C.I.A. employed near-drowning technique against Al Qaeda prisoners

By Scott Shane
The New York Times

C.I.A. interrogators used waterboarding, the near-drowning technique that top Obama administration officials have described as illegal torture, 266 times on two key prisoners from Al Qaeda, far more than had been previously reported.

The C.I.A. officers used waterboarding at least 83 times in August 2002 against Abu Zubaydah, according to a 2005 Justice Department legal memorandum. Abu Zubaydah has been described as a Qaeda operative.

A former C.I.A. officer, John Kiriakou, told ABC News and other news media organizations in 2007 that Abu Zubaydah had undergone waterboarding for only 35 seconds before agreeing to tell everything he knew.

The 2005 memo also says that the C.I.A. used waterboarding 183 times in March 2003 against Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described planner of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning. But the precise number and the exact nature of the interrogation method was not previously known.
(more…)

side note: Richard Clarke worked for both Dem and GOP Administrations over the course of his 30 year government career (1973-2003). He wrote an amazing book called Against All Enemies, which I think, is the best insider account of what happened, or better yet, what failed leading up to the attacks of 9/11 and what happened immediately after. This guy knows his stuff and if the bushies would’ve listened to him, maybe 9/11 could have been prevented. FROM A 60 MINUTES SEGMENT: By June 2001, there still hadn’t been a Cabinet-level meeting on terrorism, even though U.S. intelligence was picking up an unprecedented level of ominous chatter.

Finally, says Clarke, “The cabinet meeting I asked for right after the inauguration took place– one week prior to 9/11.”

By Richard A. Clarke
The Washington Post

Ten young men land a small boat at a quay in a city of 18 million people. Within minutes of setting ashore, they are throwing grenades and raking crowds with automatic weapons fire. Days later, almost 200 people are dead, more are wounded, the financial capital of a nation of a billion people has ground to a halt, and the world is riveted.

To most of the world, the Mumbai massacre seems inexplicable and random, like the periodic devastation caused by typhoons or tornadoes, or simply pointless, just killing for killing’s sake. But the attack was neither random nor pointless. The carnage in Mumbai was goal-oriented, an attempt to advance an overall strategy that is being ruthlessly pursued by the Islamist radical network.

That network of groups is approaching 2009 with a specific agenda. So, too, is the incoming leadership of the network’s chief enemy, the United States. To understand how the two sides think, imagine two hypothetical meetings in which each side plots its terrorism agenda for 2009.

* * *

Rawalpindi is a military city, home to Pakistan’s senior officers and retired military men. That would seem to make it an unlikely place for the world’s most wanted terrorists, the people whom U.S. officials call “high-value targets,” to meet. But Rawalpindi is where the ringleader of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, hid, precisely because no one would think of looking for him there. Perhaps the leaders of al-Qaeda, the Taliban movement that is again on the march in Afghanistan and some Pakistani terrorist groups obsessed with Kashmir would also come together there — say, in a safe house owned by a sympathetic retired Pakistani leader of the country’s powerful and shadowy military intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate (ISI). (more…)

side note: I wonder if we will ever know the truth, and if somehow we do, is there recompense possible?

While President George W. Bush held the fewest first-term press conferences in modern presidential history, the administration’s suppression of information also took place on other, more secretive fronts.

By Eric Alterman, George Zornick | November 20, 2008

If December 2000 is any guide, we’re about to be inundated with stories about the “Bush Legacy,” with all sides of the ideological spectrum battling over this administration’s rightful place in the proverbial “record books.” Yet the media’s role in our democracy will likely go unnoticed amid discussions of Iraq, Afghanistan, a collapsing economy, rendition and torture, domestic wiretaps, the Katrina catastrophe, continued environmental degradation, and the destruction of the Republican majority.

The public has largely missed the eyes of this particular wolf at its door because of the crisis of survival in the media business itself, particularly within the newspaper business. But the Bush administration’s war against not just the media, but the very idea of free expression, is one that will need to be reversed as surely as the midnight regulations currently being written by administration officials. This will need to be done despite the apparent discomfort so many reporters and editors evince when it comes to defending their constitutional role as guardians and watchdogs of a democratic society.

I wrote a cover story for The Nation in early 2005 on the then-little discussed topic, and the crisis has only worsened since. This column, and a few to follow, will highlight and update information on this continued assault in the hopes that public officials and the media in a new administration will revisit some of the practices that have allowed those in power to keep the rest of us in the dark.

All presidents keep secrets, and just about all of them lie as well. This is unfortunate, but not a source of scandal—an argument I tried to elucidate in a book on presidential lying that was also the topic of my Ph.D. thesis. Yet during the Bush era, America entered a period I call “the Post-Truth Presidency” during which it mattered little to almost anyone whether the president and his representatives accurately represented reality in their statements to the press and the public. What mattered was what they thought it reasonable to try and get away with. They used their newly discovered power of audacity to rewrite the rules of political discourse and badly weaken the foundation of our democratic discourse. The attack was waged on numerous fronts simultaneously; indeed that was part of its genius. Even the most conscientious media watchdog had a hard time keeping up.

On one level, the effort has been obvious. President George W. Bush held the fewest first-term press conferences in modern presidential history. Bush has still never given an interview to The New York Times as president. And when was the last time you saw Dick Cheney—universally understood to be the most powerful and influential vice president in America—interviewed anywhere, save the friendly environs of Fox News or Rush Limbaugh’s radio program?

Make no mistake: This is a calculated strategy. As one Bush adviser explained to reporter Ron Suskind, “Let me clue you in. We don’t care. You see, you’re outnumbered two to one by folks in the big, wide middle of America, busy working people who don’t read The New York Times or Washington Post or the LA Times.”
(more…)

side note: I didn’t like what Lieberman did either….but we have stop the bullshit between the 2 parties and get some problems fixed! We have some serious problems not just in this country but around the globe and we desperately need someone who can look past all the bullshit and focus on the here and now. I just hope Obama can get some things done…….

MSNBC

If the news is correct, then the liberal blogosphere isn’t going to be happy. NBC’s Ken Strickland reported yesterday that, according to sources familiar with the negotiations, Democrats today are expected to vote in favor of letting Joe Lieberman keep his chairmanship of the Senate Homeland Security Committee — but give up the gavel on a subcommittee he chairs. (The vote happens this morning by secret ballot, and Lieberman is expected to address Senate Democrats before they vote. Per Strickland, we should know the final outcome by late morning.) So what happened? First, Strick says, Obama told Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid that he wanted Lieberman to stay in the Democratic caucus. Later, Lieberman told Reid it would be “unacceptable” for him to give up his gavel, which was considered by some as a veiled threat that Lieberman would jump to caucus with Republicans if he was forced to give up the gavel. In short, Obama tipped the scales in Lieberman’s favor, one source said, explaining it this way: If the wrath was directed at Obama and got over it, shouldn’t the Democratic caucus do the same?

original article

By Jonathon Burch1 hour, 42 minutes ago

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won militarily and success is only possible through political means including dialogue between all relevant parties, the United Nations’ top official in the country said Monday.

His comments come after Britain’s military commander in Afghanistan said the war could not be won and that the goal was to reduce the insurgency to a level where it was no longer a strategic threat and could be dealt with by the Afghan army.

Brigadier Mark Carleton-Smith said if the Taliban were willing to talk, that might be “precisely the sort of progress” needed to end the insurgency.

“I’ve always said to those that talk about the military surge … what we need most of all is a political surge, more political energy,” Kai Eide, the U.N. special envoy to Afghanistan, told a news conference in Kabul.

“We all know that we cannot win it militarily. It has to be won through political means. That means political engagement.”
(more…)

side note: I know getting a grasp on everything involved with this country is tough to do….even for people who follow this stuff on a daily basis. This is why it’s important to understand some key issues….especially when discussing topics like security with repubs.

By Bernie Horn
ourfuture.org
Here is the “lesson” of 9/11: Never forget that the top priority of any government is to keep its citizens safe from harm.

Many progressive candidates forgot that lesson in 2002 and 2004, and lost. In those years, too many Americans thought that conservatives were for security and progressives were against it. More recently, conservatives lost the election of 2006 in large part because they bungled the job of ensuring security.

Today, conservatives know their spin. They holler “don’t cut and run,” “don’t surrender,” and “fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here.” The “nation’s at war,” they shout, because the terrorists “hate our freedoms.”

And the progressive response is . . . what?

Whatever our national security objective—whether it’s the withdrawal of troops, the initiation of diplomacy, greater participation by our allies, the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, or something else—we must always begin by stating firmly that our goal is to make America safer. Only then should we go on to explain how our solution accomplishes that goal. Our fellow citizens want to hear how America is going to protect Americans. Once you address that concern, you’ve got their attention and they’re ready to listen. (more…)

Sep. 1, 2008
JPost.com Staff , THE JERUSALEM POST

The Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, has called off an operation aimed at infiltrating and sabotaging Iran’s weapons industry due to an assessment that a US attack on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program is imminent, according to a report in the country’s De Telegraaf newspaper on Friday.

The report claimed that the Dutch operation had been “extremely successful,” and had been stopped because the US military was planning to hit targets that were “connected with the Dutch espionage action.”

The impending air-strike on Iran was to be carried out by unmanned aircraft “within weeks,” the report claimed, quoting “well placed” sources.

The Jerusalem Post could not confirm the De Telegraaf report.

According to the report, information gleaned from the AIVD’s operation in Iran has provided several of the targets that are to be attacked in the strike, including “parts for missiles and launching equipment.”

“Information from the AIVD operation has been shared in recent years with the CIA,” the report said.
(more…)

side note: Welcome to dubya’s third term! This guy will say anything to get into the White House. What doesn’t make sense is that all polls point to people not liking dubya and his policies. So why is McBush repeating these talking points like he’s sitting atop dubya’s shoulder? What does his campaign know that we’re unaware of?

Wired.com
by Ryan Signal

If elected president, Senator John McCain would reserve the right to run his own warrantless wiretapping program against Americans, based on the theory that the president’s wartime powers trump federal criminal statutes and court oversight, according to a statement released by his campaign Monday.

McCain’s new tack towards the Bush administration’s theory of executive power comes some 10 days after a McCain surrogate stated, incorrectly it seems, that the senator wanted hearings into telecom companies’ cooperation with President Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program, before he’d support giving those companies retroactive legal immunity.

As first reported by Threat Level, Chuck Fish, a full-time lawyer for the McCain campaign, also said McCain wanted stricter rules on how the nation’s telecoms work with U.S. spy agencies, and expected those companies to apologize for any lawbreaking before winning amnesty.

But Monday, McCain adviser Doug Holtz-Eakin, speaking for the campaign, disavowed those statements, and for the first time cast McCain’s views on warrantless wiretapping as identical to Bush’s.

[N]either the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001. [...]
We do not know what lies ahead in our nation’s fight against radical Islamic extremists, but John McCain will do everything he can to protect Americans from such threats, including asking the telecoms for appropriate assistance to collect intelligence against foreign threats to the United States as authorized by Article II of the Constitution.

The Article II citation is key, since it refers to President Bush’s longstanding arguments that the president has nearly unlimited powers during a time of war. (more…)

By Elana Schor
The Guardian UK

The lawyer for US vice-president Dick Cheney claimed today that the Congress lacks any authority to examine his behavior on the job.

The exception claimed by Cheney’s counsel came in response to requests from congressional Democrats that David Addington, the vice-president’s chief of staff, testify about his involvement in the approval of interrogation tactics used at Guantanamo Bay.

Ruling out voluntary cooperation by Addington, Cheney lawyer Kathryn Wheelbarger said Cheney’s conduct is “not within the [congressional] committee’s power of inquiry”. (more…)

side note: It’s things like this that really worry me about the bushies and their plans. The GOP Congress gave these guys whatever they asked for…..and now they won’t let people look at it! What’s there to hide? Why not give a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security access to what the plans of this government are if there’s another attack on US soil? Could Tommy Franks prediction be correct? He said that if another terrorist attack occurs in the United States “the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government” (SOURCE) That’s Martial Law folks.

By JEFF KOSSEFF
NewHouse.com

WASHINGTON — Constituents called Rep. Peter DeFazio’s office, worried there was a conspiracy buried in the classified portion of a White House plan for operating the government after a terrorist attack.

As a member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, DeFazio, D-Ore., is permitted to enter a secure “bubbleroom” in the Capitol and examine classified material. So he asked the White House to see the secret documents.

On Wednesday, DeFazio got his answer: DENIED.

“I just can’t believe they’re going to deny a member of Congress the right of reviewing how they plan to conduct the government of the United States after a significant terrorist attack,” DeFazio said.

Homeland Security Committee staffers told his office that the White House initially approved his request, but it was later quashed. DeFazio doesn’t know who did it or why. (more…)

By Frank Rich
The New York Times

Michael Chertoff, President Bush’s fallback choice for secretary of Homeland Security after Bernard Kerik, is best remembered for his tragicomic performance during Hurricane Katrina. He gave his underling, the woeful Brownie, a run for the gold.

It was Mr. Chertoff who announced that the Superdome in New Orleans was “secure” even as the other half of the split screen offered graphic evidence otherwise. It was Mr. Chertoff who told NPR that he had “not heard a report of thousands of people in the convention center who do not have food and water,” even after his fellow citizens had been inundated with such reports all day long.

With Brownie as the designated fall guy, Mr. Chertoff kept his job. Since then he has attracted notice only when lavishing pork on terrorist targets like an Alabama petting zoo while reducing grants to New York City. Though Mr. Chertoff may be the man standing between us and Armageddon, he is seen as a leader of stature only when standing next to his cabinet mate Gonzo. (more…)

side note: It’s important to remember that this administration uses scare tactics to cover it’s tracks. It’s unfortunate that with so much going on, it’s difficult to remember all the previous times dubya and his band of criminals have done this…luckily, Pitt fills in the gaps below.

By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Columnist

We are all wired into a survival trip now.

- Hunter S. Thompson

Who can forget the incredible scandal that erupted back in May of 2002? Around about the middle of that month, details began to emerge about the August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Briefing that specifically warned Bush about Osama bin Laden’s determination to strike the United States.

Wait. Actually, everyone forgot, because two days later, the Bush administration unleashed a blizzard of dire warnings about impending terrorist attacks. FBI Director Robert Mueller intoned such attacks were “inevitable,” and the Department of Homeland Security announced the imminent, explosive destruction of all American railroads, along with the Brooklyn Bridge and the Statue of Liberty.

Who can forget the incredible scandal that erupted back in June of 2003? Over the course of two days, reports emerged about serious doubts held by the CIA regarding the credibility of the administration’s claim Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger. On the heels of this, Congress unfurled its 9/11 report, which criticized all levels of the Bush administration for its performance before and during the attacks. (more…)

By Matthew Rothschild
The Progressive

In a new National Security Presidential Directive, Bush lays out his plans for dealing with a “catastrophic emergency.”

With scarcely a mention in the mainstream media, President Bush has ordered up a plan for responding to a catastrophic attack.

Under that plan, he entrusts himself with leading the entire federal government, not just the Executive Branch. And he gives himself the responsibility “for ensuring constitutional government.”

He laid this all out in a document entitled “National Security Presidential Directive/NSPD 51″ and “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-20.”

The White House released it on May 9.

Other than a discussion on Daily Kos led off by a posting by Leo Fender, and a pro-forma notice in a couple of mainstream newspapers, this document has gone unremarked upon. (more…)

side note: Perry (far right) pictured with his in-laws…..this pic shows one of the dirtiest, corrupt, out-of-touch families in US history.

by Bill Maher
HuffPost.com

Five years after 9/11, you figure our government would have already solved the obvious security concerns, like protecting our chemical plants or keeping razors away from Britney. But we’ve failed miserably. Why?

Meet Philip Perry. Already, I can tell you don’t like him. Because his name’s Philip Perry, which sounds like the name of a guy who would screw the common interest on behalf of powerful corporations.

And if you guessed that’s what he did for a living, you’d be right. (more…)

side note: it’s been 63 months since 9/11…and Bushie and the republican-led Congress still haven’t caught the mastermind behind the worst terrorist attack in United States History! When you vote tomorrow, keep this in the back of your head….also, if you know someone who is till on the fence, bring this topic up!