Obama advisor: Waterboarding didn't lead to bin Laden kill

Obama advisor: Waterboarding didn’t lead to bin Laden kill

US News • May 2011 • Views: 1,333

“So we’ve been talking about the different details and methods that lead up to this moment, and obviously there is word out today that waterboarding played a very big role or role in actually getting the information,” MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski told Brennan. “Is that the case?”

“Not to my knowledge,” Brennan explained.
…
Fox News’ Fox Nation website claimed Tuesday that waterboarding led to the death of bin Laden.

Fox News doesn’t deal in news but in claims so this is perfectly legitimate for their website.

Recent Pages by Locker:
Religious People Are Less Intelligent Than Atheists Watch This Little Girl Become What She Is Told Every Day How to Be Outraged on the Internet How California's Gun Laws Have Worked Arkansas Attorney General Blocks Plan to Arm Teachers

Jump to bottom

51 comments

Locker May 3, 2011 7:13:07am

More from Rumsfeld:

thinkprogress.org

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 7:25:42am

I think there’s some nuance here. KSM didn’t give up the courier while being waterboarded. But he did give up the information while in a cia black site some time after being broken by water boarding.

simoom May 3, 2011 7:30:40am

re: #2 Killgore Trout

Rumsfeld seems to be saying the courier alias came from normal interrogation at Gitmo. Wasn’t the initial reporting also that it came from multiple Gitmo detainees?

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 7:38:33am

re: #3 simoom

Rumsfeld seems to be saying the courier alias came from normal interrogation at Gitmo. Wasn’t the initial reporting also that it came from multiple Gitmo detainees?

It’s hard to tell. Everybody is parsing the language to fit their desired narrative so it’s tough to tell exactly where and when KSM gave up the information. Yesterday there were statements that KSM gave up the intel under normal interrogation a month or two after being waterboarded at a cia black site in Eastern Europe before being sent to Gitmo. Other detainees also confirmed the information.
We saw a similar situation a few months ago when it came out that KSM gave up information that broke up a plot to attack London. British authorities of course denied it because legally they aren’t allowed to accept information from torture.
We may never really know because Obama needs to spin this so the intell didn’t come from practices he opposed. Even if it was the result of waterboarding, he wouldn’t admit it.

simoom May 3, 2011 7:50:00am

re: #4 Killgore Trout

I just don’t see how all these former whitehouse officials can truly know anything about what was a keystone piece of intelligence that the current admin developed, without which everything wouldn’t have been possible. This straight line theory (from torture to bin laden), some are pushing in the media, seems just a little too neat and self serving for the folks advancing it. How can they possibly know, among the massive puzzle of intel developed by the new admin, that this one peice (that they even admit was a dead end that lead nowhere on their watch) is so central.

Also, has anyone also noticed when a number of these former white house officials are pressed on it, that they waffle or admit that they’re not entirely sure in what they’re claiming? (which would make sense since you’d imagine they wouldn’t have access to the details of the intelligence work done in the new admin)

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 7:58:22am

re: #5 simoom

It’s a very murky picture. Details are sketchy and there are so many hypothetical variables. I still tend to think that KSM was broken by waterboarding and probably would not have cooperated without it. We probably benefited a lot from the information he gave up after being broken. Even though we may not continue to waterboard people we now turn them over to people who use other similar techniques and we still benefit from the information gleaned from enhanced interrogations. It’s a dirty little secret that a lot of people don’t like to think about.

Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain) May 3, 2011 7:59:46am

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Every single intelligence officer I have ever read the opinion of, is that it is better to break prisoners through co-option and other means, rather than torture.

I have not seen any of them say that torture produces results other methods couldn’t.

simoom May 3, 2011 8:06:38am

re: #6 Killgore Trout

Even though we may not continue to waterboard people we now turn them over to people who use other similar techniques and we still benefit from the information gleaned from enhanced interrogations. It’s a dirty little secret that a lot of people don’t like to think about.

Has there been reporting that the current Admin is still using extraordinary rendition? As I recall one of the first things the current President did was sign an executive order banning the practice (along with shutting down the black sites).

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 8:08:04am

re: #7 Obdicut

Every single intelligence officer I have ever read the opinion of, is that it is better to break prisoners through co-option and other means, rather than torture.

I have not seen any of them say that torture produces results other methods couldn’t.

I’m sure it’s not the preferred method but some subjects are going to be tougher than others. They are pretty methodical about how interrogations are handled. It’s important to remember that the interrogators requested the enhanced procedures because they thought it was the best way to get him to talk. They didn’t do it to be mean. Bush approved the request but he didn’t order it.

barry123 May 3, 2011 8:09:39am

The key think is that Bush/Cheney deserve all the credit for this and all the blame for 9/11 falls on Bill Clinton.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 8:15:53am

re: #8 simoom

Has there been reporting that the current Admin is still using extraordinary rendition? As I recall one of the first things the current President did was sign an executive order banning the practice (along with shutting down the black sites).

There was a report about a month ago that we are still running black sites in Afghanistan. If you pay close attention to articles about high level terror arrests these days you’ll notice (usually buried near the end of the article) that the US doesn’t take them into custody. Our guys are there but the suspect is usually held by the local authorities in Pakistan, Indonesia, or wherever.
I read yesterday that non-combatants in the Bin Laden raid were left at the villa but no mention of what happened to the combatants who surrendered or were wounded. Maybe everybody fought to the death but I wouldn’t be surprised if we made a few captures. We may never know for sure.

Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain) May 3, 2011 8:16:43am

re: #9 Killgore Trout

No, you’re not understanding me. Every single intelligence officer of any repute that I have read has said that other methods work better. It’s not about the preferred method, it’s about efficacy.

I would never think Bush would cavalierly order torture. I don’t know which Americans got it into their head to torture, but it doesn’t change the fact that, up until this point, every intelligence officer who’s ever written on the subject agrees that torture is ineffacious, and for a variety of convincing reasons:

1. It produces false information along with true
2. When it does produce true information, it provides trivial along with important.
3. It makes other sources less likely to allow themselves to be captured
4. Those who prefer it tend to be the least-experienced and the least-effective interrogators.

I don’t see any reason to credit a small minority of intelligence officers who do advocate torture above the vast majority who don’t.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 8:21:27am

re: #12 Obdicut

No, you’re not understanding me.

I do understand you. However the CIA interogators decided that enhanced interrogation was necessary for KSM and requested it. You’ll have to take your objection up with them.

Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain) May 3, 2011 8:24:57am

re: #13 Killgore Trout

I do understand you. However the CIA interogators decided that enhanced interrogation was necessary for KSM and requested it. You’ll have to take your objection up with them.

I do. I’d like them to explain why all the other interrogation experts are wrong, and they are right. I don’t believe they can actually do so. And since I have no desire to turn America’s intelligence agencies inside out, causing more harm, I don’t want them to be identified so that they are called to account.

So, since I respect the need for a solid intelligence community, I don’t want to have them answer me. So instead, I’m simply making my case in general; I think that these techniques have been shown to be less efficacious than others, and I have less confidence in those that use them than those that don’t.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 8:42:19am

re: #14 Obdicut

I do. I’d like them to explain why all the other interrogation experts are wrong, and they are right. I don’t believe they can actually do so. And since I have no desire to turn America’s intelligence agencies inside out, causing more harm, I don’t want them to be identified so that they are called to account.

So, since I respect the need for a solid intelligence community, I don’t want to have them answer me. So instead, I’m simply making my case in general; I think that these techniques have been shown to be less efficacious than others, and I have less confidence in those that use them than those that don’t.

I would love to know the inside details of his interrogation and if the interrogators still stand my their request. Unfortunately all we are going to get is books from politicians (Bush, Cheney, Runsfeld, etc) who are all going to spin in their favor.

Aunty Entity Dragon May 3, 2011 8:54:13am

re: #2 Killgore Trout

I think there’s some nuance here. KSM didn’t give up the courier while being waterboarded. But he did give up the information while in a cia black site some time after being broken by water boarding.

He claimed to not know the name of the courier at all…which was suspicious in of itself since other low level people had fingered the courier. He was lying.

Waterboarding had nothing to do with it. He was caught in a lie by old fashioned interview work.

Aunty Entity Dragon May 3, 2011 9:05:26am

re: #13 Killgore Trout

I do understand you. However the ~~CIA interogators~~ appointed political hacks decided that enhanced interrogation was necessary for KSM and requested it. You’ll have to take your objection up with them.

amazon.com

Military necessity does not admit of cruelty—that is, the infliction of suffering for the sake of suffering or for revenge, nor of maiming or wounding except in fight, nor of torture to extort confessions.
Abraham Lincoln

I don’t give a rats ass who asked for torture to become part of the interrogation procedure, whether it was from the top (which has been documented) or from the interrogators in the room.

Torture is a goddamn crime. No debate. No excuse.

Americans. Do. Not. Torture.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 9:11:57am

re: #17 celticdragon

Americans. Do. Not. Torture.

Sometimes we do. Sometimes we have other people do it for us. I know your very passionate about this issue but I think we can agree on some facts.
en.wikipedia.org
(sorry but Wikipedia is probably the best available source for what is known)
KSM spent a good deal of time in CIA black sites without cooperating. The CIA requested the enhanced interogation. He was waterboarded. After being broken he confessed to a whole lot of shit and gave up a lot of information.
I think it’s silly to think he got caught in a lie and was shamed into confessing.

Locker May 3, 2011 9:19:35am

Peter King persists:

thinkprogress.org

Senate Intelligence Chair comments:

thinkprogress.org

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 9:28:40am

re: #19 Locker

Now see this is what I mean about people parsing these statements to fit their narrative. Her statement….

To date, the answer to your question is no. Nothing has been found to indicate this came out of Guantanamo. And people were questioned, but there were no positive answers as to the identity of this number one courier.

The information did not come out of Guantanamo. It came out of a CIA blacksite in Poland where KSM was waterboarded.

Locker May 3, 2011 9:31:49am

re: #20 Killgore Trout

Now see this is what I mean about people parsing these statements to fit their narrative. Her statement…

The information did not come out of Guantanamo. It came out of a CIA blacksite in Poland where KSM was waterboarded.

It seems like you are moving from stating opinion to stating fact. I completely accept your opinion on the matter. However I think you know the same two facts that the rest of us know about this matter.. jack & squat. No reason not to speculate as long as we are accurately labeling it as speculation.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 9:37:50am

re: #21 Locker

Here;s the article from yesterday….
Officials: CIA interrogators at secret prisons developed first strands that led to bin Laden

U.S. officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.

The news is sure to reignite debate over whether the now-closed interrogation and detention program was successful. Former President George W. Bush authorized the CIA to use the harshest interrogation tactics in U.S. history. President Barack Obama closed the prison system.

Dianne Feinstein’s statement that the information did not come out of Guantanamo is correct and does not refute the reports that it came out of CIA blacksites in Poland. As far as I know nobody was waterborded at Gitmo. The Enhanced interrogations happened in Poland.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 9:49:18am

Here’s MSNBC: Bin Laden death rekindles interrogation debate

The trail that led to the doorstep of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan began years earlier with aggressive interrogations of al-Qaida detainees at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and CIA “black site” prisons overseas, according to U.S. officials.

It was those sometimes controversial interrogations that first produced descriptions of members of bin Laden’s courier network, including one critical Middle Eastern courier who along with his brother was protecting bin Laden at his heavily fortified compound in Abbottabad on Sunday. Both the courier and his brother were among those killed, along with bin Laden, in the dramatic raid by U.S. special forces.

I see a lot of spin, phrase parsing and non-answers from politicians but I don’t think anyone has refuted this.

iceweasel May 3, 2011 9:54:53am

re: #8 simoom

Has there been reporting that the current Admin is still using extraordinary rendition? As I recall one of the first things the current President did was sign an executive order banning the practice (along with shutting down the black sites).

You’re right. The second day in office he rescinded extraordinary rendition and shut down CIA operated black sites.
However, even under Bush the administration of the black sites was quietly being transfered to JSOC, and that’s continued under Obama. So we still have them, just under JSOC.

As for extraordinary rendition, although Obama stopped that he’s just fine with Original Recipe Rendition.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 9:59:17am

re: #24 iceweasel

You’re right. The second day in office he rescinded extraordinary rendition and shut down CIA operated black sites.
However, even under Bush the administration of the black sites was quietly being transfered to JSOC, and that’s continued under Obama. So we still have them, just under JSOC.

As for extraordinary rendition, although Obama stopped that he’s just fine with Original Recipe Rendition.

Thanks for that. I think no matter which side of the issue you’re on it’s important to acknowledge what’s really going on and discuss it. A lot of people want to sweep this under the rug and pretend that it’s not going on.

calochortus May 3, 2011 11:09:29am

Does anyone have a link to a study showing that torture is effective? Not some anecdotal evidence, or someone’s beliefs, but a study. The studies I’ve seen are (necessarily) few and far between, but they seem to point to the ineffectiveness of torture.
The person being tortured may tell you a lot of stuff, but if most of it is false or irrelevant, it doesn’t really help much. And apparently torture actually destroys your memory.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 11:34:22am

re: #26 calochortus

Does anyone have a link to a study showing that torture is effective? Not some anecdotal evidence, or someone’s beliefs, but a study. The studies I’ve seen are (necessarily) few and far between, but they seem to point to the ineffectiveness of torture.
The person being tortured may tell you a lot of stuff, but if most of it is false or irrelevant, it doesn’t really help much. And apparently torture actually destroys your memory.

Although I’d be interested in seeing such a study I think it’s such a charged subject that anyone could produce a study to fit their desired narrative. It also depends on how you define torture. Sleep deprivation, disorientation, heat, cold, humiliation, fear, intimidation etc are common interrogation methods. I assume they work to some extent because they are used commonly and do produce results. Many people would consider it torture to be in solitary confinement like Bradley Manning.

calochortus May 3, 2011 11:50:27am

re: #27 Killgore Trout

What is the evidence that torture produces results? That is exactly the sort of study I was asking for.

You assume it works because people use torture. People use torture because they assume it works. If it does, there should be evidence. The fact that a tortured person will sometimes tell you what you want to know is not evidence of torture’s effectiveness unless you can show that it equals or outperforms other methods of obtaining intelligence.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 12:00:11pm

re: #28 calochortus

What is the evidence that torture produces results? That is exactly the sort of study I was asking for.

You assume it works because people use torture. People use torture because they assume it works. If it does, there should be evidence. The fact that a tortured person will sometimes tell you what you want to know is not evidence of torture’s effectiveness unless you can show that it equals or outperforms other methods of obtaining intelligence.

I think it’s a safe assumption that the Government, police, military and spy agencies have been collecting information on interrogation techniques for a very long time. Not just from our own interrogations but also from debriefing our own soldiers who have been captured and interrogated. Which techniques work, which ones don’t work. When people broke, how they resisted, what info they gave up or held back, etc. Not all interrogations go perfectly but they have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn’t. The goal is to get the most and best quality information they can and it’s a mistake to assume they intentionally use techniques just to be mean and vengeful which don’t result in good intelligence.

Obdicut (Now with 2% less brain) May 3, 2011 12:06:05pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

The problem is it’s a complex field of study, and it’s never been done (for obvious reasons) in an academic environment. There’s plenty of practices that existed for hundreds of years in the military, in medicine, in farming, etc. that were either useless or actually harmful, despite the fact that intelligent, honest, and thoughtful people were in those professions.

Furthermore, again: I have never seen any actual writer on interrogation indicate that torture was ever a superior tactic, in any situation, to others. I have read the opposite. So when you cite its use, most of those who used it were not actually interested in the result; the Soviets, the Khemer Rouge, the Nazis, etc. etc., were as interested in the use of torture as cruelty as they were as a technique.

From my limited actual knowledge, my friends who are cops consider the cops who try to physically abuse or threaten suspects in order to get info the stupidest and most useless of cops. They say that their greatest weapon is the subject’s urge to confess, either to lift guilt or to defiantly claim their place in the world, to assert that they matter. Other techniques involve co-opting them by becoming buddy-buddy, in appealing to vanity, etc. etc. They all consider roughing people up to be worse than doing nothing.

Obviously, a professional terrorist or agent is a different kettle of fish. But the famous Nazi interrogator who actually had great success was the one who didn’t torture, and our interrogators relied almost exclusively on befriending and co-opting prisoners.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 12:08:25pm

re: #28 calochortus

Here’s a place to start if you’re interested: Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says

The report explores scientific knowledge on interrogation in the wake of reported abuse around the globe. The study, sponsored by the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Pentagon’s Counterintelligence Field Activity, was posted yesterday on the Federation of American Scientists’ Web site, at .
The PDF won’t open for me but maybe you can track it down. I gotta get some work done but I’ll check back later.

calochortus May 3, 2011 12:16:32pm

re: #29 Killgore Trout

I wish I could remember where I found a really interesting piece that was done a number of years ago. It was written before 9/11 and was done by the Army JAG or the DOD or some such, and it laid out the various reasons why torture was not a good idea or a useful tool. If I can find it again I’ll link it.

The military by and large comes out against torture. Not that soldiers haven’t tortured, but the official positions are all against it. I also haven’t seen anyone who has been tortured saying it was effective. Horrible, yes, but not effective.

People believe all sorts of things that aren’t true with all their hearts-that does not make their beliefs true. Medieval people believed in witchcraft, some people still do. That doesn’t make it true. Just because many people believe torture works doesn’t mean it does. I just keep finding studies that support the contention that torture is ineffective and that is what I will believe until someone can provide actual evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, I’ve got to go for a while. BBL

calochortus May 3, 2011 12:25:37pm

re: #31 Killgore Trout

Your linked article points out there hasn’t been a lot of research and included this:

The new study finds that there may be no value to coercive techniques.

“The scientific community has never established that coercive interrogation methods are an effective means of obtaining reliable intelligence information,” wrote Col. Steven M. Kleinman, who has served as the Pentagon’s senior intelligence officer for special survival training.

I saw nothing about studies showing any effectiveness.

I did get the pdf to download and will be looking at it later since I do have to go.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) May 3, 2011 12:46:08pm

re: #30 Obdicut

So when you cite its use, most of those who used it were not actually interested in the result; the Soviets, the Khemer Rouge, the Nazis, etc. etc., were as interested in the use of torture as cruelty as they were as a technique.

I will also stipulate and say that it is not just cruelty as a way to feed desires of a torturer, but also a way the people laying out torture policies “break” the yet-to-be-torturer into a torturer. It is a way to train entire groups of people to treat other groups of people as less than human, to reduce the relationship between them to one of total voluntary domination and involuntary submission. In the process, whole societal structures become brutalized, and more ruthless politicians have more tactical avenues with which to meet their strategic aims. Nazi Germany did not produce the Holocaust guards of the 1940s overnight.

(I Stand By What I Said Whatever It Was) May 3, 2011 12:50:47pm

re: #34 000G

And that, of course, then gets into torture being a social institution that in turn affects and changes society as opposed to it just being seen as a technique of interrogation with debatable efficiency in that department.

calochortus May 3, 2011 1:48:11pm

re: #35 000G

The report I mentioned earlier that I can’t seem to find mentions a very similar point-that if we torture, we have to train and maintain torturers-and do we as a society wish to have those people among us?

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 2:07:06pm

re: #36 calochortus

The report I mentioned earlier that I can’t seem to find mentions a very similar point-that if we torture, we have to train and maintain torturers-and do we as a society wish to have those people among us?

Let’s not get melodramatic here. The Cia interrogators are not a menace to society or our culture because some people are object to an interrogation technique.

calochortus May 3, 2011 2:18:22pm

re: #31 Killgore Trout

OK, I have skimmed the pdf-which at over 300 pages I’m not going to even try to read all of.
It is a group of papers (mercifully, with abstracts highlighted in green) dealing with various aspects of interrogation. As you note, there is a paper (#10) dealing with the lack of studies that have been done. It lays out eminently reasonable suggestions for research. However, the paper is dated 2005 and perhaps 6 years on, we have learned something. 2006 study for example.

There is nothing that I found in any of the papers that suggests the efficacy of torture, and some suggestions that it is counterproductive. Paper #5 which starts on page 95 (numbered 128 in the side bar-the numbers are off through the entire document) deals with the CIA interrogation manual, and even they apparently thought the infliction of physical pain wasn’t a good way to go about things.
Once again, this isn’t supported by any research, but the only real support I find in print for the efficacy of torture is provided by people who were torturers. Since any even moderately normal human being who is a torturer must need to find a really convincing rationale for doing something so horrible, it is not surprising that they would want to believe it was necessary and effective.

calochortus May 3, 2011 2:19:20pm

re: #37 Killgore Trout

That was not my opinion it was that of the Army JAG or whomever it was that wrote the stupid report I still can’t find. But I know I’m not hallucinating!

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 2:39:12pm

re: #38 calochortus

Interesting use of game theory….

The study, entitled “Epistemic Systems,” applies game theory to social situations in which people must decide whether to lie or tell the truth. Game theory is the branch of applied mathematics that studies how people in conflict try to get the best outcome for themselves by picking the best available strategy. It has been used to study games such as poker and political conflicts such as war. Koppl is using game theory to understand when people lie. “As we all learn in childhood,” Koppl remarks, “deciding whether to tell the truth is not just a moral issue; it can be a strategic choice as well.”

…but it misses the point of the whole thing. It seems a lot of people are under the impression that waterboarding/torture is used to actually extract information. Like in the movies where the guy is quizzed for facts while the thumb screws are tightened. In real life these interrogations are used to break down a person’s defenses so they aren’t capable of lying or resisting and making a conscious choice to cooperate. The same general principle is used to break down soldiers in boot camp. KSM cooperated for months (maybe longer) after being broken. From the MSNBC article up thread his buddy broke down for a few months then started resisting interrogations again.
So it’s not a game of mathematics and probability, it’s more about psychology and manipulating the subject into telling things they don’t want to tell.

calochortus May 3, 2011 2:53:52pm

re: #40 Killgore Trout

So this is not something that could be used for a “ticking time bomb” scenario?
That is the usual rationale.

Have you been able to open the pdf and read any of the articles yet? I do think they deal with long term compliance without the use of torture.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 3:10:46pm

re: #41 calochortus

So this is not something that could be used for a “ticking time bomb” scenario?
That is the usual rationale.

Have you been able to open the pdf and read any of the articles yet? I do think they deal with long term compliance without the use of torture.

Ah, I see what you’re saying. Yes, In a ticking time bomb situation where it’s a matter of hours or days the suspect could easily lie his way out of it. The Israelis use it in situations like that but I’m not sure if it’s ever worked out for them.
It took a week or two to break KSM and probably only worked because he knew there would be no end in sight.

calochortus May 3, 2011 3:18:47pm

So, if it’s not urgent, why not use other methods that work?

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 3:24:34pm

re: #43 calochortus

So, if it’s not urgent, why not use other methods that work?

Well, in the case of KSM we had him for quite a while. We had him for about 3-4 years without cooperation. After a week of waterboarding and he suddenly felt chatty.

calochortus May 3, 2011 3:37:52pm

re: #44 Killgore Trout

Can you give me a link for that? As I understand it, he was captured in March of 2003 and waterboarded 183 times that same month.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 3:47:54pm

re: #45 calochortus

The timeline is sketchy but here’s his wiki….
en.wikipedia.org

He was picked up in 2002 or 2003 depending on which account is reliable. I suspect it was 2002 and 2003 was when the arrest was announced. He was held in black sites in Romania and Poland and transferred to Gitmo in late 2006 after he started cooperating. So I would guess the waterboarding took place some time in early 2006.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 3:51:38pm

re: #46 Killgore Trout

Here’s the quote….

In the 2006 interview with the Red Cross, Mohammed claimed to have been waterboarded in 5 different sessions during the first month of interrogation in his third place of detention.[71][72] While the Justice Department memos were confusing in that they did not explain exactly what the numbers represented, a U.S. official with knowledge of the interrogation programs explained the 183 figure represented the number of times water was applied to the detainees face during the waterboarding sessions.[73]
In June 2008, a New York Times article citing unnamed CIA officers claimed that Mohammed was held in a secret facility in Poland near Szymany Airport, about 100 miles north of Warsaw, where he was interrogated under waterboarding before he began to cooperate.[74]

So they waterboarded him the first month they moved him to Poland, Not the first month of his captivity.

calochortus May 3, 2011 3:53:05pm

Apparently he could have been captured in Sept. 2002 and was turned over to Americans in March of 2003 but according to Wikipedia:

A 2005 U.S. Justice Department memo released in April 2009 stated that Mohammed had undergone waterboarding 183 times in March 2003.[70]

So there wasn’t a lot of time either way.

calochortus May 3, 2011 3:57:36pm

In any event, I suspect we’ll have to agree to disagree. I need to go get some stuff done.

As always, a pleasure having a civilized debate.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 3:58:01pm

re: #48 calochortus

Apparently he could have been captured in Sept. 2002 and was turned over to Americans in March of 2003 but according to Wikipedia:

So there wasn’t a lot of time either way.

Ah, ok. It looks like they had him about a year before the waterboarding.

Killgore Trout May 3, 2011 3:58:16pm

re: #49 calochortus