<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.17063" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<H1 class=entry-title>Exclusive: Private letter from CIA chief undercuts claim
torture was key to killing Bin Laden</H1>
<DIV class=blog-byline>By Greg Sargent</DIV>
<DIV id=entrytext>
<P>CIA chief Leon Panetta has written a private letter to Senator John McCain
that offers the most detailed answer yet to questions about the relationship
between torture and Osama Bin Laden’s death — and undercuts the claim by former
Bush administration officials that torture was key to Bin Laden’s killing.</P>
<P>The letter has not been released publicly but was sent my way by a source.
Marie Harf, a CIA spokesperson, confirmed the letter’s authenticity to me, but
declined further comment.</P>
<P>Last week, Senator McCain published a widely discussed <A
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bin-ladens-death-and-the-debate-over-torture/2011/05/11/AFd1mdsG_story.html"
target=_blank><FONT color=#0c4790>Op ed in the Washington Post</FONT></A>
calling into question claims that torture was instrumental in tracking down Bin
Laden. McCain cited Panetta as a source for his information, but didn't release
any material provided to him by Panetta, and conservatives like former Bush
attorney general Michael Mukasey <A
href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/mukasey-responds-to-mccains-op-ed/2011/05/12/AFhhVO1G_blog.html"
target=_blank><FONT color=#0c4790>subsequently dismissed</FONT></A> McCain’s
account. The CIA has not publicly taken sides in the dispute. </P>
<P>But Panetta’s letter, dated May 9th, bears out McCain’s version of
events.</P>
<P>To be sure, there are a couple of lines in the letter that conservatives will
seize on to bolster their case. But the overall thrust of the letter clearly
undercuts their larger version of events.</P>
<P>The case being made by conservatives — that Bin Laden’s death vindicates
torture — was spelled out last week by former Bush <BR>AG Mukasey in an <A
href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703859304576305023876506348.html"
target=_blank><FONT color=#0c4790>Op ed in the Wall Street Journal</FONT></A>.
Mukasey argued that the trail to Bin Laden “began with a disclosure from Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, who broke like a dam under the pressure of harsh interrogation
techniques that included waterboarding. He loosed a torrent of information —
including eventually the nickname of a trusted courier of bin Laden.” </P>
<P>The account in Panetta’s letter clearly contradicts this. Here are the
operative three paragraphs from the letter, which represents a response from
Panetta to McCain’s earler request for information about torture and Bin Laden’s
death: </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Nearly 10 years of intensive intelligence work led the CIA to conclude that
Bin Ladin was likely hiding at the compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. there was
no one “essential and indispensible” key piece of information that led us to
this conclusion. Rather, the intelligence picture was developed via
painstaking collection and analysis. Multiple streams of intelligence —
including from detainees, but also from multiple other sources — led CIA
analysts to conclude that Bin Ladin was at this compound. Some of the
detainees who provided useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role
had been subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques. Whether those
techniques were the “only timely and effective way” to obtain such information
is a matter of debate and cannot be established definitively. What is
definitive is that that information was only a part of multiple streams of
intelligence that led us to Bin Ladin.</P>
<P>Let me further point out that <B>we first learned about the
facilitator/courier’s <I>nom de guerre</I> from a detainee not in CIA custody
in 2002. It is also important to note that some detainees who were subjected
to enhanced interrogation techniques attempted to provide false or misleading
information about the facilitator/courier.</B> <B>These attempts to falsify
the facilitator/courier’s role were alerting.</B> </P>
<P>In the end, <B>no detainee in CIA custody revealed the
facilitator/courier’s full true name or specific whereabouts. This information
was discovered through other intelligence means.</B> </P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Emphasis mine. Panetta’s account contradicts Mukasey’s claim that the trail
to Bin Laden “began” with disclosures from Khalid Sheikh Muhammed that were
achieved through the “pressure" of torture.</P>
<P>Panetta’s account also represents public, on-the-record confirmation from the
CIA of — and adds new detail to — a <A
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/04/us/politics/04torture.html?_r=1&scp=3&sq=scott%20shane%20torture&st=cse"
target=_blank><FONT color=#0c4790>careful and thorough investigation</FONT></A>
by Scott Shane and Charlie Savage of the New York Times, which was based on
anonymous sources and concluded that torture “played a small role at most in
identifying Bin Laden’s trusted courier and exposing his hide-out.” Shane and
Savage also quoted unnamed sources claiming torture resulted in bad information
— also confirmed in Panetta’s letter.</P>
<P></P><A name=pagebreak></A>
<P>Conservatives will argue that little is known about the “other intelligence
means” used to secure the courier’s name or whereabouts. They will also point
out that Panetta’s letter also indicates that some detainees who “provided
useful information about the facilitator/courier’s role” had been subjected to
torture. In saying this, Panetta is expanding on <A
href="http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/42880435/ns/today-today_news/t/cia-chief-waterboarding-aided-bin-laden-raid/"
target=_blank><FONT color=#0c4790>an earlier claim in an interview</FONT></A>
that torture, waterboarding included, produced info that played some kind of
role at some point in tracking Bin Laden.</P>
<P>But if anything, Panetta’s letter actually downplays the info achieved
through torture, is inconclusive on how useful it was in the end, and states
that we can’t know if that info would have been achievable through other means.
While the emphasis of Panetta’s account may be intended to be in line with the
administration’s anti-torture position, his downplaying of the role of torture
is an important addition to the public record. </P>
<P>In the end, we may never be able to establish with total certainty the
precise nature of the relationship between torture and the killing of Bin Laden.
But for now, Panetta’s account — the most extensive public accounting we now
have — simply doesn’t square with claims that torture was key to getting him,
which would vindicate Bush’s torture policies.</P>
<P></P></DIV>
<SCRIPT>
var entrycat = '
'
</SCRIPT>
<P class=posted style="LINE-HEIGHT: 140%">By <SPAN class="author vcard">Greg
Sargent</SPAN> | <SPAN class=updated title="">12:21 PM ET,
05/16/2011</SPAN> <BR><BR><!-- NEXT LINE APPEARS IF POST 1 HAS CATEGORIES --><!-- NEXT LINE APPEARS IF POST 1 HAS CATEGORIES AND TAGS --><!-- NEXT LINE APPEARS IF POST 1 HAS TAGS --></P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>