9/11 Plotter Waterboarded 183 Times »
Posted By GLee 8 months ago in NewsKhalid Sheik Mohammed, the admitted planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was waterboarded 183 times by CIA interrogators, according to The New York Times. The revelation comes after the Obama administration released Bush-era memos detailing a variety of harsh interrogation methods used on terror suspects. \n\n
Read Full Story at news.aol.com »
1523 Views Share Story 127 Comments Report
Submitted By:
GLee
I am all about pulling the 'levers' to gain new leadership for the United States of America. The 'change' began in NJ and Virginia and ...
Other Related Articles: All »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentComments So Far: 127 (view all)
-
33%
GLee8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can we have him one more time?
Reply
184 is a much nicer number.
Having said that let me qualify the above statement. This character brought about massive deaths of civilians with no disregard for innocents. This is the manner they choose to fight this 'war'. He should be executed and never have the opportunity to put a foot on American soil.-
29%
nostalgia8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
Reply
The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating the CIA interrogation program, which under President George W. Bush also included slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in uncomfortable positions and depriving them of sleep.
Are they going to call leaders of the House and Senate who were briefed on the "torture?"
While Hypocrites like Nanci Pelosi applaud the release of the CIA memos authorizing some of the more special interrogation techniques, the press is forgetting to report the fact that Ms Pelosi along with much of the congressional leaderships knew all about methods such as waterboarding, from the very beginning, and made absolutely no attempt to stop. In fact they were asked if it was harsh enough. This was reported in both the Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal:
In September 2002, four members of Congress met in secret for a first look at a unique CIA program designed to wring vital information from reticent terrorism suspects in U.S. custody. For more than an hour, the bipartisan group, which included current House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), was given a virtual tour of the CIA's overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.
Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by
Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.
"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.
Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort. The CIA last week admitted that videotape of an interrogation of one of the waterboarded detainees was destroyed in 2005 against the advice of Justice Department and White House officials, provoking allegations that its actions were illegal and the destruction was a coverup......
With one known exception, no formal objections were raised by the lawmakers briefed about the harsh methods during the two years in which waterboarding was employed, from 2002 to 2003, said Democrats and Republicans with direct knowledge of the matter. The lawmakers who held oversight roles during the period included Pelosi and Rep. Jane Harman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.), as well as Rep. Porter J. Goss (R-Fla.) and Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan). (D-Calif.) and Sens. Bob Graham (D-Fla.)
http://yidwithlid.blogspot.com/2009/04/democratic-... -
94%
UnusualSuspect8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Interrogators also waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. Mohammed is believed to be the mastermind behind the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. - CNN
Reply
I think if GLee had been waterboarded 183 times in one month (about 4 times a day), he would have confessed to the bombings, too...
Hell, I'll bet GLee would have told his torturers that after only one day... -
85%
Candida8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
GLee: "This character brought about massive deaths of civilians with no disregard for innocents."
Reply
If 184 is the right number of waterbording for someone who has caused the deaths of 3000 or so Americans, what is the right number for President Bush and Vice President Cheney who have caused the deaths of more than 4000 Americans and hundreds of thousands of others?
-
-
19%
jcornn8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The signatories of the Geneva convention were unaware that there would come to pass in our world a dispicable faction of a major religious faith who would use terrorist type tactics such as suicide bombings, beheading and other unimaginalble atrocities against INNOCENT men, women and yes, children to inflict maiming and death. Had those signees been able to forsee the future I believe they would have certainly made exceptions to rules of engagement as well as treatment of prisioners.
Reply
Many people in the US and the world oppose harsh treatment and interrogation procedures of captive combatants (in this case terrorists) but no legal action has been contemplated against the North Vietnamese for their actions during our Vietnam war.
If President knew there were a terror plot to kill his wife and two daughters and he had a prisoner housed at GITMO who could provide the information to preclude the deaths of his loved ones would he adhere to the liberalistic niceties of his administration or would he order the CIA or whomever was conducting the questioning of the prisoner to get the information using whatever means was required?-
95%
Dionys8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"a dispicable faction of a major religious faith who would use terrorist type tactics such as suicide bombings, beheading and other unimaginalble atrocities against INNOCENT men, women and yes, children to inflict maiming and death"
Reply
As opposed to those nice mass bombings the supposedly Christian US military perpetrated on Muslims?
Horrors have happened in EVERY war. All you have to do is ask a Vietnam Vet or a WWII vet. This "war" is no different in that regard.
"If President knew there were a terror plot to kill his wife and two daughters and he had a prisoner housed at GITMO who could provide the information to preclude the deaths of his loved ones would he adhere to the liberalistic niceties of his administration or would he order the CIA or whomever was conducting the questioning of the prisoner to get the information using whatever means was required"
The 'ticking bomb' theory has been put forth many times and the reality of all the investigations into torture by the US and Russia proves only one thing -- that people will say ANYTHING when they're being tortured and it is almost never 'the truth.' -
100%
willottica8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"[they] were unaware..."? Really? As though the historical precedent of barbarian hordes invading a town and raping and killing all the citizens therein were somehow not against innocents? Or that this mass slaughter was somehow different from the current mass slaughter? Sorry to say, but "terrorism" is not something new.
Reply -
33%
Endoscopy8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Are you so ignorant that you do not recognize that the prisoners are not under the Geneva convention. Armed fighters that are terrorists that do what they do in this war are not covered by the convention. They could be summarily shot.
Reply
-
-
24%
RedRiverJ8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
He talked, it worked, your rear end is safe because of it. If this bothers you get over it.
Reply
Do you have any idea what he would have done had he and his gang of cowardly thugs captured an american? What they do to their prisoners is FAR worse than water boarding. Head on a platter is more like it. Wooden spikes inserted in the rear end and stood upright so the victim slides down it slowly, people burned, electrocuted, so get over it.-
90%
dunkirk8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"He talked, it worked, your rear end is safe because of it. "
Reply
ROFLMAO, and you know this how? Lets not forget it took Bush coming into office for 9-11 to happen with his de-emphaisis on terrorism as a problem. Lets not forget when he took office the most important thing oin his agenda was a missile shield ala RayGun and fighting terrorism was not in the list of top priorities for his administration. Seems Clinton kept the nation safe diring his terms without resorting to torture and under Bush terrorism worldwide increased over 600% (those figures are from the BUSH administration so you can expect them to be low) which kinda says he didnt do much to stem terrorism, -
88%
UnusualSuspect8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, RedRiver (I tell ya, stop drinking from that river, man...you're going to go crazy...)
Reply
Maybe in another 15-20 years, you'll get your wish, and maybe a Republican will be elected again to the Presidency who will do exactly what you want...for us to be just like the enemy...cutting their heads off, the wooden spikes, electrocution, the whole bit.
Some of us will be gone then, but our children can be proud and think back to brave, courageous people like you who will do anything to match the gruesome torture our enemies put us through.
If you're still around, you can preach to them that while on paper we tout being better than any other country in the world, it's still better to treat our enemies like dogs and butcher them, even if we were taught better. -
87%
Candida8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
RedRiverJ: "He talked, it worked"
Reply
It couldn't be very efficient though if they had to do it 183 times. Yes, he talked, but the quesition is whether he said anything useful.
"Do you have any idea what he would have done had he and his gang of cowardly thugs captured an american?"
You have just lowered yourself to their level.
-
92%
nostalgia8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Isn't it amazing that the majority of the articles on this have no links to the memos so you can read them for yourself?
Reply
They pick and chose what they want you to know
If you are interested you can read the memos from links on the ACLU website
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/general/olc_memos.htm... -
75%
nostalgia8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
CIA objections slowed torture memos release
Reply
Four former CIA directors opposed releasing classified Bush-era interrogation memos, officials say, describing objections that went all the way to the White House and slowed release of the records.
Former CIA chiefs Michael Hayden, Porter Goss, George Tenet and John Deutch all called the White House in March warning that release of the so-called "torture memos" would compromise intelligence operations, current and former officials say.
Senior White House adviser David Axelrod, who said he also talked with Obama about the pending release of the memos in recent weeks, said the CIA directors' opposition was considered seriously but did not impede the decision-making process.
"It wasn't a matter of, it was a go and then the CIA directors weighed in and it slowed things down," Axelrod said Friday. "The fact is that he gathered all the facts throughout the process."
(So they didn't bother to discuss this with former CIA chiefs BEFORE the decision was made?)
On March 18, the Justice Department told CIA Director Leon Panetta — as he was leaving for a foreign trip — that it would be recommending that the White House release the memos almost completely uncensored, officials said.
Panetta told Attorney General Eric Holder and officials in the White House that the administration needed to discuss the possibility that the memos' release might expose CIA officers to lawsuits on allegations of torture and abuse. Panetta also pushed for more censorship of the memos, officials said.
The Justice Department also informed other senior CIA leaders of the decision to release the memos, and, as a courtesy, told former agency directors.
Senior CIA officials objected, arguing that the release would hurt the agency's ability to interrogate prisoners in the future. They also said the move would further tarnish CIA officers who had acted on the Bush officials' legal guidance. And they warned that the action would erode foreign intelligence services' trust in the CIA's ability to protect national security secrets, current and former officials said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090418/ap_on_go_pr_wh...
Can ANYONE explain to me what the benefit is going to be from releasing these memos?-
100%
Dionys8 months ago
-
100%
dunkirk8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
????? releasing the memos could compromise intelligence operations?? The m emos detail the torture used and the rhetoric the Bush administration used to defend it. How does THAT compromise existing intel operations? Yet under Bush outing an agent doesnt??
Reply
-
-
-
85%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A very bias article... to use this character as the model of how torture and breaking international law is a virtue. What twisted thinking to use as an excuse to break international law. Bush and Cheney have proven to the world and most Americans, that our nation can stoop as low as those who we condemn for acts of terrorism.
Reply
We need to restore our constitution and our respect for international law or we will fall further down a path that will keep our nation at war permanently. -
-
8%
k9kssr8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie
Reply
And making them wear ladies panties.
Save the terrorists, enemy combatants, or whatever we are calling them now. Crap on the victims, who cares. Just like the left is against the death penalty, but will support aborting viable fetuses.
Wacky....just plain d-mn wacky.-
93%
bluetexasvalley8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
How about save the fetuses, but let the kid die from lack of medical insurance the day after birth?
Reply
Or if he manages to stay alive till he's 18, send him off to war to risk his life which is clearly worth less than yours?
Or if he commits a capital crime, kill him because only fetuses are worthy of life?
Is that wacky?
-
-
21%
coolslow8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
If the new administration wants to debate these practices and determine whether or not they will be used in the future, that's great. Let's decide with all the precision we can what the policy will be going forward. Fair enough. Let's do the right thing to the best of our ability.
Reply
However, suggesting that a former President and his Administration should be charged with war crimes in an international court is extreme. It is extreme because:
1) Congressional leaders were breifed on it all along;
2) There is no agreement if even waterboarding, the worst of the treatments thus far described, is considered torture;
3) A handful of subjects were involved, not millions, thousands, hundreds or even scores;
4) the legal status of the subjects is in question: most were picked up on the battlefield or in known terrorists cells.
In short, there is no real case here. The intention is not to avenge individuals tortured. Nor can the past be changed. The intention is to embarass a former President, under a straw dog argument that terrorists will call off attacks and beheadings because Bush was charged.-
100%
Tangent0018 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"1) Congressional leaders were breifed on it all along;
Reply
2) There is no agreement if even waterboarding, the worst of the treatments thus far described, is considered torture;
3) A handful of subjects were involved, not millions, thousands, hundreds or even scores;
4) the legal status of the subjects is in question: most were picked up on the battlefield or in known terrorists cells."
What if these same statements were made by, say, Kim Jong Il in regards to the treatment of US civilians? Would you buy it? -
67%
fiftynine8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"The intention is to embarass a former President, under a straw dog argument that terrorists will call off attacks and beheadings because Bush was charged."
Reply
Wrong..the intention is to return this country to a position of moral authority,to a position of integrity and law,and not lower ourselves to third world and terrorist standards of behavior ..Clear enough for you ?
-
-
17%
jcornn8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
A respected source has confirmed the presence of fear in the CIA and other branches of the government relative to the possible actions Pelosi, Reid and Obama would pursue concerning investigations of the Bush administrations skirting the laws of the United States as has been suggested by various members of the lefties coalition. The destruction of the tapes and videos depicting the waterboarding and other types of interrogation was part of the Bush preemptive doctrine and was accomplished by the people invilved to insure their safety. Cheney made a valiant attempt to have Bush issue a blanket pardon of everyone the lefties might implicate but he failed. The failure was attributed to the name of LIBBY being included.
Reply
Webster describes war as between two countries or opposing sides but we are not at war with the fanatical Muslims who profess Jihad and have one goal in life which is to kill infidels. Instead they are nothing more than murderers, killers w2ho have no q1ualms of killing babies or anyone else to draw attention to their cause. We are not fighting a recognizable force, just a bunch of criminals who need to be stopped by any means. When in ROME DO AS THE ROMANS.......-
100%
antibrainwasher8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, you admit you have no respect for the law. Why not just shoot a police officer when he stops you for speeding if your going to walk down that path.
Reply
The repugs are looking like the militia level lawbreaking idiots and thugs we knew they were all along.
-
-
100%
NoWayMan8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
supposedly there was more than enough physical evidence to pin on Khalid Sheik Mohammed when it came to 911 and the hijackers, so I'm wondering why we needed to torture him at such length, and wondering what happened during the 183rd torture session that made us stop there.
Reply
Khalid Sheik Mohammed is scum of the earth, to be sure. but it sounds like whoever was watching over this situation was more concerned with their own sadistic bent than trying to make the world a safer place.
and while we discuss the torture of a known criminal, which provides us with some (albeit shaky) moral grounding due to the fact that Khalid Sheik Mohammed was indeed a criminal of the highest level, why aren't we discussing the torture of people who died in US custody but had no real ties to any terrorists or terroristic behavior. anyone seen taxi to the dark side? why aren't we talking about that? -
17%
GLee8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I really think we wasted way too much water on this guy. You 'people' can try and take care of him all you like. He is a murderer of innocent civilians. You know, the men & women who were mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren. There is no doubt what I would do if you murdered my kids while they sat at work. What would you 'people' do? Have a chat with him? His killing wasn't on a field of battle it was in our back yard. This 'guy' isn't a criminal. His status is quite a bit different. Again, he should be put out of his misery and not with water.
Reply -
-
100%
Spadecaller8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The cowards and criminals who support water torture lie about its history. Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam 40 years ago. Today we have criminals and felons defending its use.
Reply
A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in 1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
The creep who participated in water torture in January 1968 was court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army. Most of us despised Americans who participated in torturing the Viet Cong, because we knew it would only come back and hurt us if and when we were captured.
(Earlier in 1901, the U.S.had taken a similar stand against water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in the Philippines.
Bush and Cheney and their puppet lawyers deserve no better..-
all2funComment removed: Hard Banned
-
-
-
-
-
100%
fiftynine8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I sit on the fence..I have been subjected to some of the techniques used in interrogation (S.E.R.E. traning) and although it was only for a few days (the capture,prisoner of war camp, and torture)it was enough to convince me it was torture,and that was done to U.S. soldiers as training.The more i had to go through the more i resisted until the point came that if it were a real situation they would have had to kill me.Why would it be any different for other men from other country's?
Reply
I look at it this way..If it were me and i wanted information i would find more cruel ways than water boarding to get that info..That is me and i would have no problem taking it to extreme levels to protect my family and my country,but the question is do i want my government to engage in these practices ? I for one believe that the Geneva convention should be practiced in regards to prisoner treatment.Especially if we want our prisoners treated in a humane way also.
WE are the U.S.A. and should take the high ground if we want to be looked on as a nation of morals and integrity. -
-
-
67%
antibrainwasher8 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Scene: republican mob: burn her, burn her, burn the witch.
Reply
How do you know she's a witch?
Well, she turned me into a Newt......I got better.
Burn her, burn her, burn the witch.
What a collection of morons the repugs have turned into. No brains, no cojones, no direction, no clue, no ideas except incredibly dumb ones that didn't work. Torture doesn't work, and listen to the chorus from the lockstepping mob of worthless coward repugs, saying its ok to break all laws as long as it gets you what you want. (except it didn't, Abu Grave created 10 times as many enemies as it killed, and torturing this sad sack murdering arab will create 100 more in his place, and we learned absolutely nothing from him).
Welcome to the ponzi scheme that is the repug party of Caribu Barbie voting idiots. -
-
Neutral
legalbeagle2277 months, 3 weeks ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Waterboarding is bad enough for the "land of the free" to undertake; however, isn't the best way to oppose the tyranny of radical Islam not to become in any way like it?
Reply
I'm not sure I have all the answers, and I don't pretend to be an expert on homeland security, but there's something out of kilter when the best we can do is copy the stone age thinking of our opponents...if so, what the heck do we stand for?
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.