Waterboarding Works! Detainee Cooperated After 'Enhanced Interrogation Techniques' Were Used

You certainly won't hear Eric Holder or Barack Obama ever make this admission. In fact, I'm stunned that the leftist-leaning Washington Post even allowed this to go to print.

Khalid Shieik Mohammed, who refers to himself as the mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, began to reveal a great deal of valuable information after CIA interrogators began using the technique known as "waterboarding" on him. Before that, he managed to resist interrogation quite effectively.

From Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate:

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department. The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate. Over a few weeks, he was subjected to an escalating series of coercive methods, culminating in 7 1/2 days of sleep deprivation, while diapered and shackled, and 183 instances of waterboarding. After the month-long torment, he was never waterboarded again.

But here is what the interrogations yielded:

Mohammed provided $1,000 to Ramzi Yousef, a nephew, to help him carry out the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center. In 1994, he worked in the Philippines with Yousef, now serving a life sentence at the federal "supermax" prison in Colorado, on a failed plot to down 12 U.S. commercial aircraft over the Pacific. Mohammed told interrogators it was in the Philippines that he first considered using planes as missiles to strike the United States. He took the idea to Osama bin Laden, who "at first demurred but changed his mind in late 1999," according to the summary. Mohammed described plans to strike targets in Saudi Arabia, East Asia and the United States after the Sept. 11 attacks, including using a network of Pakistanis "to target gas stations, railroad tracks, and the Brooklyn bridge in New York." Cross-referencing material from different detainees, and leveraging information from one to extract more detail from another, the CIA and FBI went on to round up operatives both in the United States and abroad. "Detainees in mid-2003 helped us build a list of 70 individuals -- many of who we had never heard of before -- that al-Qaeda deemed suitable for Western operations," according to the CIA summary. Mohammed told interrogators that after the Sept. 11 attacks, his "overriding priority" was to strike the United States, but that he "realized that a follow-on attack would be difficult because of security measures." Most of the plots, as a result, were "opportunistic and limited," according to the summary.

How many American lives were saved because of that information? How many attacks were thwarted because of the techniques used?

The average lib Democrat would rather see thousands of Americans killed than to see one terrorist suffer the least little bit. It would be nice if the Dems actually rooted for our side for once.

EITs work and we should continue using them. Holder and Obama should get out of the way and let the people charged with defending America do their jobs.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

How A Detainee Became An Asset
Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post
August 29, 2009

A Spy 'Outing' Game For Real

So, where are all the libs who were rallying around Valerie Plame a few years ago? They were all screaming about how horrible it was that Plame got "outed" as a CIA agent.

For some reason, all those same libs are now silent (I would say shamefully silent) about John Adams Project defense lawyers for the terrorists who will truly "out" current CIA operatives and expose their families as well. Whereas Valerie Plame showed how much her privacy had been violated by posing for the cover of Vanity Fair, a nationally circulated magazine, the current outings will put agents and their families in danger of reprisals from the terrorists themselves.

(I wonder if Barack Obama realizes this and if so, does he even care? He seems to care more about the terrorists than he does about American lives.)

Writing for the Washington Times, John Armor has the following:

First, the Plame Affair. According to the mainstream media, that was about the "outing" of a CIA "covert operative" in violation of federal law. But that law applies only to people who had been a covert operative "within five years." The only person who identified her as a CIA covert operative within five years of her service was her husband, who let the cat out of the bag in a Who's Who entry. Mrs. Plame was not outed by anyone, per the law.

That's right. Even Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald admitted that there was no violation of Federal law in the Plame case. But, he overstepped his bounds when he went after Scooter Libby on what were obviously trumped-up charges.

Read on:

However, the fraud of the Plame blame game does not detract from the real purpose of the CIA-protective law. It's designed to protect covert CIA agents from being killed by enemies who would do so in a heartbeat if they knew who these agents are. That brings us to the current situation. The defense counsel for certain Guantanamo Bay detainees is receiving help from the John Adams Project, a combined effort of the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. According to numerous accounts, these defense lawyers have John Adams Project researchers taking photos of CIA covert operatives. And these lawyers have already shown these photos to their clients in Guantanamo Bay and are now seeking the legal right to release the photos to the public.

If the Plame affair were so infuriating to the libs, then they should be surrounding the Justice Department right now demanding that these photos never get released. Because, unlike the Plame situation in which Valerie was never in any danger, the agents that will be outed by this investigation will most certainly be in danger as will their families.

Clearly, The ACLU couldn't care less about the safety of these people! If anyone from the ACLU wishes to refute this, please feel free to leave a response.

Armor goes on to say:

More likely these photos were taken in the home communities of these agents, placing not only them, but their families and neighbors in the cross hairs of murderers. And that is precisely why the law that never actually applied in the Plame Affair, does apply today. It may be that just showing the photos of the CIA agents to their clients turns the assistants who photographed them and the lawyers who passed them on, into criminals themselves. Beyond that, there is the matter of what happens if these photos are offered as evidence in a trial.

The choice here is clear. If you support protecting innocent Americans, you will be against letting the ACLU out these agents. If you support the terrorists, you will agree with putting these agents and their families at risk by releasing these photos.

I will always go with protecting Americans. It's clear that the ACLU and other libs want the opposite.

You can access the complete column on-line here:

A Spy 'Outing' Game For Real
John Armor
Washington Times
August 26, 2009

Obama Administration To Give Terrorists More Fodder For Propaganda

Yesterday, Attorney General Eric Holder decided to move forward with prosecutions against CIA interrogators who protected American lives by extracting information from terrorists. Apparently, Obama doesn't think it was right for those CIA interrogators to get that information.

So, Eric Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to go after those interrogators and bring them to trial.

From CBS News:

Holder has appointed John Durham, a Justice Department prosecutor, to determine whether or not any laws were broken during the interrogations.

First, let us remember the Valerie Plame affair in which Plame (a CIA analyst who was not in a covert status at the time) was allegedly "outed" by someone in the Bush Administration. The libs and Dems went crazy screaming about how Plame and her husband were having their privacy violated, even as they both posed for the cover of Vanity Fair magazine.

Now, this investigation will most certainly "out" several CIA agents who are not only covert, but will now have their families exposed as well. That is a treasure trove of information for a terrorist to have. While some CIA interrogators may have threatened to kill a terrorist's children, terrorists actually go out and kill innocent children.

So, to all you liberal Dems, why is it okay to "out" these interrogators and expose their families to terrorist reprisals but you came to the defense of Valerie Plame who wasn't even in a covert status? I don't think any amount of hypocritical reasoning will ever be able to justify that.

But even more far reaching is how the terrorists are going to use this as propaganda against us and stir-up even more anti-American sentiment in order to bring more fanatical recruits to their cause of killing as many innocent Americans as possible.

And here is something interesting:

President Obama has said that he does not want to prosecute the former Bush administration officials who created the interrogation policies. But Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, has added that the Attorney General's investigation into the legality of the interrogations is independent of the administration.

Didn't Obama say that we should look forward and not back? Apparently, Holder didn't get that memo. And given Gibbs' response to the whole thing, it looks as though Obama doesn't have any idea of what is going on over at Justice or how that department is forcing him to break one of his own pledges. Or Obama is pushing for these prosecutions while trying to keep his hands clean at the same time. I think this last possibility is most likely.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

Bush Admin. Official Criticizes CIA Probe
Dana Chivvis
CBS News
August 25, 2009

John Boehner: Pelosi Should Show Proof Or Apologize

Remember during the Valerie Plame non-scandal when the Dems thought that the CIA was the best thing since sliced bread? Well, it looks like the CIA is back in the Dem dog-house. How does a government agency gain and then fall out of favor so quickly? Well, when dealing with liberals Dems like Nancy Pelosi, it is all about political advantage. During the Plame case, it was politically advantageous to embrace the CIA. Now, the politcal wind in Washington D.C. is such that the CIA is to be shunned.

But, people who are intelligent and clear thinking can see what is really going on here. Pelosi told some rather large untruths and falsehoods about what the CIA breifed her on concerning enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT) including waterboarding, the technique that yielded information which in turn may have saved thousands of American lives.

And now, she is being called on those lies. According to CNN:

A key Republican leader demanded Sunday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi produce evidence to back up her assertion that she was misled by the CIA on the use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques." ... "Lying to the Congress of the United States is a crime," House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said on CNN's "State of the Union." "If the speaker is accusing the CIA and other intelligence officials of lying or misleading the Congress, then she should come forward with evidence and turn that over to the Justice Department so they be prosecuted. And if that's not the case, I think she ought to apologize to our intelligence professionals around the world."

It has already been established that Pelosi and some of her aides knew exactly what was going on. But, none of them ever spoke out against these EITs back in 2002 and 2003. No, instead they waited seven years for the issue to become politcally favorable for them.

It should also be noted that Jane Harmon (D-CA) has not to come to Nancy Pelosi's defense. Harmon did protest the use of waterboarding back in 2003.

More:

On Thursday, Pelosi said the briefing she received from the CIA was incomplete and inaccurate, and she called on the agency to release a full transcript of the briefing. She also accused Republicans of jumping on reports of the briefings to cause a distraction. The speaker's comments prompted CIA Director Leon Panetta to stand up for the agency on Friday and challenge Pelosi on her assertion that the CIA had misled her. "There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I'm gone. But the political debates about interrogation reached a new decibel level yesterday when the CIA was accused of misleading Congress." Panetta said in a letter to agency employees.

When faced with such a scathing backlash from the CIA, Pelosi simply switched her criticism from the CIA to the Bush Administration.

Cleary, Pelosi is in a tail-spin and can no longer hide the fact that she has been lying all along. Now that so many people have called her on her lies, she is getting desperate to save whatever is left of her face.

And this little tidbit shows how deeply into the lie Pelosi is willing to go:

Pelosi wants the classified notes of her 2002 briefing on waterboarding declassified because, she has said, they will show that she wasn't told that harsh techniques such as waterboarding were being used. The top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee said he has read the notes from Pelosi's disputed 2002 briefing and insists to CNN that she's wrong. "The record shows Speaker Pelosi was briefed that the techniques were used on Abu Zubaydah," Sen. Kit Bond, R-Missouri, said in a written statement. That appears to back up CIA records declassified last week, which say that on September 4, 2002, Pelosi and Republican Rep. Porter Goss of Florida were briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques.

My personal view? If it is a choice between saving thousands of American lives or worrying about the comfort level of one worthless, waste of flesh terrorist, then I choose saving American lives. It seems as though the average Democrat is more concerned for the terrorist.

Pelosi should not only apologize, but she should at the very least step down as Speaker of the House for lying to the American people. I understand that Democrats would normally call for a politician to step down when caught lying. I wonder if they would apply that same standard to one of their own.

You can access the complete article on-line here:

GOP Leader: Pelosi Should Show Proof Or Apologize
CNN
May 17, 2009

View From The British Media: Why Does Obama Hate America?

I've got to give the Brits credit for one thing. Their mass media isn't afraid to tell it like it is. Whereas here in America our mass media is acting like Obama's cheerleading squad, the Brits are not afraid to bring hard facts to the forefront and ask questions that would surely embarrass Obama.

Gerald Warner is one such journalist and penned the following column for the Telegraph back on April 24:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter. Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail. That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda. "Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed. So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers. Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that - once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension. President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya's administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11. President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America's enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If only American reporters had such courage and fortitude to stand up to the socialist Obama like that. But, they will never ask hard, reality-based questions of The One.

You can access the original column on-line here:

Barack Obama And The CIA: Why Does President Pantywaist Hate America So Badly?
Gerald Warner
Telegraph UK
April 24, 2009

Pelosi Lied About Not Being Briefed On Waterboarding

Man! If it isn't lying on their taxes, the Dems will find other things to lie about.

The latest lie comes from Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Although she claims she never knew about the enhanced interrogation technique known as waterboarding, newly released CIA documents now show she did indeed know.

Oh, and if you are one of those who keep repeating that this is some sort of right-wing conspiracy, check out the names of the sources first.

From the New York Times:

The new chart of briefings, prepared by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, was the first full listing of briefings to members of Congress and their aides. It appears to call into question the longstanding assertion of Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she was never told that waterboarding and other methods were actually used, only that the Central Intelligence Agency believed they were legal and could be used. ... The chart shows that in addition to Ms. Pelosi, Democrats briefed on the methods included former Senator Bob Graham of Florida in 2002 and Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia and Representative Jane Harman of California in 2003.

And the Washington Post has this:

A top aide to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attended a CIA briefing in early 2003 in which it was made clear that waterboarding and other harsh techniques were being used in the interrogation of an alleged al-Qaeda operative, according to documents the CIA released to Congress on Thursday. Pelosi has insisted that she was not directly briefed by Bush administration officials that the practice was being actively employed. But Michael Sheehy, a top Pelosi aide, was present for a classified briefing that included Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.), then the ranking minority member of the House intelligence committee, at which agency officials discussed the use of waterboarding on terrorism suspect Abu Zubaida.

Clearly, despite Pelosi's attempt at spinning this situation, she knew about waterboarding at least 6 years ago and most likely, 8 years ago. She only came out against the technique when it became politically advantageous to do so.

But, I guess you should expect that from a Democrat. Political advancement above the security of the American people. That seems to be their new credo.

You can access both articles on-line here:

List Says Top Democrats Were Briefed On Interrogations
Scott Shane and Carl Hulse
New York Times
May 8, 2009

Top Pelosi Aide Learned Of Waterboarding In 2003
Paul Kane
Washington Post
May 9, 2009