OSAMA BIN LADEN DEAD

[Hawkwings]

That doesn't follow. Breaks can come from the other side - a financial slip-up, a relocation, wandering through an area with cameras - and that can rekindle a cold tip, be it a week or a decade old. Likewise, the march of technology can do the same (a cool stealth UAV than go where no UAV has gone before, higher gain on your SIGINT resources, better datamining or data processing). Either or both may have taken place here.

Running these things down is not some kind of trivial serial process that one can map one-to-one to a different chunk of recent history.

I'm addressing the assertion Lonestar made that waterboarding isn't effective because it takes us 8 years to get results from a piece of intel gained from it. I'm saying that the method of gaining this information has nothing to do with how applicable it is and how quickly it can be put to use. Your points are valid, but I'm not sure how they apply to this issue.

[Thanas]

That doesn't follow. Breaks can come from the other side - a financial slip-up, a relocation, wandering through an area with cameras - and that can rekindle a cold tip, be it a week or a decade old. Likewise, the march of technology can do the same (a cool stealth UAV than go where no UAV has gone before, higher gain on your SIGINT resources, better datamining or data processing). Either or both may have taken place here.

Running these things down is not some kind of trivial serial process that one can map one-to-one to a different chunk of recent history.

I'm addressing the assertion Lonestar made that waterboarding isn't effective because it takes us 8 years to get results from a piece of intel gained from it. I'm saying that the method of gaining this information has nothing to do with how applicable it is and how quickly it can be put to use. Your points are valid, but I'm not sure how they apply to this issue.

I cannot believe that there are still people claiming that waterboarding is effective when we had both professionals (army interrogators) and other organization (Oooh, those pesky human rights) speak out agaist it.

[Shroom Man 777]

Even if waterboarding didn't do shit, the Americans can still spin this to justify all their other atrocities. Obama's victory and political capital will include the further continuation of human rights violations, but now with public approval for freedom.

[Simon_Jester]

That doesn't follow. Breaks can come from the other side - a financial slip-up, a relocation, wandering through an area with cameras - and that can rekindle a cold tip, be it a week or a decade old. Likewise, the march of technology can do the same (a cool stealth UAV than go where no UAV has gone before, higher gain on your SIGINT resources, better datamining or data processing). Either or both may have taken place here.

Running these things down is not some kind of trivial serial process that one can map one-to-one to a different chunk of recent history.

I'm addressing the assertion Lonestar made that waterboarding isn't effective because it takes us 8 years to get results from a piece of intel gained from it. I'm saying that the method of gaining this information has nothing to do with how applicable it is and how quickly it can be put to use. Your points are valid, but I'm not sure how they apply to this issue.

I cannot believe that there are still people claiming that waterboarding is effective when we had both professionals (army interrogators) and other organization (Oooh, those pesky human rights) speak out agaist it.

I think there are two separate issues there.

One is "is waterboarding effective?" The answer is plainly "no," for reasons that are well established. Waterboarding and other forms of torture do not distinguish between truth and falsehood, they get the victim to say whatever the torturer expects to hear even if it's untrue or useless, and so on. Waterboarding and other forms of torture are, in addition to being an atrocity which ought to be banned in civilized societies, not a good way to distinguish true facts from fake pseudo-facts.

But then there's this other, entirely different question: "does having an eight-year turnaround on any method of getting information make that method ineffective?" The answer to this, Hawkwing is arguing, is also no. As he says "the method of gaining this information has nothing to do with how applicable it is and how quickly it can be put to use."

Intelligence can't always be put to use in a hurry, regardless of how you first got the information. You could get it by signals intercepts, by secret agents wandering around in Pakistan, by paying a very large bribe to an enemy agent, by waterboarding an Al Qaeda agent, or hell, consulting an ouija board. It will not change the fact that the information may not be actionable until some later time, when other pieces of the puzzle have fallen into place.

Waterboarding is ineffective, but it is not made ineffective by the long turnaround on a single specific piece of information (which conceivably might have been) obtained by waterboarding. It is made ineffective by other things that we are all quite familiar with.

[Lord MJ]

More right wing postings about Obama's indecisiveness.

http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2 ... bin-laden/

Good grief. It took Barack Obama 16 HOURS to make up his mind to get Osama Bin Laden.

(Tom in Paine)

He had to think about it.
The Daily Mail reported:

Barack Obama kept military commanders hanging by declaring he would ‘sleep on it’ before taking 16 hours to give the go-ahead to raid Bin Laden’s compound.

Hit squads of specialist Navy Seals – who were not even told who they were preparing to capture – had practiced the mission at two reconstructions of the terror chiefs sprawling compound.

The mission looked set to be given the all clear last Thursday when analysts confirmed beyond doubt that Bin Laden was in busy town of Abbottabad in northern Pakistan.

But the president stunned officials when he told a national security meeting that he wanted more time to think – and disappeared out of the room.

‘I’m not going to tell you what my decision is now – I’m going to go back and think about it some more,’ said Obama, according to the New York Times. He then added ‘I’m going to make a decision soon.’

The head of the CIA and other senior intelligence officers who were keen to proceed were left tense as they waited for the president’s decision.

But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared ‘It’s a go’.

Ace of Spades added this on our sleepy president:

How does the media report this? Well, relying upon those in Obama’s inner circle (that is to say, his political flunkies and spinners), we’re told this:

“But the next morning after 16 hours, Obama summoned four top aides to the White House Diplomatic Room. Before they could speak, the president put his fist on the table and declared ‘It’s a go’.”

Why does it matter that he did this “before they could speak”? They had spoken already yesterday when they strongly, strongly urged the president to give the order, and he had decided to sleep on it.

They were only waiting on him, after all.

So, after 16 hours of vacillation, during which the operation might have been rendered a failure by intervening invents, he fist-bumps a piece of furniture and finally makes up his mind.

This is something to brag about? This is, in Howard Fineman’s words, “almost Biblical”?

Seems like a very cautious, feckless, indecisive individual delaying and delaying on critical decisions and then attempting to sound heroic when he finally does what he’s being paid to do.

That’s our Obama.

While this seems more believable than the previous post on the subject, if Obama did deliberate for 16 hours is that really a bad thing? This was an operation going on for several months correct?

[Dalton]

If I were President, I would for goddamn sure take the time to consider all angles, potential consequences, reactions et cetera.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Given he was sending armed troops to attack something a quarter-mile from a military base in an 'allied' country on what I've heard was an 80% chance at best, I don't think 16 hours is an unreasonable amount of time.

Its not like he just flipped a coin.

[Iroscato]

If I were President, I would for goddamn sure take the time to consider all angles, potential consequences, reactions et cetera.

Exactly. This guy is clearly some kind of wanker. There were at least 43 million ways the whole operation could have gone wrong. The Pakistani military could have detected the US choppers and thrown a spanner in the works, Bin Laden could have escaped, the mansion could have been booby trapped. If this stupid twat doesn't understand the ramifications of a direct operation to kill the most influential terrorist of all time failing and needing time to plan out and deliberate on, he clearly needs a course NotBeingadouche.

[Edward Yee]

One variation (?) I've heard was "waterboarding doesn't work as a sole source of intelligence," because of the very same 'under duress' you guys have brought up.

The timeline I've heard was KSM not giving up the courier's info, then getting "enhanced interrogated" at some point afterward, and then giving up the courier's psuedonym months later during a standard interrogation. You'll probably have to subpoena your way to actually finding out what led to what, though of course all (and Abu Faraj al-Libbi) he gave up was a guy's existence and psuedonym, it took years for those to be turned into a real name, then a location, then a specific building, and even then into a raid.

[Akhlut]

Obama will not release the photos of Osama bin Laden.

Source

The article doesn't say much more than that, so I won't bother quoting it.

[Lord MJ]

Decision is sure to spur the creation of a new 'thers' movement that's for sure.

[CaptHawkeye]

If they released the photos they would claim they were faked. You can't dissuade, reason with, or interact with those who have an agenda.

[Thanas]

I think there are two separate issues there.

One is "is waterboarding effective?" The answer is plainly "no," for reasons that are well established. Waterboarding and other forms of torture do not distinguish between truth and falsehood, they get the victim to say whatever the torturer expects to hear even if it's untrue or useless, and so on. Waterboarding and other forms of torture are, in addition to being an atrocity which ought to be banned in civilized societies, not a good way to distinguish true facts from fake pseudo-facts.

But then there's this other, entirely different question: "does having an eight-year turnaround on any method of getting information make that method ineffective?" The answer to this, Hawkwing is arguing, is also no. As he says "the method of gaining this information has nothing to do with how applicable it is and how quickly it can be put to use."

The article has a whole lot of people claiming torture is efficient and got Obama bin Laden. Lonestar then pointed out that waterboarding is inefficient for it allegedly have taken over 8 years. And it is still not proven that waterboarding even played a role in this.

But thank you for needlessly explaining Hawkwing's words for me. I am sure he would have been unable to do so on his own and I doubtlessly profited from having to wade through another loooong-winded post from you explaining things to me when you are not even involved in the debate.

[Broomstick]

The whole OMIGOD HE WAITED 16 HOURS TO GIVE THE GO AHEAD is just more catch-22 damned-if-does, damned-if-he-doesn't bullshit from the Obama haters. That is, those who hate a black Democrat is in the oval office as opposed to have reasoned objections to him.

If he had said "go ahead" immediately he would have been condemned as reckless. Because he gave it some thought he's indecisive. He can't win with these folks, who will never care to explain how their guy Bush couldn't find bin Laden or capture him in 7 years. (There may, of course, be a good reason for that, such as the time is takes to accumulate intelligence but they won't even discuss the issue).

As for the picture - personally, I don't really feel a burning need to see it. If they released it I'd probably have a look from morbid curiosity, but what would it really accomplish? Those who already believe bin Laden is dead don't need it, and the conspiracy theorist types will never be convinced. That leaves, at best, a sliver of people whose opinion would be changed... is it worth it? Particularly since we know there will be some people offended by the picture (either due to grossness or YOU SHOT OUR HERO!). Maybe the decision came down to feeling there was little to be gained and some to be lost by doing it, so let's not.

[Metahive]

TYT ont the right-wing spin machine concerning Osama's death


So, why doesn't Obama get any credit? To sum it up:

1.It was all Bush's idea
2.Obama didn't cheer enough (?!)
3.Left-wingers are unhappy about it
4.Bill Clinton is responsible for 9/11 (?!?)
5.Bin Laden was unimportant
6.Burying Bin Laden at sea was disrespectful towards 9/11 victims
7.Osama was already dead and this is a scam

[AMT]

There's also
8. Obama decries "enhanced interrogation techniques", and that's how we got Osama!

[Thanas]

About that:


John McCain on the waterboarding:

McCain: Waterboarding didn't get bin Laden


Sen. John McCain denounced “advanced interrogation” methods like waterboarding Wednesday amid a growing debate over its effectiveness reopened by the killing of Osama bin Laden.

McCain told reporters leaving an intelligence briefing for senators by CIA director Leon Panetta that he has seen no information so far to indicate that techniques like waterboarding factored significantly in the information gathering that led to bin Laden’s death.

So far I know of no information that was obtained, that would have been useful, by ‘advanced interrogation.’ In fact, according to published reports … some of the key people who knew about this courrier denied it,” McCain said, careful to note that he was not relaying information from Panetta’s classified session with Senate Intelligence and Armed Services Committee members.

“Where there is published information in the various newspapers and media that the information about this courrier was intercepted conversation between two individuals — that’s as far as I know,” the top Republican on the Armed Services Committee added. “I stand on the side of the United States and by the Geneva conventions, of which we are signatories, which we were in violation of by waterboarding.”

I also find it interesting that he openly admitted violations of the Geneva Convention. (Of course, not that it will do the victims of waterboarding any good....)

[Broomstick]

Oh, McCain is now denouncing torture enhanced interrogation techniques?

I always found it appalling that a man who had suffered permanent maiming from strappado failed to speak out strongly against mistreatment of prisoners under the Bush administration.

[erik_t]

Aaaand NO MORE FOR YOU

White House: We Won't Release Any More Operational Details About OBL Killing


After two days of administration officials offering up conflicting details and accounts of the intense U.S. assault-team raid on Osama bin Laden's compound and his subsequent killing, the White House has completely shut down press attempts to get a full accounting of what transpired.

White House spokesman Jay Carney Wednesday referred all questions about operational aspects of the mission to the Defense Department, even refusing to say who, if anyone, was shooting back at the Navy Seals during the "firefight" that Carney and other administration officials earlier in the week has said took place during the 40-minute raid Sunday night.

Instead, Carney focused on the courage and professionalism the Seals displayed in carrying out their mission, which killed the country's most wanted enemy for more than 10 years.

"I'm not going to get into operational details...," he told reporters at a briefing. "What happened on Sunday night was an incredibly courageous team of U.S. personnel entered a foreign country in darkness and executed -- at great risk to their own personal safety -- executed that mission with great professionalism and accomplished a goal that this country has sought in 10 years."

Carney repeatedly refused to answer basic operational questions about the sequence of events that occurred inside the compound Sunday night, at times appearing petulant when reporters persisted.

The administration has reached the point in which sharing any more information about covert mission could hinder future operations against "bad guys," Carney remarked.

"We have, as you know, since the moment this operation has become public, have been as helpful as we can be to provide as much information as we can...," he said. "We cannot cross lines because of the necessity for preserving the method and operational techniques ... and we've gone to the limit of our ability to do that."

Carney on Tuesday dialed back and corrected statements from John Brennan, Obama's top counterterrorism aide, and others who were overflowing with details Monday and said that bin Laden was armed and "resisted" the U.S. assault team before being killed and had used a woman, most likely his wife, as a human shield.

According to the Pentagon's Tuesday narrative, as relayed by Carney, Osama was unarmed, and a woman, Osama's wife, in the room with him rushed the U.S. "assaulter" and was shot in the leg but not killed. Another woman was killed on a different floor when she was caught in "crossfire," Carney said.

The new, tight-lipped strategy came at the same time the White House announced that the President would not release photos of Osama bin Laden's slain body out of concern that the photos could incite violence and be used propaganda tools.

"We've done DNA sampling and testing and so there was no doubt we had killed Osama bin Laden," Obama told CBS's "60 Minutes" program, according to an excerpt released by the White House. "The fact is you will not see bin Laden walking on this Earth again."

"It is important for us to make sure that very graphic photos of someone who was shot in the head are not floating around as an incitement to additional violence or as a propaganda tool," Obama added. "That's not who we are. We don't trot out this stuff as trophies."

Carney said Obama opposed the photos release since the successful Sunday raid but had held off in making a final decision until he had a chance to weigh the opinions of the rest of his national security team. CIA Director Leon Panetta was among those advocating for the release of the photos as a way to quell any conspiracy theories that bin Laden was still alive. Panetta told a closed-door Congressional briefing Tuesday that releasing the photos was just a matter of time.

When asked about Panetta's views, Carney would only acknowledge a difference of opinion among leaders, but said the majority of the team, including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, share Obama's view not to release.

Probably about due, I think. There's a fine line between reasonable transparency of government and talking about specific tactical details of a military operation.

[Covenant]

I saw that. I found it odd how he just slammed the doors shut all at once, but it's possible that the media had simply gobbled up all the available information that can be disseminated safely so it only looked like it was a massive shutdown.

I agree with the decision not to release photos now. I hope they come out eventually, at least the photos of him being interred into the sea or whatever, because I'm a big free information guy. But it's smart not to let anger snowball at the moment. We can look powerful without it becoming a recruiting tool.

[MKSheppard]

Some points to be made about the name of the courier:

1.) If your terrorist group in question is actually using cells and doing it sort of right -- then each cell member gets told only what he needs to know to do his job. For example, does KSM need to know everything about the courier that puts him in contact with OBL? All he needs to know is the meeting place(s), countersigns, and the courier's nom de guerre. He doesn't need to know the courier's real name, birthplace or a bunch of other identifying details.

2.) Jihadis sure like to take nom de guerre for the holy war. It's sort of the "in" thing to do. Also, in virtually all the cases, they take a name of one of Mohammed's early fighters.

Quick Palestinian example: Abu Mazen (Abbas) and Abu Ammar (Arafat).
Quick Al-Quaeda Example: Abu Faraj al-Libi (Mustafa al-'Uzayti)

3.) We need independent confirmation of the nom de guerre to prove it exists. Meaning we need two people saying this guy exists.

It appears the key break in this case was eventually finding out the courier's real name and from the actual name we managed to learn the names of family members. From there, it was a hop skip and jump to programming all those names into the big computers at Fort Meade.

From there on, we eventually got enough hits to begin narrowing our search down to a specific geographical region -- and even then it took a lot of time to find him.

[Lonestar]

Acquiring information doesn't mean you can act on it. And the process of acting on it does take a while, especially given the rough timelines of the events leading up to this operation that have been released. If we had gotten the information another way at the same time it still would have taken 8 years to lead up to this.

My point is that if we're pointing to information acquired from a waterboarding 8 years ago as to the reason why something was successful today, I'm calling shens. There are ways to stressfully condition people for interrogation without resorting to torture, especially when the timeframe is stretching into years and years.

[MKSheppard]

Some more photos of the downed helo, taken by a Pakistani security official who in turn sold them to reuters. He also took some post death snaps of the other grots inside; but I'm not posting them here.

[weemadando]

Wired.com Danger Room with a bit of investigation into the chopper and links to lots of "speculation".



That's the most ridiculous one. But who the fuck knows.

[MKSheppard]

As Vijay Reddy on TANKNET speculated:

• Local Police chief says that the compound was owned by Hizbul Mujahideen, the largest terror group created by Pakistan active in Indian Kashmir
• Hizb's close ties to the ISI means that locals know not to ask too many questions about its areas
• Locals knowing that it's a jihadi compound also explains why no one asked questions about high walls and barbed wire fences
• Hizb owning the place also shows the cross connections between the "good" terrorists used by ISI and the "bad" terrorists they want to avoid

based on this article:

Link

A police officer familiar with Mr. bin Laden’s compound in the scenic town of Abbottabad said the location was used by Hizbul Mujahedeen, one of the biggest militant outfits in the disputed territory of Kashmir. Like other groups fighting Indian troops in the borderlands, HM’s radical membership has never been rounded up by Pakistani forces and some analysts say Islamabad covertly supports the group

Any link to HM would deepen Pakistan’s embarrassment over Mr. bin Laden’s death. Pakistan has denied any collusion with terrorists, saying that its leading intelligence service had been sharing information with U.S. counterparts since 2009 about the compound where Mr. bin Laden was found.

Still, in the wake of the raid, Islamabad scrambled to ensure that precise ownership of the compound would not become public knowledge.

“The place belonged to Hizbul Mujahedeen,” the police officer said. “But the authorities have asked us not to share any information about the exact ownership.”

Land-registry officials in Abbottabad, known in the local language as patwaris, were summoned to a meeting on Tuesday and urged to keep quiet.

“The patwaris are meeting right now,” a local official said. “They are being instructed not to say anything about the land-ownership issue.”