Rep. Peter King (R-NY) is the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. That makes him a fairly high-ranking member of the nation’s national security team. Not too high, obviously, but he gets briefed on things that other members of Congress do not. The White House didn’t notify him in advance about the mission to capture or kill bin-Laden, but they did give him a courtesy call about an hour to ninety minutes before they announced the success of the mission. He appeared tonight on the The O’Reilly Factor. Bill O’Reilly assumed that Rep. King must have some behind the scenes information to share. He asked King to tell him and his audience something they didn’t know, something that was not available in the press reports. Rep. King replied by telling O’Reilly that the information that led to bin-Laden’s demise was obtained by waterboarding, The way in which this information was conveyed made it seem like King had obtained this news through his privileged position in Congress. And, of course, it was immediately accepted as the Gospel Truth by right-wingers. The problem is that it isn’t true.
I know Marcy Wheeler is an encyclopedia when it comes to the timeline and torture of various detainees and so I checked her site first. Sure enough, she had already made an effort to debunk this talking point, which didn’t originate with King and was not a result of King being briefed on anything. But, actually, Wheeler didn’t pick up on the most obvious evidence that waterboarding had nothing to do with finding bin-Laden. It’s right here in this ABC News piece, and it’s completely explicit.
The revelation that intelligence gleaned from the CIA’s so-called black sites helped kill bin Laden was seen as vindication for many intelligence officials who have been repeatedly investigated and criticized for their involvement in a program that involved the harshest interrogation methods in U.S. history.
“We got beat up for it, but those efforts led to this great day,” said Marty Martin, a retired CIA officer who for years led the hunt for bin Laden.
Mohammed did not reveal the names while being subjected to the simulated drowning technique known as waterboarding, former officials said. He identified them many months later under standard interrogation, they said, leaving it once again up for debate as to whether the harsh technique was a valuable tool or an unnecessarily violent tactic.
Let me spend just a little time laying this out for you. Two men gave information that led to the identification of one of bin-Laden’s couriers. Both of those men were held in black sites in Europe. Both men were tortured, including with the waterboarding technique. But they didn’t give up the relevant information while they were being tortured.
The first detainee is alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He gave up the courier’s nickname under standard questioning, many months after he was tormented with incessant waterboarding. Two years later, another detainee was captured and waterboarded. His name is Abu Faraj al-Libi. As Marcy details, al-Libi didn’t provide the man’s actual identity until long after his waterboarding had ceased, and probably not until after he was transferred from the black site to Guantanamo.
What Peter King is doing is conflating the facts. Men who were waterboarded gave us the crucial information, ergo waterboarding works. More importantly, I suppose, waterboarding is permissible, even though it is torture, because it was essential to finding bin-Laden. Except, it wasn’t essential. It didn’t work. Normal questioning worked.
If you are inclined to grasp at straws, and the Republicans certainly are, you could argue that the waterboarding softened them up. But that’s entirely speculative and it could just as easily be argued that it delayed the cooperation that led to the crucial clues.
It’s important that people know that Peter King went on television tonight and told a bald-faced lie in the service of vindicating the use of torture. And he did it at the same time that he was misrepresenting himself as providing privileged information that only people of his importance have the clearance to know.
That’s a serious set of moral failings on Rep. Peter King’s part. It’s completely shameless.
IMHO, the supporters of torture are constantly trying to prop up their case not because they actually believe in the utility of waterboarding, but because they are worried that someday Bush and Cheney and Gonzalez and Yoo are going to be in orange jumpsuits in The Hague.
They should be afraid. Unfortunately, they probably have no reason to be.
No, they do it because they like torturing people, and they realize that “it works” is the only argument that has a prayer of letting them do what they love.
It is 100% immaterial to them whether or not it works. It only matters to them that you BELIEVE it works, so that can go follow their hardon’s dream.
Yup. Torture is motivated by a desire to coerce others. It’s nothing more than a power trip for those who mastermind its use.
Agree with you there. And they certainly want to distract from the question why bin Laden was living with his family in the Ridgefield, NJ of Islamabad???!!! when did they upgrade from the cave?
And, unfortunately, they’ll never turn against waterboarding or other torture, unless it seems likely to be used against them or their buddies.
Which is why the waterboarding of Terry Nichols, tried and convicted terrorist, should be considered. There may be more OK City bomber terror conspirators that need to be brought to justice.
Oh wait, Terry’s a white christianist. Never mind.
In general I don’t like articles where the first few words of the story are copied word for word from the title.
Rep. Peter King is a Shameless Immoral Liar
Rep. Peter King (R-
In general I don’t like stylistic quibbles on blog posts. Blogs exists for many reasons, but polished writerly excellence (posted in real time) generally isn’t one. And that’s fine.
Chill out, I was just making a joke (or observation) that being a shameless immoral liar is synonymous with a congresscritter having an “R” after their name.
Hey!!
I cleaned up the typos.
It’s a hell of a lot worse than "shameless". It ought to lead to him being reprimanded and/removed from that position. But of course it won’t.
you’re right. Your comment makes me realize how these bastards are wearing us down.
Are there any Democrats or Progressives in King’s district that can take apart this nitwit next year? Or is that part of New York condemned to be a suburb of Tupelo, Mississippi? Or Scottsdale, AZ?
The Dems could just draw King’s district off the map. However, I think they are more focused upstate and consider King to be of some value due to his seniority and chairmanship.
He identified them many months later under standard interrogation
This pretty much destroys the “ticking time bomb” argument beloved by so many torture apologists. If a terrorist can keep the name of a courier secret for months after being tortured, it’s obvious that they could keep secret the location of a bomb that’s set to go off in a few hours.
When I heard about Peter King’s anti-Muslim hearings, the thought occurred to me that he was in a way worse than Joseph McCarthy. Because by targeting a religion, Peter King was starting out with something that was clearly unconstitutional.
Well, those hearings really didn’t get anywhere media-wise. So I guess you can call Peter King Joe McCarthy Lite. But when I see him on Faux News peddling his latest mendacious talking point, it occurs to me that maybe he could be another Joe McCarthy–if he weren’t such a loser.