Tuesday, April 21, 2009

Interrogation Techniques Saved Lives

Marc Thiessen, visiting scholar at the Hoover Institute and former chief speechwriter for President George W. Bush writes today in the Washington Post - - -

In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.

Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques."

The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."

Specifically, 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." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast.

The memo explains 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.' "

In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York. …

There’s a lot more to Thiessen’s op-ed before he closes making the same point Tarheel Hawkeye made here yesterday - - -

President Obama's decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war -- and Americans may die as a result.

The entire op-ed’s here.


Anonymous said...

Today, the words from our great leader indicate that, well, maybe, depending on what laws were broken, there will be a kangaroo court to judge the Bush aides responsible for giving legal advice to the president in time of great national peril. Never mind that he said just yesterday that nobody was going to be prosecuted.
So much for his talk about "no more politics as usual" and the dawn of a new era of bipartisanship and warm, fuzziness for everybody. It looks like the Democrat attack dogs are being unleashed now and we can look forward to many years of political blood-letting. Like the Romans, we must have games to amuse the people while Rome falls.
In the future, we can expect to find nobody willing to make any tough decisions at the top levels for fear of being put on show trial (just like the Stalinists) when the new regime takes the white house. Pelosi and Reid are no doubt licking their chops at the thought of eviscerating Dubya's legal advisors. The big game is Karl Rove and you can bet they'll continue in their attempts to put him in the dock.
I was willing to give our president the opportunity to show he was as good as his word. I believe we will shortly see that his word is rubbish and he's just another leftist ideologue who managed to lie his way to the top.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

It bloody well makes sense to me and I don't have an issue of them using them.

Scott S.

Anonymous said...

I was watching the Glenn Beck program yesterday and he had Judge Napolitano and Meghan Kelly on to comment on the legal issues involved. Napolitano disappointed me greatly by his insistence that al Qaeda prisoners are covered by both the Geneva Conventions and the U.S. Constitution. Kelly asserted that al Qaeda prisoners are covered by neither because they:
1) are not members of a formal military force of a recognized state or nation;
2) they do not wear any uniforms or other identification marks by which they can be considered combatants; and
3) there is no formal declaration of war between the United States and a bunch of dirtbag throat-slitting rabid dogs (the descriptives are mine, not Kelly's).
How can any reasonable person suggest that any of these murderous pigs has the protection of our sacred Constitution? The mind boggles.
Tarheel Hawkeye