prev
next
Political Hotsheet
© 2011 CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
White House won't rule out that enhanced interrogation techniques helped lead to bin Laden
CAROUSEL - Osama Bin Laden and Sheikh Khalid Mohammed
/ CBS/APWhite House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Wednesday declined to rule out that enhanced interrogation techniques helped lead the government to Osama bin Laden.
A reporter asked Carney: "It sounds to me at the very least like what you're saying is that the interrogation techniques cannot be ruled out as a critical and necessary piece to have found bin Laden. Is that correct?"
"Now, I can't categorically rule out that one piece of information -- because we don't know," Carney responded before lauding the work of the intelligence community.
Earlier, Carney said that "no single piece of information, with the exception of the address of the compound, was vital to this, was singularly vital to this, because we're talking about tiny bits of information that were compiled by unbelievably competent professionals over nine and a half years."
"The fact is, is that information was gathered from detainees," he continued. "We have multiple ways of gathering information: from detainees, from different methods that we have of getting information. The work that was done that put the case together was done primarily by analysts gathering tiny bits of information and putting it together and creating a body of work, if you will, that led to the finding of the location where Osama bin Laden was hiding."
On Capitol Hill, meanwhile, a partisan fault line emerged over whether information gleaned from harsh interrogations contributed to the capture and killing of bin Laden. Democrats, who generally oppose waterboarding and other controversial tactics, insist that such tactics played absolutely no role in tracking down bin Laden. Republicans contend that one of the most important leads -- the identity of bin Laden's courier -- was gleaned in part from harsh interrogation of terrorist detainees in secret prisons.
"To the best of our knowledge based on a look, none of (the leads) came as a result of harsh interrogation practices," California Democratic Senator Diane Feinstein argued yesterday. Feinstein chairs the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee and was first briefed about the possible break in the bin Laden search in December of 2010.
New York Republican Rep. Peter King, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, said the opposite was true in an interview with CBS New York.
"Osama Bin Laden would not have been captured and killed if it were not for the initial information we got from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed after he was waterboarded," he insisted.
Not so, countered the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD). "It's clear if you waterboard people you'll just hear what you want to hear," Ruppersberger said.
Members of Congress are also divided over whether the capture of bin Laden vindicates Bush Administration officials who advocated the use of waterboarding and other tactics. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor argued that "we believe information gained, if valuable in saving American lives in increasing the security of the United States, is a policy we should have in place."
Feinstein disagreed. "I happen to know a good deal about how those interrogations were conducted and in my view nothing justifies the kind of procedures that were used."
Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's counterterrorism center who oversaw the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques," told Time this week that "information provided by KSM and Abu Faraj al-Libi about Bin Laden's courier was the lead information that eventually led to the location of [bin Laden's] compound and the operation that led to his death."
Reports revealed that two key terror detainees -- Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Faraj al-Libi -- gave American officials the nickname of a courier who ultimately led U.S. intelligence officials to bin Laden. The two detainees gave the initial information up at foreign CIA "black sites," where waterboarding -- historically considered a form of torture by the U.S. -- and other "enhanced interrogation" techniques were used. It's not clear that the information was gleaned through those techniques.
Popular in Politics
- Obama prom pictures surface
- Obama: America at a "crossroads" in fighting terrorism
- Drones, Gitmo part of broad Obama counterterrorism speech
- Lawmakers push to punish sexual offenders in the military
- Issa: IRS' Lerner waived her Fifth Amendment rights
- Boehner calls out Obama administration's "arrogance of power" 83 Comments
- IRS' Lerner: "I have not done anything wrong" 932 Comments
- Protester heckles Obama during counterterrorism speech Play Video
Most Popular
-
01
-
02
-
03
-
04
-
05
Most Shared
Most Discussed
Additionally, it has been shown to be less effective than traditional techniques and even counterproductive, see http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/in ...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/66895.ht ...
and http://explore.georgetown.edu/news/ ... ...
Finally, here's testimony from an F.B.I. agent who told Congress and the Executive Branch that waterboarding/torture doesn't work: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story...
If you want the facts regarding torture you will need to research the topic for yourself. Most corporate-owned media outlets seem to be pushing the idea (again) that it is both ethical and effective. See "Waterboarding 'Worked'? Media push pro-torture message" at http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4281
Regards,
Charles
You wrote "Murder has been illegal for centuries yet we are all celebrating today that Obama ordered the murder of OBL. Amazing how liberals will throw their so called morals to the wind when there is a democratic president."
A) I am not a "liberal" nor am I an individual - evidently like yourself - who supports the use of torture because a "conservative" President initiated its standard use.
B) I agree with you on the point you make in your second sentence - the "situational ethics" embodied by those of us who place party loyalty above the Constitution/Rule of Law is appalling. But you must realize that "liberals" are not the only individuals whose moral compasses point whichever direction their chosen party leads them.
If you want to read a rather scathing letter about President Obama's undeserved support from "liberals" (from the perspective of a self-described liberal) I recommend the article available through this link: ttp://charliedavis.blogspot.com/2011/04/ill-take-reactionary-over-murderer.html
I especially recommend the article for those of my fellow citizens who consider themselves conscientious "liberals," "progressives," et cetera.
Regards,
Charles
Holder has not been in charge of the Justice Department for Decades -- your lies are even more obvious and delusional than before.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++No he hasn't but he did work for the law firm that represented suspected terrorists in Gitmo, Pro Bono.
Or will they join the uiggers in their beachfront homes with swimming pools, paid for by American Taxpayers???
Holder and his law firm has been preventing the trials for a decade now, time for him to get the hell out of the way!!!
"BRIAN WILLIAMS:
10:48:36:00 Turned around the other way, are you denying that water boarding was, in part, among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?
LEON PANETTA:
10:48:48:00 No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I'm also saying that, you know, the debate about whether-- whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always gonna be an open question."
Though I disagree with some of the political positions of Leon Panetta, I respect him as honest and intelligent man. He seems to indicate that water boarding did help produce information that led to the killing of Bin Laden. The debate in regard as to whether water boarding should be considered "torture" is another matter. There should no question about whether water boarding produced valid and needful data to combat terrorism.
You offer no evidence for your sweeping claims, and among your fact-free assertions you manage to insult the memory and dignity of Mr. (Daniel) Pearl and what he stood for.
You wrote: "I would think that Daniel Pearl who had his head chopped off by terrorist would like to have had the choice of being waterboarded instead!"
Perhaps you could benefit from the strength and nobility exemplified by Mr. Pearl's widow, Marianne, who "...warned against seeking revenge for acts of terrorism, including the kidnapping and killing of her husband..." "Revenge is just going to bring us to a dead end." http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-20/us/king.mariane.pearl_1_mariane-pearl-saeed-sheikh-daniel-pearl?_s=PM:US
The Rule of Law and rationality should dictate our actions, not "situational ethics" and revenge.
Regards,
Charles
Clearly the laws of mathematical probability indicates especially over the 6-8 years it took to find Bin Laden that anything received from waterboarding two or three people was probably duplicated due sheer magnitude of the hours of intelligence gathering by the world to end this terrorist threat.
Face it: both Bush and Rummey had thrown up their hands and said that they didn't know and didn't care where OBL was. They deserve no credit.
AMERICA IS BETTER THAN COUNTRIES THAT USE THOSE METHODS. PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO STEAL OBAMA`S THUNDER. HE PASSED THE 3:00 O CLOCK IN THE MORNING PHONE CALL , TERRORIST BEWARE.