Did Waterboarding lead to the death of Osama?

So in other words you claimed it passed the ASTM E119 test but you have no clue as to what test was done or how it was done or what rating it was given. You just claimed it passed out of complete ignorance.

You need to get up to speed. I'm not talking about anyone in this forum, as far as I'm concerned the vast majority of you are up to speed.

I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to insult you.

I chose Nebraska because it's the most central state in America.

It is true that americans in the coastal parts of America tend to be more outward looking than those in the centre.

Passport ownership in Europe as opposed to America is very different. Almost everyone in Europe has a passport, I read that about 40% of Americans do not have passports.

Ask yourselves this question,' Is this forum typical of America?

John McCain calls on former AG Mukasey to "correct his misstatement" that waterboarding was a factor in finding Bin Laden

Quote:

“With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:

“The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.

“In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.

“I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’

“In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.

Jump to 5:40 for remarks above
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3I94Yb4KUic#at=177[/youtube]

Posted at 05:10 PM ET, 05/12/2011
Mukasey responds to McCain’s op-ed
By Marc A. Thiessen

Former attorney general Michael Mukasey has issued a statement responding to Sen. John McCain’s op-ed in today’s Post, in which McCain effectively calls Mukasey a liar. Here is his statement:

Senator McCain described as “false” my statement that Khalid Sheik Mohammed broke under harsh interrogation that included waterboarding, and disclosed a torrent of information that included the nickname of Osama bin Laden’s courier. He strongly implied in the remainder of his column in the Washington Post that this harsh interrogation was not only useless but also illegal. He is simply incorrect on all three counts.

KSM disclosed the nickname — al Kuwaiti — along with a wealth of other information, some of which was used to stop terror plots then in progress. He did so after refusing to answer questions and, when asked if further plots were afoot, said that his interrogators would eventually find out. Another detainee, captured in Iraq, disclosed that al Kuwaiti was a trusted operative of KSM’s successor, abu Faraj al-Libbi. When al-Libbi went so far as to deny even knowing the man, his importance became obvious.

Both former CIA Director Michael Hayden and former Director of National Intelligence Admiral Michael McConnell have acknowledged repeatedly that up to 2006, many of the valuable leads pursued by the intelligence community came from the three prisoners who were subjected to harsh techniques that included waterboarding in order to secure their cooperation.

So far as the waterboarding technique used by CIA operators, as outlined in the memoranda released by the Department of Justice, it was entirely legal at the time, which is to say before the passage of later statutes in 2005 and 2006, by which time it was no longer in use and under which it has not been evaluated.

In other words, the harsh interrogation techniques were both effective and lawful.

MICHAEL GOODWIN: Liberals Whine While Heroes Do Their Dirty Work For Them

By Michael Goodwin
Published May 09, 2011
FoxNews.com

Years ago, when my young son and I visited a dude ranch in Montana, a local rancher told us he butch ered his cows for meat. My son, Scott, who was only 7, was horrified. "You kill your own cows and eat them?" he asked with urban disgust.

The rancher answered with country logic, saying something like, "Well, how is that different from you eating cows that other people butcher?"

The exchange came back to me after yet another attack on the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation on Al Qaeda terrorists. It's a tiresome refrain under any circumstance, but especially now that the intelligence infrastructure built after 9/11 has paid such obvious dividends.

Indeed, critics can smugly mount their high horse of disgust only because somebody else was willing to do their dirty work for them. At least my son was a child when he showed a lack of knowledge about his hamburgers. So-called sophisticated adults have no excuse not to understand who and what is protecting them nearly 10 years after 9/11.

Numerous reports, including one from former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, that waterboarding started the daisy chain that led to the courier that led to Usama bin Laden's hideout, qualify as a distinctly inconvenient fact for hard-line liberals. They call waterboarding and other harsh techniques immoral and denounce supporters as apologists for torture.
And then they and their families ride the subway or an airplane or walk the street, believing they are safe. By and large, they are safe, thanks to the dedicated patriots whose heroic work does not allow for the snobbery that passes for moral superiority. The reality of war, warriors will tell you, leaves little margin for nuance.

Being forced to hear the hard facts about interrogation was only part of the misery Bin Laden's demise caused the Michael Moore set. The communication and surveillance technology that made possible the raid into Pakistan for the kill mission -- capture was not the goal -- vindicated the black arts of the CIA and Pentagon intelligence, two favorite targets of the professional left.

Then there's the helicopter that crashed, which the SEALs tried to destroy before they left. Pictures show a tail system unlike any other, a feature thought to represent advances in stealth know-how. It's the kind of machine made possible only by a "bloated" Pentagon budget that must now be slashed so expanding entitlements and binge spending can be protected.

Even the praise conservatives showered on President Obama must mortify his party's base. His Dirty Harry "Make My Day" attitude about the killing of Bin Laden earned him a poll vault primarily because Republicans and independents saw a side of him they liked. You might call the raid "American Exceptionalism" in action.

Murmurs from some on the right that Obama is milking the moment for political gain were drowned out by the cheers for him. His dignified silence at Ground Zero was the best speech never given.

Finally, there are the computers and documents the SEALs grabbed, a trove one official called a "mother lode of intelligence." The first piece to be analyzed showed talk of a plot to mark the 10th anniversary of 9/11 with a fresh terror attack on American trains. It's a case of dividends compounded, with justice delivered for the past and a possible future attack thwarted -- making life safer for all Americans, even those who scorn their defenders.

The world is a better place for Bin Laden's death and, as the president said, May 1, 2011, was "a great day for America." It's a pity that some Americans won't honestly acknowledge how that greatness was achieved.

The exchange came back to me after yet another attack on the Bush administration's use of harsh interrogation on Al Qaeda terrorists. It's a tiresome refrain under any circumstance, but especially now that the intelligence infrastructure built after 9/11 has paid such obvious dividends.

Indeed, critics can smugly mount their high horse of disgust only because somebody else was willing to do their dirty work for them.

If you know that the case IS that all fireproofing ISN'T on the trusses, then why would make the assumption that "The ASTM E119 test would assume all fireproofing is on the trusses"?

Parados, you said,

"The ASTM E119 test would assume all fireproofing is on the trusses. We know that isn't the case."

What do you mean by this?