iraq,Afghanistan and fomenting the overthrow of Libya plus the huge drug industry in Latin America.

Can someone please show me a US foreign policy success in the last forty years?

[wooloomooloo]

The CIA are an absolute disgrace and far too soft.

[Jay Sata]

The CIA are an absolute disgrace and far too soft.

I did not see them rescuing the western and US hostages beheaded in orange jump suits to mimic Guantanamo Bay.

Sadly this type of Rumsfeld mindset just promotes retaliation.

[wooloomooloo]

There's no rules to war.

[Lissos]

........During the communist uprisings in Burma the British interrogated and got valuable information from the insurgents. During the Vietnam war the Americans remembered this and asked for advice from the British for their interrogations of the Vietcong, their advice was ignored because it involved speaking with the insurgents in a civilized manner over tea and cakes and making sure that their dependents received food and health care as long as the insurgent was in prison, the Americans couldn't believe that you could get information this way despite having had the proof that this worked.

To comment further on that, I would be wary of believing that there may be a stock template which can be picked up and used. What may have brought results in one particular scenario in a particular culture, addressing a particular ideology, in a different era, may now be archaic when attempted with the current situation today. While there are perhaps 'fundamentals' to how everyone wants to be treated, there are probably all sorts of other factors of the different idelogy being dealt with, along with the particular age and globalised world we live in now, that might render certain methods of counter insurgency in the past, far less effective today, counter productive or even provocative. If I may ponder on the British prison system for a moment, I believe the system goes out of its way to appease Muslims with Halal food, a prayer room, the prisoner's brood in council provided housing is probably receiving a ton of state benefits, etc. Despite all of this, we're still the Kuffar at the end of the day and there are even British Jihadists (or mouthpiece supporters) who smugly encourage claiming of state benefits as a method of robbing the Kuffar of cash which can be used for malicious purposes. If the 'stick' method may fail spectacularly in some scenarios, the 'carrot' method can also faily spectacularly too. In this way, the "tea and cake" has been addressed and so has "food and health care" for the brood, but we're still filthy kuffar to some of these folks.

[zydeco]

........During the communist uprisings in Burma the British interrogated and got valuable information from the insurgents. During the Vietnam war the Americans remembered this and asked for advice from the British for their interrogations of the Vietcong, their advice was ignored because it involved speaking with the insurgents in a civilized manner over tea and cakes and making sure that their dependents received food and health care as long as the insurgent was in prison, the Americans couldn't believe that you could get information this way despite having had the proof that this worked.

Arguable if this is directly linked to the subject or not, but here is an interesting free read.

Puncturing the Counter Insurgency Myth, by Andrew Mumford (Link)

Synposis :

This monograph holds that an aura of mythology has surrounded conventional academic and military perceptions of British performance in the realm of irregular warfare. It identifies 10 myths regarding British counterinsurgency performance and seeks to puncture them by critically assessing the efficacy of the British way of counterinsurgency from the much-vaunted, yet over-hyped, Malayan Emergency to the withdrawal of combat troops from Iraq in 2009. It challenges perceptions of the British military as an effective learning institution when it comes to irregular warfare and critically assesses traditional British counterinsurgency strategic maxims regarding hearts and minds and minimum force"

direct link to a .Pdf download of the article.

And, in fact, the US did borrow directly from the British during Vietnam . . . and it was a disaster. The so-called "strategic hamlets" program was adopted precisely because of its use in the Malayan Emergency of the 1950s. It was the single most disastrous policy directed towards Vietnamese civilians during the war, and it made permanent enemies out of huge portions of the population.

[mania]

Even the former head of the CIA admits that torture was not how Bin Laden's location was determined.

I would tend to agree because When you think about it....Even if someone could get "useful" info out of a prisoner

it probably has a shelf life measured in hours.

Yet seems many prisoners are there (Gitmo) & abused for a long time.

Counting on how long it even takes to get someone to Gitmo the info has an even shorter

shelf life.

Even a simple military once informed one of theirs were captured would

ask themselves what did the captured know? Then make changes accordingly

Especially given Gitmo's reputation

So unless a person was thrown into Gitmo the same day of OBL's execution &

confessed his whereabouts...then add planning attack time etc etc etc & it becomes

much less plausible

I doubt anyone in Gitmo knew where he was at the moment.

I would guess it was more thru footwork by Spooks like Raymond Allen Davis

that his whereabouts was discovered.

[Ulysses G.]

Even the former head of the CIA admits that torture was not how Bin Laden's location was determined.

Actually no. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed that enhanced interrogation techniques aided the effort to find bin Laden. He admitted that "Some of it came from ... interrogation tactics that were used", but he also felt that he might have been able to get Bin Ladin without using enhanced interrogation. al-Qaeda captives who broke under enhanced interrogation disclosed the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. By tracking him, the CIA was able to locate bin Laden’s own hideout in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad.

[NeverSure]

-snip-

Can someone please show me a US foreign policy success in the last forty years?

I dunno. Why don't you ask Putin how things are going for him today?

[snarky66]

No torture ever happened.

[snarky66]

This report was put together by a bunch of democrat hacks whose sole intention is to tear down the United States of America.

Job well done Trotskites.

[ThaiFelix]

If it smells like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, looks like a terrorist, torture it as a terrorist. You can always say your sorry later. If one life was saved by doing this I am all for it. Screw the Democratic liberals.

Apparently not even one life was saved. But at least one prisoner was tortured to death.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cia-torture-report-shows-the-cia-tortured-suspects-at-secret-overseas-sites-for-years-achieved-nothing-from-it-and-lied-about-it-9913901.html

"Regular beatings, slamming detainees against walls, soaking them in cold water, ice baths, extended periods of sleep deprivation – lasting for one month in one case – confining them to small spaces and even threatening them repeatedly with death while in custody, were among the methods used to try to make detainees talk. At least three detainees were told their families would be killed if they didn’t co-operate."

...more disturbing account in the link. The hypocrisy of the home of the brave and land of the free is astounding.

Makes you wonder who the terrorists really are.

"Makes you wonder who the terrorists really are." ??? The report clearly shows who the real terrorists are.......the good ol USA 'protecting' the world again (and making a few bucks on the side for a mere few).

[ThaiFelix]

Note to terrorists and would be terrorists.. no body promise you a rose garden, you knew

very well what are the risks associated with those terrorist actives, we see you on Al-Jazeera

looking so smug and macho walking around with the ninja outfits and tone of emmo and guns,

now take it like the piece of crap that you're,

just say thanks to your Allah the Israelis didn't interrogate you...

Your post reflects badly on you and maybe attitudes like yours are the reason USA is targeted in the first place.

Why do you constantly make excuses and justifications for terrorists and try to demonize anyone trying to stop them?

The problem is the USA has found their techniques come back to haunt them. The orange jump suits and public torture have taken on a new dimension in the ISIS terrorists using similar tactics but with the added horror of beheading American and other captives.

Let us not forget Bush ,Rumsfeld and Cheney started all this and have unleashed a massive hornets nest.

Everywhere the USA goes with their crazy foreign policy they leave a mess in their wake.

Iraq,Afghanistan and fomenting the overthrow of Libya plus the huge drug industry in Latin America.

Can someone please show me a US foreign policy success in the last forty years?

"Can someone please show me a US foreign policy success in the last forty years?"

Yes easy, US foreign policy was successful in making an awful lot of money for the Bush/Cheney gang.

[CarlTyson]

This report was put together by a bunch of democrat hacks whose sole intention is to tear down the United States of America.

Job well done Trotskites.

Thank you, FOX 'News' viewer. So predictable. You forgot to mention Bengaaaazi...

I thought the Democrats put a stop to the torture?

[h90]

If it smells like a terrorist, acts like a terrorist, looks like a terrorist, torture it as a terrorist. You can always say your sorry later. If one life was saved by doing this I am all for it. Screw the Democratic liberals.

But if you torture by mistake an innocent guy? If you bomb civilians who just happen to be on the wrong place with a drone than you can label yourself as terrorist as well.

Or the cynical comment from one Islamic fanatic that their beheading is more merciful than the torture of US has a valid point.

As well it is perfect propaganda tool for fanatics.

[Johpa]

Onec again Ali Soufan's assertions in his book The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda published in 2011 have been shown to be substantially correct in that CIA torture techniques yielded little intelligence whereas traditional FBI interrogation techniques did yield valuable intelligence.

[arjunadawn]

Even the former head of the CIA admits that torture was not how Bin Laden's location was determined.

I would tend to agree because When you think about it....Even if someone could get "useful" info out of a prisoner

it probably has a shelf life measured in hours.

Yet seems many prisoners are there (Gitmo) & abused for a long time.

Counting on how long it even takes to get someone to Gitmo the info has an even shorter

shelf life.

Even a simple military once informed one of theirs were captured would

ask themselves what did the captured know? Then make changes accordingly

Especially given Gitmo's reputation

So unless a person was thrown into Gitmo the same day of OBL's execution &

confessed his whereabouts...then add planning attack time etc etc etc & it becomes

much less plausible

I doubt anyone in Gitmo knew where he was at the moment.

I would guess it was more thru footwork by Spooks like Raymond Allen Davis

that his whereabouts was discovered.

The tactical shelf life you refer to is primarily related to battlefield intel, troop size, equip, location, etc. It has a very short shelf life after which soldiers are encouraged to trade for less abuse. What was wanted from combatant detainees was this, but more. The west was in a cultural, alien environment with regard to all aspects of the threat, the regional/international players, all of it. Useless throw=away info as simple as a tailor on Haifa street that opens shop at 11 could be vitally useful when assembled with other pertinent data. The idea that what was sought was only detonator type intel is mistaken; we wanted all of it, to assemble a virtual intel world to mimic, track, and predict behaviors and choices. It is ultimately erroneous to conclude watershed findings are made in a vacuum. It is most usually countless tidbits that build the picture, not epiphanies.

I personally don't give a damn who says these tools are barbaric- it misses the point. I prefer barbarism to oblivion any day.

Note: There has not been a director of the CIA lately with a shred of personal integrity; certainly not the clinton suck up; not the clown who is there now... I would not believe one thing any of them told me, certainly not some self reflective agency scolding crap. Even the movie producers who had 100% access to the real script could not divorce the torture from the results because they KNOW this is how it was generated; it is only in the media and threw reports like this that it is sterilized and made "truth."

The entire American defense apparatus is co-opted by political [first] players and sodomizing the CIA via this report was payback to Bush et al. That's all this is - More F--- America BS.

[F430murci]

This article is more bs political spin. Both Republicans and Democrats knew what was going on as early as August of 2002 and were briefed regularly on what was going on from August 2002 to 2009. At least Chemney, as much as I dislike him, has some balls here. I suppose the Bush clan are too worried about public image with Jeb's bid to have any balls and man up to what they did or endorsed. Speaks volumes about that entire family.

Care to attack the article with something other than conjecture?

See above from current CIA director Brennan and Jose Rodriquez.

--------

Former CIA official Jose Rodriguez joined Sean Hannity on "Hannity" tonight to discuss the release of a report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation methods.

"It's a very dark day for the CIA," Rodriguez, the former Director of the National Clandestine Service, said. "I think the CIA's being thrown under the bus."

He explained that politicians are playing "political football" with the agency, and asserted that both the Senate and the committee were briefed multiple times on what the CIA was doing.

"We feel that we briefed them, we briefed them thoroughly, and they are hypocritical," Rodriguez said.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/09/ex-cia-head-report-fallout-obama-admin-prefers-kill-afar

You missed the mark with your post.

1. My original post concerned information that George Bush was not personally informed of the procedures for the first four years of its existence. I then provided a link to the Bloomberg article containing information to that affect. My initial post contained the following sentence.

"Based on CIAs internal correspondence, the committees investigation will also state that CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss admitted they had never briefed Bush directly on the techniques, despite that in 2004, the CIA Inspector General recommended they do so:"

2. You then responded with a rant against the entire Bush family and claimed my post was, in your words, "bs political spin".

3. I questioned your response and asked for proof of your "bs" statement.

4. You then responded with a link containing the following statement which states the Senate and the committee were briefed yet it fails to support your "bs political spin" assertion.

"He explained that politicians are playing "political football" with the agency, and asserted that both the Senate and the committee were briefed multiple times on what the CIA was doing."

Nowhere in any of the four links you have recently provided does it say anything about Bush being informed during the first four years nor does it even relate to any former Presidential briefings.

A judge would likely dismiss your case based on the evidence you have presented.

You conveniently ignored the Brennan link I referenced in same post on my other posts with three links.

Yeah right, CIA was briefing everyone in Bush's office and dems and repubs, but Bush somehow didn't know. Whateva. That actually makes him look worse.

You cite Bretbart and I link CIA director Brennan's official statement.

--------

As part of the CIAs global effort to dismantle al-Qaida and to prevent future terrorist attacks, the Agency was directed by President Bush six days after 9/11 to carry out a program to detain terrorist suspects around the world. Certain detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), which the Department of Justice determined at the time to be lawful and which were duly authorized by the Bush Administration. These techniques, which were last used by the CIA in December 2007, subsequently were prohibited by an Executive Order issued by President Obama when he took office in January 2009.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2014-press-releases-statements/statement-from-director-brennan-on-ssci-study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

[DeepInTheForest]

Even the former head of the CIA admits that torture was not how Bin Laden's location was determined.

Actually no. Defense Secretary Leon Panetta confirmed that enhanced interrogation techniques aided the effort to find bin Laden. He admitted that "Some of it came from ... interrogation tactics that were used", but he also felt that he might have been able to get Bin Ladin without using enhanced interrogation. al-Qaeda captives who broke under enhanced interrogation disclosed the name of bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. By tracking him, the CIA was able to locate bin Laden’s own hideout in the Pakistani town of Abbottabad.

Actually, no. The link supplied earlier, citing the letter from Panetta to McCain, and the other links relating the details of the surveillance of the cell phone have convinced most observers that nothing useful was gotten from the torture. (You can choose to believe what you wish, of course, and I suppose that's your right.) We will hear ad infinitum how the CIA is being victimized and so forth by their people, and how the intelligence obtained was "extremely useful", and Panetta will of course provide public cover for his former institution. But then there is that letter. To suggest that the torture techniques led the CIA to OBL's location is not true, and the continued insistence otherwise is not going to convince many people. And again, if there had been anything useful that was obtained, we would be hearing about it every ten minutes on Fox news.

As usual, no evidence or link is provided.

[chuckd]

Care to attack the article with something other than conjecture?

See above from current CIA director Brennan and Jose Rodriquez.

--------

Former CIA official Jose Rodriguez joined Sean Hannity on "Hannity" tonight to discuss the release of a report on the CIA's enhanced interrogation methods.

"It's a very dark day for the CIA," Rodriguez, the former Director of the National Clandestine Service, said. "I think the CIA's being thrown under the bus."

He explained that politicians are playing "political football" with the agency, and asserted that both the Senate and the committee were briefed multiple times on what the CIA was doing.

"We feel that we briefed them, we briefed them thoroughly, and they are hypocritical," Rodriguez said.

http://insider.foxnews.com/2014/12/09/ex-cia-head-report-fallout-obama-admin-prefers-kill-afar

You missed the mark with your post.

1. My original post concerned information that George Bush was not personally informed of the procedures for the first four years of its existence. I then provided a link to the Bloomberg article containing information to that affect. My initial post contained the following sentence.

"Based on CIAs internal correspondence, the committees investigation will also state that CIA Directors George Tenet and Porter Goss admitted they had never briefed Bush directly on the techniques, despite that in 2004, the CIA Inspector General recommended they do so:"

2. You then responded with a rant against the entire Bush family and claimed my post was, in your words, "bs political spin".

3. I questioned your response and asked for proof of your "bs" statement.

4. You then responded with a link containing the following statement which states the Senate and the committee were briefed yet it fails to support your "bs political spin" assertion.

"He explained that politicians are playing "political football" with the agency, and asserted that both the Senate and the committee were briefed multiple times on what the CIA was doing."

Nowhere in any of the four links you have recently provided does it say anything about Bush being informed during the first four years nor does it even relate to any former Presidential briefings.

A judge would likely dismiss your case based on the evidence you have presented.

You conveniently ignored the Brennan link I referenced in same post on my other posts with three links.

Yeah right, CIA was briefing everyone in Bush's office and dems and repubs, but Bush somehow didn't know. Whateva. That actually makes him look worse.

You cite Bretbart and I link CIA director Brennan's official statement.

--------

As part of the CIAs global effort to dismantle al-Qaida and to prevent future terrorist attacks, the Agency was directed by President Bush six days after 9/11 to carry out a program to detain terrorist suspects around the world. Certain detainees were subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs), which the Department of Justice determined at the time to be lawful and which were duly authorized by the Bush Administration. These techniques, which were last used by the CIA in December 2007, subsequently were prohibited by an Executive Order issued by President Obama when he took office in January 2009.

https://www.cia.gov/news-information/press-releases-statements/2014-press-releases-statements/statement-from-director-brennan-on-ssci-study-on-detention-interrogation-program.html

I didn't ignore the Brennan op-ed. I read it when you posted it and it has not one word about personally briefing Bush at any time.

I just read it again and the words are still not there.

My post was about Bush not being briefed on the extent of the interrogation methods that had been going on for four years. His SecState and SecDef probably were briefed but that doesn't mean he was.

You have still not come up with anything to disprove my original post that Bush was not briefed for a four year period.

Oh yes, I have not provided a link to Breitbart in this little exchange. The link was to Bloomberg.

The judge just might have declared a mistrial for lack of evidence.

[Ulysses G.]

Or the cynical comment from one Islamic fanatic that their beheading is more merciful than the torture of US has a valid point.

Nonsense. Someone who is beheaded lives with terrible fear before it happens and loses their life forever. Water-boarding is very unpleasant while it is happening, but there is no lasting physical damage.

[soalbundy]

Or the cynical comment from one Islamic fanatic that their beheading is more merciful than the torture of US has a valid point.

Nonsense. Someone who is beheaded lives with terrible fear before it happens and loses their life forever. Water-boarding is very unpleasant while it is happening, but there is no lasting physical damage.

try it

[Ulysses G.]

As usual, no evidence or link is provided.

No evidence other than a direct quote from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Your post is complete nonsense.

Osama bin Laden killed: CIA admits waterboarding yielded vital information

Leon Panetta, the CIA director, has confirmed that controversial "enhanced interrogation techniques" such as waterboarding yielded some of the intelligence information that ultimately led to Osama bin Laden.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/al-qaeda/8491509/Osama-bin-Laden-killed-CIA-admits-waterboarding-yielded-vital-information.html

[Scott]

Off-topic post removed.