Just three days following the successful mission that killed Osama bin Laden, the discussion has moved on to an argument over whether extreme interrogation tactics -such as waterboarding – produced the intelligence that made it all possible.There is growing evidence that information gained from two high value targets, including Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, may have gotten the ball rolling on gathering the intelligence required to identify the bin Laden couriers who ultimately led us to Osama. And while the information extracted from KSM, possibly by means involving torture, was but a small piece of the puzzle that solved the riddle – it may well have been the beginning of the process that paid off in two bullets being pumped into the world’s public enemy number one.
As might have been expected, the two sides of the torture debate are now at one another’s throats attempting to either minimize or maximize the impact of the methods employed, depending on one’s ideological position.
While I have never supported the use of torture for a number of reasons, it seems fair to now take another look at this extremely tricky question for the purpose of determining the most appropriate way to go forward in a world where terror has become a primary concern and threat.
To begin, let’s face a few realities when it comes to the morality of torture.
Let’s also be honest with one another.
Most of us who disagree with the use of torture in any circumstance – whether on ethical or legal grounds or simply because we don’t believe it works – are likely not shedding many tears over the use of waterboarding on KSM if it accomplished even a little of the information that played a role in Osama’s demise. I know I am not.
We should also acknowledge that if the life of someone we loved were on the line, few of us would hesitate to use any means available, including the most sordid methods of torture, if we believed there was a chance it might save that individual. And if the life of an entire city were on the line, I think we can all agree that none of us would object to the use of the most extreme forms of torture if it might provide the needed information to stop a nuclear explosion or some other weapon of mass destruction.
Still, we are able to recognize that, in the overwhelming majority of situations, taking the short cut of using extreme interrogation – thereby denying Constitutional due process – could easily lead to some incredibly terrible results to our system of justice.
As for those who would use the possible benefits of extreme interrogation as applied in the ending of bin Laden as an example of why all the liberals or others who oppose torture are wrong, you are trivializing a far more complicated issue and, in many cases, doing so because you simply want to win an argument when more important matters are at stake.
To you I say ‘knock it off.’
This is a tough issue and it deserves an open and meaningful examination conducted by grown-ups – not ideological mimics.
On the legal front, there are many prohibitions against using the type of interrogation methods that were employed during the Bush Administration in the effort to uncover critical intelligence in the war on terror.
The United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) prohibits the use of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The Geneva Conventions –agreements to which the United States is a signatory- provide protection for people who fall into enemy hands. The Conventions do not clearly divide people into combatant and non-combatant roles, leaving an argument as to whether those captured in the ‘war on terror’ are included.
If you prefer to classify people like KSM as those who have committed a capital crime on American soil and are, as a result, better defined as criminals rather than enemy combatants, the result is no different. Torture is not a legal tool in the effort to gain information in the United States of America.
Finally, US law prohibits the use of evidence gained from torture in a court of law. This is why many see the benefits of a war tribunal for terror suspects rather than the U.S. criminal court system.
Thus, the legal barriers to the use of torture are significant – although it certainly did not stop the use of extreme interrogation during the Bush years.
As to whether or not torture is an effective tool, I do not pretend to know. Many knowledgeable people argue that it simply does not result in high quality intelligence because people being subjected to torture will say anything to make it stop.
And yet, if it turns out to be true that extreme techniques played even a small role in leading us to bin Laden, such a fact would seem to contradict the experts who argue that is has little benefit.
The bottom line here is that this is an incredibly difficult issue to resolve- and defaulting to our ideological sides will do little or nothing to bring it into focus.
So, has the time come to take a look at whether we should alter our policy on extreme interrogation in certain, very limited circumstances?
Might it make sense to choose a panel of judges, made up of representaives of all sides to this question, to determine when the circumstances require the use of these methods?
And were we to make adjustments to permit the use of torture in these rare situations, how would these decisions stand up under international law?
These are issues that now appear ripe for discussion. The question is whether or not we can do so in a thoughtful manner or is such a consideration doomed to fall into an ideological pit of stupidity and politics?
As you consider the morality, legality and ultimate benefit of such a system, remember that it goes without saying that if we use torture methods, we clear the way for our enemies to use the same on our combatants.
One final note.
Can we please stop this ridiculous argument over whom deserves credit for taking down bin Laden?
We’ve had everyone from Rush Limbaugh going out of his way to demean the President to Chris Matthews spending virtually his entire show today arguing over why Obama deserves all the credit.
Those who despise President Obama will never give him the credit he deserves just as those who dislike President Bush will do all in their power to deny his administration any of the kudos.
I think we all know that anyone in either category is not likely to change their mind.
Senators Seemingly Fooled By Fake Bin Laden Photo
May 04, 2011 10:06 PM
ABC News' Matthew Jaffe reports:
For much of Wednesday, the debate raged in Washington: should the Obama administration release photos of a dead Osama bin Laden?
Ultimately President Obama said no. But that didn't keep a handful of senators from getting duped by what they thought was one of the Bin Laden photos.
It all started Wednesday morning as senators left a closed-door classified meeting with CIA boss Leon Panetta.
The top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., told reporters that he had seen photos of Bin Laden after the world's most wanted man had been shot in the head. Chambliss wasn't the only one.
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., told Fox-25 TV that he had seen one of the photos too.
“Listen, I've seen the picture," Brown said in an interview. “He’s definitely dead."
A third senator, New Hampshire Republican Kelly Ayotte, emerged from the Panetta briefing to tell reporters that she, too, had seen the image of a dead Bin Laden.
Asked if she had seen any of the Bin Laden photos, Ayotte replied, “I have seen one of them.”
She added that it was “clearly his features.”
At the time the claims seemed a bit odd since a number of top senators were telling reporters at the same time they had not seen any photos. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., chair of the Intelligence panel, said she had not seen the photos. Same with Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz, the top Republican on the Armed Services panel.
The confusion grew when Ayotte returned to the Capitol an hour later for a vote, saying that she had been shown the photo by an unnamed colleague on the Armed Services Committee.
A congressional oversight hearing originally scheduled to discuss, among other things, how indigenous-themed sports mascots have negatively influenced the perception of Native Americans, will now also address the linking of the name Geronimo to Osama bin Laden."Geronimo" was the code name for the mission where 24 Navy SEALs raided Bin Laden's three-story million-dollar compound in Abbotabad, Pakistan; "Geronimo" was also the code the SEALs used to alert their commanders that they identified their target; and finally "Geronimo-E KIA" was the coded message to confirm that they had killed Bin Laden.
The Senate Indian Affairs committee, chaired by Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI), will host the hearing titled "Stolen Identities: The Impact of Racist Stereotypes on Indigenous People," which will be webcast live at 2:15 p.m. ET. "The hearing was scheduled well before the Osama bin Laden operation became news, but the concerns over the linking of the name of Geronimo, one of the greatest Native American heroes, with the most hated enemies of the United States is an example of the kinds of issues we intended to address at Thursday's hearing," Loretta Tuell, the committee's chief counsel, said in a statement.
"These inappropriate uses of Native American icons and cultures are prevalent throughout our society, and the impacts to Native and non-Native children are devastating,” Tuell said. "We intend to open the forum to talk about them."
"To associate a native warrior with Bin Laden is not an accurate reflection of history, and it undermines the military service of native people," Jefferson Keel, president of the National Congress of American Indians, said Wednesday in a statement.
Other Native Americans were also upset at the use of Geronimo's name. The chairman of the tribe of descendants of Geronimo told President Obama that not long after the House of Representatives honored the warrior, his name is again being dragged through the mud.
Adm. William McRaven: The terrorist hunter on whose shoulders Osama bin Laden raid rested
By Craig Whitlock, Wednesday, May 4, 7:19 PM
As U.S. helicopters secretly entered Pakistani airspace Sunday, the Joint Operations Center at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan was under the control of a square-jawed admiral from Texas who had labored for years to find Osama bin Laden’s elusive trail.
Vice Adm. William H. McRaven, one of the most experienced terrorist hunters in the U.S. government, had tapped a special unit of Navy SEALs for the mission two months earlier.
A former SEAL himself, McRaven had overseen weeks of intensive training for a covert operation that could cripple al-Qaeda if it worked, or strain an already troubled alliance with Pakistan if it went awry.
( U.S. NAVY ) - Vice Adm.William H. McRaven’s forces have killed or captured hundreds of insurgents over the past year, mostly in nighttime raids.
The search for bin Laden was led by the CIA, which painstakingly pieced together scraps of intelligence that eventually pointed to a high-walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. But when President Obama gave the authorization to invade the site, CIA Director Leon Panetta delegated the raid to McRaven, who had been preparing for such a moment for most of his career.
He has worked almost exclusively on counterterrorism operations and strategy since 2001, when as a Navy captain he was assigned to the White House shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks. The author of a textbook titled,
“Spec Ops,” McRaven had long emphasized six key requirements for any successful mission: surprise, speed, security, simplicity, purpose and repetition.
For the especially risky bin Laden operation, he insisted on another: precision.
“He understands the strategic importance of precision,” said a senior Obama administration official who worked closely with McRaven to find bin Laden, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the operation. “He demands high standards. That’s why we’ve been so successful.”
As leader of the military’s highly secretive Joint Special Operations Command, McRaven has overseen a rapid escalation of manhunts for Taliban leaders in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda figures around the world. Although he’s a three-star admiral, the muscular 55-year-old still sometimes accompanies his teams on snatch-and-grab missions.
On Friday, McRaven received the green light from Panetta to launch the raid at the earliest opportunity. Later that day, he met with a six-member congressional delegation that was coincidentally visiting Afghanistan. He gave the lawmakers a tour of the Bagram operations center that — unbeknownst to them — was gearing up for the critical mission.
“Little did we know he had already given the order to take out Osama bin Laden,” said Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), who led the delegation.
In one particularly dramatic photo, Hillary Clinton is seen with her hand anxiously clasped over her mouth as if reacting to a crucial event. Other photos show Obama and his staff with stern faces as they discuss the operation while it unfolds.
The photos were described by many as having “historical significance,” forming a “captivating” record of Obama’s greatest success and being the “defining moment” of his Presidency.
The notion that Obama “saw the terror chief shot in the left eye” live on video is a total fabrication. At best, the photos were cynically misrepresented by the White House and the mainstream media, at worst, they were completely staged to add a contrived dramatic spin to the unfolding wall-to-wall press coverage of the Bin Laden fable, which is becoming more convoluted with each passing day.
