The media is failing Americans again by buying into the narrative that there is a real debate if using torture actually helped or did not help track down Osama Bin Laden. It is simply logically invalid to let the debate continue that Osama Bin Laden was anyway discovered through the use of torture because that belief has a fatal logical flaw. Instead using premise whether or not torture worked they should be asking questions to why we should be having this debate at all.
Why is the media not asking the first obvious question?
Since we know torture ended late in Bush’s term or early in his second term at worst why did Bush’s intelligence apparatus not find the name of the real courier? The answer should be obvious if the media was competent and or not bias. Because knowing Osama Bin Laden had a courier with a code name was of no real intelligence value.
Based on media reports the absolute most we got from torturing detainees was that Osama Bin Laden had a courier with a code name that could not even be corroborated because some detainees understandably lied and some just denied he had a trusted courier at all.
So we start out with the facts that at most they found out through torture that they found out Osama Bin Laden had a courier with some sort of code name.
There are two reasons the information gathered through torture was absolutely useless or at least obvious.
First since anchient times any military organization with competent military commanders have used couriers to transfer messages and orders. It goes back that far because it’s obviously necessary for military leaders to use couriers. So there is no way that piece of information was useful in any way because it was easily deduced unless you had the absurd belief that Osama Bin Laden used no couriers to carry out complex operations like 911.
Second since at least during Roman times (probably much earlier and I bet Khirad would probably have more insight) couriers had code names. They used code names so they would not be caught and most importantly not be tracked back to the source in this case Osama Bin Laden. So the couriers nickname could have been Donald Duck and it would still have not gotten us any closer to Osama Bin Laden.
Therefor the obvious logical conclusion is the “best” intelligence that could have been uncovered with torture was meaningless. Ergo we should not even be debating whether torture helped catch Osama Bin Laden at all. It really is logically speaking like debating if the world is flat or a spheroid.
Again based on the information we have most importantly the key crack in the case happened when we discovered Osama Bin Laden’s courier’s real name to a high degree of certainty. Because that courier led us to the compound where Osama Bin Laden resided. That key information was unequivocally gathered without the use of torture under the Obama administration using good old fashioned detective work including legal interrogations, survailance and FISA law. Based on this excellent detective work the administration still only knew there was a 60-80% chance that Osama Bin Laden resided there. Quite frankly I’m surprised no one is bringing up how the Patriot Act or newest FISA laws where most likely used to find the possible whereabouts of Osama Bin Laden. But then again that would require a competent and unbiased media.