National Journal's Taylor latest to advance debunked Library Tower claim
SUMMARY: In his National Journal column, Stuart Taylor wrote that, according to the CIA, the harsh interrogations of Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed "averted a planned attack" on the Library Tower. But according to the Bush administration, the plot was thwarted at least a month before Zubaydah's capture and more than a year before Mohammed's.
In his April 25 National Journal column, Stuart Taylor Jr. advanced the repeatedly debunked claim that "the brutalizing of detainees averted a planned attack" on the Library Tower in Los Angeles. Taylor wrote that, according to the CIA, the plot was "unraveled" by a "chain of events" that began with the harsh interrogation of Abu Zubaydah in 2002 and included the harsh interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Taylor did note that "[t]here is also evidence cutting against the CIA's claims," citing CIA and FBI statements that harsh interrogations are ineffective and reports that some intelligence officials questioned the "seriousness" of the Library Tower plot. But the claim that the information gained from the harsh interrogations of Zubaydah and Mohammed "averted" the Library Tower plot conflicts with the chronology of events put forth on multiple occasions by the Bush administration. Indeed, as Slate.com's Timothy Noah has noted, the Bush administration said that the Library Tower attack was thwarted in February 2002 -- at least a month before Zubaydah was captured on March 28, 2002, and more than a year before Mohammed was captured in March 2003.
Taylor also wrote that "the CIA insists" the harsh interrogations unraveled the Library Tower plot. But, according to a May 30, 2005, memo from the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, written by then-acting assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury, CIA Inspector General John Helgerson concluded in a 2004 report, that, in Bradbury's words, "it is difficult to determine conclusively whether interrogations provided information critical to interdicting specific imminent attacks."
In response to former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen's April 21 Washington Post op-ed -- which also advanced CIA claims that the harsh techniques prevented the Library Tower plot -- Noah explained that "[w]hat clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim ... is chronology":
What clinches the falsity of Thiessen's claim, however (and that of the memo he cites, and that of an unnamed Central Intelligence Agency spokesman who today seconded Thessen's argument), is chronology. In a White House press briefing, Bush's counterterrorism chief, Frances Fragos Townsend, told reporters that the cell leader was arrested in February 2002, and "at that point, the other members of the cell" (later arrested) "believed that the West Coast plot has been canceled, was not going forward" [italics mine]. A subsequent fact sheet released by the Bush White House states, "In 2002, we broke up [italics mine] a plot by KSM to hijack an airplane and fly it into the tallest building on the West Coast." These two statements make clear that however far the plot to attack the Library Tower ever got -- an unnamed senior FBI official would later tell the Los Angeles Times that Bush's characterization of it as a "disrupted plot" was "ludicrous" -- that plot was foiled in 2002. But Sheikh Mohammed wasn't captured until March 2003.
How could Sheikh Mohammed's water-boarded confession have prevented the Library Tower attack if the Bush administration "broke up" that attack during the previous year? It couldn't, of course. Conceivably the Bush administration, or at least parts of the Bush administration, didn't realize until Sheikh Mohammed confessed under torture that it had already broken up a plot to blow up the Library Tower about which it knew nothing. Stranger things have happened. But the plot was already a dead letter. If foiling the Library Tower plot was the reason to water-board Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, then that water-boarding was more than cruel and unjust. It was a waste of water.
Taylor's inclusion of Zubaydah's interrogation faces a similar issue of "chronology": according to an April 2, 2002, statement from then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, Zubaydah was captured on March 28, 2002.
From Taylor's April 25 National Journal column:
The CIA's post-9/11 records are probably the most instructive body of empirical evidence in existence as to the relative effectiveness of gentle and harsh interrogation methods. The Senate Intelligence Committee is looking into this data. But its review could be skewed by the committee's own prior role and its current incentives to reach politically palatable conclusions. We need the person responsible for protecting us to direct an unblinking, unbiased review of whether lives were saved.
The review should start by taking seriously the views of the people with the most-detailed knowledge. They say that the coercive interrogation program was highly effective.
[...]
One of the most specific CIA claims that the brutalizing of detainees averted a planned attack, as described in speeches by then-President Bush and in one of the recently released Justice Department documents, goes like this:
After being subjected to waterboarding and other brutal methods in 2002, Abu Zubaydah explained that he and his "brothers" were permitted by Allah to yield when interrogators pushed them to the limit of their endurance. At that point, he provided information that helped the CIA capture Ramzi Binalshibh. The two captives then gave up details that led to the capture of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM, in official shorthand), whom Zubaydah had identified as the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. KSM, in turn, was initially defiant but -- after being tormented and waterboarded more than 100 times -- gave up information leading to the capture of a terrorist named Zubair, and then to the capture of Hambali, leader of Al Qaeda's Southeast Asian affiliate Jemaah Islamiyah, and then to his brother "Gun Gun" in Pakistan, whose information led to a cell of 17 Southeast Asian terrorists.
This chain of events, the CIA insists, unraveled the dangerous "Second Wave" plot, planned by KSM and Hambali, that called for the Southeast Asian terrorists to crash a hijacked airliner into the tallest building in Los Angeles, the Library Tower.
There is also evidence cutting against the CIA's claims. A.B. Krongard, who was the agency's executive director when the coercive interrogations began, told author Ron Suskind that KSM and other Qaeda captives "went through hell and gave up very, very little." Former FBI agents have claimed that their conventional, non-coercive interrogation got better information out of Zubaydah than the CIA did with its tough stuff.
Many experienced military and FBI interrogators say they've never used coercion, contending that it doesn't work because prisoners will say anything to stop the pain. (But how would they know it doesn't work, not having tried it? And if you were a terrorist desperate to stop the pain, would you fabricate a story that your interrogators would likely consider suspect -- or tell them where to find other terrorists?)
There are also reports of disagreement within the intelligence community as to the seriousness of the Second Wave plot. Maybe it would have fizzled even without coercive interrogations.
But maybe not. As former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen has written, if the 9/11 plot had been thwarted, Bush's critics "would be telling us how it was never really close to execution and [that] men armed with nothing more than box cutters [could never] hijack four airplanes simultaneously and fly them into buildings."
will it stick, or will slide down the wall to join the rest if the mess at what ever level it has eaten its way down to?
I still want to know how any halfway well-educated reporter can get stuff like this wrong? How does he not know that the timeline doesn't fit the supposed events?
If something is "debunked" by the Bush administration is it really debunked?
Hard to tell with the bush administration. Was the report a pop-up?
it wasn't debunked by the bush administration. it's been debunked by those who have pointed out that the particpants in the plot were captured after the plot was "foiled". so any info they gave came after they were captured, which means nothing they gave up could have stopped the operation, which was already exposed.
exactly how would this plot have been carried out anyway. you can't get anything on an airliner now, much less then, and if a plane had been taken over, it's quite likely the passengers would have done the same thing that the passengers on the 9-11 pennsylvania plane did when they got word on their cell phones of what had happened. 9-11 should have been a footnote in history, like a lot of these other plots. there were many intelligence warnings that something was up, but nothing was done at the top levels of the administration, including bush, cheney, condi and ashcroft. they ignored and dismissed every warning.
If you look into it you'll find that this theory has been debunked as well.
which theory?
Maybe Bush captured this guy before the stated date...but how would we know anything the Bushies did? Remember, Cheney never wanted this stuff released because of National Security but now, he wants everything out there. And then, Hannity and Rush will complain it is released..and round and round we go.
The Republicons, the Desperados, are so disjointed that they will soon begin to eat on another.
Media Matters is missing the point by ignoring the capture of Hambali in 2003. That is one second attempt, besides the one that MM is referring to, to blow up the Library Tower. Hambali was allegedly captured thanks to confessions under torture by KSM:
http://patterico.com/2009/04/26/waterboarding-worked-part-3-the-wapo-falls-for-the-lazy-argument-on-the-timing-issue-of-the-library-tower-attack/#comments
mmfa is responding to what was said in the column by taylor, which was untrue.
At the time (actually all the time during his Presidency) Bush was so engrossed in shoving freedom and liberty down everyones' throat, that he thought we thwarted an attack on Liberty Tower.
I am really worried about the way this debate is starting to be framed here. The right keep saying the Bush Admin gained useful intelligence from torture. The left is arguing the Bush Admin did not - instead of arguing that they likely did not gain actionable intelligence AND even if they did, there is no evidence that they would not have gotten the same information WITHOUT using torture.
Please remember that when arguing the point, so we do not get suckered into a false choice.
That is exactly what the right is hoping for. Their base is the bumper sticker mentality crowd, and if the left says it like you did, it's too long.
If Dustin Pedroia pulls out a gun and shoots Derek Jeter dead while Jeter is trying to steal second base, has Pedroia's action been "effective"? ABSOLUTELY -- Jeter didn't steal second base. According to the Bush-enabler meme, that the end of story. It doesn't matter if there's a rule (law) against it, and Pedroia also doesn't have to account for the possibility that the Yankees will retaliate by shooting dead one or more Red Sox players.
And by Obama's rationale, if the police or the district attorney come after Pedroia after his "enhanced base stealing defense" technique, all the Red Sox have to do is say that now is a time for looking forward, not backwards, and this is not a time for retribution, and we should be expending time and effort on things that will matter in the future, not second guessing what Pedroia did in the past while he was making a good faith attempt to do the best thing possible for his team.
We used to understand that IGNORANCE of the law was no excuse, let alone willful disobediance of it.
Bang. Zoom. That one is outta here. Perfect metaphor. I am betting none of our rightwing friends will even TRY to answer your point
The trolls will be in to discuss the following:
You failed to note if there were one or two outs.
If it were a double steal, would Pedroia have been better off shooting the lead runner first then Jeter?
Was Pedroia acting on a signal from his manager?
1st. Republic....please, this is too clear and you have to realize that some visitors may think this really happened. It is too truthful.
Excellent metaphor.
On an related note, Iran is holding an American journalist named Roxana Saberi for suspicion of spying right now. Would the same right wingnuts that say that it's OK for us to waterboard suspects also say that Iran would be justified in waterboarding her?
Right to heart of it! Also no one should be above the law, remember hearing that during the Lewinski witchhunts, it is even more applicable now! Those responsible for this despicable period in our history should be held accountable no matter where it leads!
Open mind, it really depends on what you mean by "here."
If "here" means this thread and the Library Tower foiled plot, then it is a mistake for you to frame this as a question of the right saying that "we gained useful intelligence from torture."
In this particular instance, given what we know about the chronology, the right is claiming that "we gained useful intelligence on how to foil a plot on the Library Tower in Los Angeles from torture carried out AFTER the plot was foiled."
This is either a lie or the ravings of someone who just doesn't know what he is talking about -- or has drunk a bit too much of the "24" Kool-Aid.
Ideed, absent revelations that the Bush administration was using torture earlier than it has already admitted to usuing it, it would appear that we foiled the Library Tower plot WITHOUT using torture.
The fact that nothing has surfaced -- so far as I know -- in the form of even an ambiguous leak on how we actually did foil the Library Tower plot, strongly suggests that there either was no plot or that the plot was foiled serendipitously -- but certainly not by torture driven interrogation. Trust me, if someone had been a hero in uncovering this plot, we would have heard about it in one form or another.
And we now have, of course, But the fact that the best story that the Bushies can come up with about foiling the plot is one that is patently absurd -- in a world where time does not travel in reverse -- reinforces the reasonable conviction that you can trust very little of what these people say, not that there is a legitimate "on the one hand, on the other" issue about avoiding a false choice here. The false choice is simply the lie that the Bushies have been trying to get away with on the Library Tower plot.
And Snoopy is, of course, right. The right lies precisely because when you try to disentangle lies from the truth it usually takes more than a bumper sticker to set the record straight -- alas.
Apparently the Bush administration's interrogators possess both instruments of torture AND time machines.
Congress returned from their recess last week, to begin what truly might be an historic session, one that sees not only the necessary regulation of our robbed financial system, but also real regulation of emissions and maybe a greatly expanded public health insurance (we'll see).
And Congress dove right into those things last week, beginning Monday and working right through to Friday.
There was a start on the financial system issue, when the House Financial Services Committee marked up a "Credit Card Holder's Bill of Rights" that has real teeth in it (I don't know when it will come to the House floor): also, there was the beginning of mortgage fraud legislation: on Tuesday the House's Joint Economic Committee held a Hearing titled "Too Big to Fail or Too Big to Save? Examining the Systemic Threats of Large Financial Institutions" (like I said, this session may be historic for the regulations imposed on our robbed financial system): the Senate's Armed Services Committee held a Hearing on the current readiness of U.S. ground forces (Army and Marines), and that's extraordinarily important, because those forces have been stretched very thin for years now: energy legislation began taking shape too last week: on more than one day last week, Gen. Petraeus testified regarding Defense Appropriationson: also Justices Thomas and Breyer of the SCOTUS testified regarding appropriations for the Courts: on Thursday, Secretary of State Clinton testified before the House Appropriations Committee, in the matter of her department's funding (but she was forthcoming on all matters asked her): also AG Holder testified last week, regarding DOJ appropriations: Friday was an extraordinary day, with former VP Al Gore and former House Speaker Gingrich being the star witnesses in testimony regarding the American Clean Energy Security Act of 2009...
Does that sound like an awesome action-packed week of National and Public Policy talk (talk and action both, on all those issues, regulations chief among them), sound like an exciting week in our nation's capitol?
Because it was all LOST UNDER THE RADAR, and discussed not in the least, by those many and stupid cable television political commentary shows, as they ran hog wild with this "torture memos" bullchit!
Everyone of those hack idiots blathered non-stop about that nonsense last week... look at who's initiating all of this, and who keeps talking about it: hannity and o'reilly and scarborough, and limbaugh and all of them really, they prattled on about "torture" and "memos" and "torture memos" all last week, distracting you in a truly neurotic and insane fashion... as I bet you missed most if not all of what I listed above, right?
That was intentional!
When was the last time you saw such a line-up of Republican media hacks run so non-stop wild with anything truly important?
Never.
When those hacks get to beating all their drums all day and night and in sync, then you know you're being played... and you were played last week, and distracted completely from the beginning of a truly historic session of Congress, as they were out in force those hacks were, endlessing obsessing about "torture memos".
And so a great and awesome last week was LOST UNDER THE RADAR, and nothing can be done about that...
But what about this week?
Are they going to do the same thing, those Republican media hacks, especially the cable television variety, are they going to go into a full court press and start prattling non-stop all day and all night long, from Monday through Friday, regarding "torture memos"?
You'll know in the morning.... "morning joe" will signal the start, and then you'll know... as for me, I'm sick of it!
It's sickening what these people are doing.
All I know is they're not doing it to me... maybe to you, but not to me.
A sad revelation, that the public cannot digest more than one major story per week, or that the media assumes it to be the case. Whatever the truth, one thing is for sure: information can be and is clouded by noise.
Randy
I can hear it now:"We have a time machine," said the defendant I could put it past them, as they are admitted into federal detention, for life. Bushbaby, Cheny & Co., will have to answer. When, where, and to whom, is not up to me. Lady Justice can take a swing, by all means. This is why we have three (3), branches of government.
Stay tuned key stokers, we've only just begun, convict. Put them all in a lonely cell,
let them know, more on the way. We've only just begun...(Karen Carpenter)
Don't dream, it's over. (Crowded House)
I don't think you'll hear that testimony. I'm sure revealing that the CIA has a time machine would be a national security risk.
If the team was discovered through other means and the operattion broken up before the two Al Quaida leaders could be questioned, that would certainly make any claim that waterboarding them had led to the discovery of the team and break up of the plot.
But I'm curious about one aspect of this story, maybe some one else hads picked up the answer. The rest of the team was arrested, "sometine later." And it is reported that with the arrest of their leader they thought the mission was compromised and abandoned. Did their arrests come before or after Zubaida was interrogated?
If it came after and it was then that the FBI or whomever learned of the plot to destroy the tower, then it is possible that Bush was right in saying that the plot had been thwarted as a result of waterboarding Zubaida. It is at least not possible to say with surety that he was wrong.
Al Quaida had a team in the U.S. tasked with blowing up the target. Until captured, there was nothing to stop them from resuming their original plans. They say they had abandoned the plot. But are they to be believed? One of the 9-11 team had also been arrested as you will recall, though that time it was not the leader.
If any information was obtained from questioning Zubaida that helped lead to this team's capture then Media Matters owes George W. Bush and apology. I don't know that is the case. I'm just speculating, but it may be that I'm not the only suggesting conclusions without having all of the evidence.
Yet another apologist for torture. It's illegal, no matter what intel is obtained. And interrogators have said that more reliable intel can be obtained from NOT torturing.
So please, stop speculating.
Or you could read an editorial written by someone who interrogated Zubaydah and hear what he has to say:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss
"There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."
Thanks for calling it debunked this time.