Posted by Damozel | According to this ABC News report (and this later report in The Washington Post), a leader of the CIA team that tortured Abu Zubaydah has surfaced to explain to the public that yes, waterboarding is torture, but that it was necessary torture in that particular case.(ABC News) The gist of his argument seemed to be that it's important to know when to compromise American principles by using torture to get information, since he concedes that waterboarding (1) is torture; and (2) compromises American principles. Sometimes the exigencies of the situation just might outweigh mere rule of law. (ABC News) On the other hand, he also said, "We're Americans, and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kinda thing." (Talk Left) Um....
The retired interrogator/torturer, a nice-looking young man called John Kiriakou, didn't know he was being recorded. (ABC News) And he says they were directed from Langley every step of the way. (ABC News) And, according to him, the (allegedly) Langley-directed waterboarding worked (though he wasn't actually present).
John Kiriakou, now retired, said the technique broke Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds.....The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to cooperate. From that day on, he answered every question.....Kiriakou said. "The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks . (ABC News)
I am not sure how he can say that the technique "broke" Zubaydah in less than 35 seconds if Zubaydah didn't decide to cooperate till sleeping on it, but I'll let that slide, since there is a lot that Kiriakou says that doesn't seem to hang together.
His assertion that they got useful information from Zubaydah is subject to grave doubt. Perhaps he doesn't know this. But before you take his word for it, please read this post by Kevin Drum at The Washington Monthly. Among other things, al Zubadyah may have been a person of doubtful mental capacity. (KD) Such "actionable intelligence" as was derived from him seems not to have beaten or waterboarded out of him, but because a CIA agent convinced him that by convincing him, with the help of some ideas from the Koran, that Zubaydah was predestined to cooperate with them." (KD) Under beatings and other severe duress, he evidently divulged a considerable amount of useless information.(KD)
But Kiriakou, while conceding that Americans are---by which he means "ought to be"---"better than that," also says he would never have forgiven himself if the failure to use waterboarding resulted in the withholding of that vital nugget of information that could have prevented an attack, even though he's come to view waterboarding as torture. (ABC News) So there are times, I guess, when we don't have to be "better than that." Yes, I've heard a number of people make this argument. Cowardice makes torturers of us all.
And this part of his interview was fraught with interest.
"It wasn't up to individual interrogators to decide, 'Well, I'm gonna slap him.' Or, 'I'm going to shake him.' Or, 'I'm gonna make him stay up for 48 hours. Each one of these steps, even though they're minor steps, like the intention shake, or the open-handed belly slap, each one of these had to have the approval of the deputy director for operations.... The cable traffic back and forth was extremely specific," he said. "And the bottom line was these were very unusual authorities that the agency got after 9/11. No one wanted to mess them up. No one wanted to get in trouble by going overboard. So it was extremely deliberate."...
And it was always a last resort.....
"That's why so few people were waterboarded. I think the agency has said that two people were waterboarded, Abu Zubaydah being one, and it's because you really wanted it to be a last resort because we didn't want these false confessions. We didn't want wild goose chases."(ABC News)
So if it's a last resort, the risk of false confessions doesn't matter....? And waterboarding isn't necessary anymore because of the success we're having chasing down Al Qaeda operatives, but was then because it (acording to him) yielded useful information....? As I said: it doesn't quite add up.
Kiriakou asserted, when asked, that waterboarding both compromised American principles and saved American lives, "so it's it's good that we're having a national debate about this."(ABC News)
I, on the other hand, remain astounded that we're having a "national debate about this." "(ABC News) Is this the sort of technique we wish to see legitimized? Is it something we'd be willing to see applied to our soldiers in the field?
In the meantime, the CIA---though declining to comment---seems aware of this conundrum, or paradox, or ambivalence.
In a statement, the CIA reiterated its long standing position that "the United States does not conduct or condone torture. The CIA's terrorist interrogation effort has always been small, carefully run, lawful and highly productive"(ABC News)
BooMan at The BooMan Tribune isn't in a forgiving or tolerant frame of mind.
Here is a war criminal's confession....Here's DCI Michael Hayden explaining that the tapes of this war criminal in the act of torturing a borderline retarded man had to be destroyed to protect the war criminal from reprisals.
Another Republican talking point rendered inoperative.
Meanwhile, the war criminal says that torture is really effective, even though it has already been reported that his victim was a dunce with almost no operational information and that the information he provided was all false. (Arrest the Torturers)
At The Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan has a couple of questions that I bet aren't going to be answered the way he would like:
So if the guy who tortured Zubaydah says it was torture, will the president now admit it? And will the attorney-general initiate the prosecution of all those involved in an illegal war-crime? It's called the rule of law, Mr Mukasey. And you are in office to enforce it. (Yes, It Was "Torture")
Update. The Washington Post discusses Kirkiakou's interview here:
U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that Kiriakou was a CIA employee involved in the capture and questioning of Abu Zubaida. Kiriakou, a 14-year veteran of the CIA who worked in both the analysis and operations divisions, left the agency in 2004 and works as a consultant for a private Washington-based firm.
After the hospital interviews bore no fruit, Abu Zubaida was flown to a secret CIA prison, where the interrogation duties fell to a team trained in aggressive tactics, including waterboarding. Shortly before the transfer, Kiriakou said he left Pakistan for Washington, where he said he continued to monitor the interrogation through classified cables and private communications with colleagues.....
Officials said there are hundreds of hours of recordings, but most are of Abu Zubaida alone in his cell recovering from his injuries.The circumstances surrounding Abu Zubaida's interrogation and treatment are still murky and fiercely disputed. FBI agents have opposed the use of coercive techniques as counterproductive and unreliable; intelligence officials have defended the tactics as valuable.
President Bush and others have portrayed Abu Zubaida as a crucial and highly placed terrorist, but some intelligence and law enforcement sources have said he did little more than help with logistics for al-Qaeda leaders and their associates.....
n documents prepared for a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, where he is still held, Abu Zubaida asserted that he was tortured by the CIA, and that he told his questioners whatever they wanted to hear to make the torture stop.
At the time the tapes were destroyed, several federal judges had issued court orders requiring the CIA and other government agencies to preserve records related to the interrogation and detention of alleged terrorism suspects after the Sept. 11 attacks. Some attorneys are seeking new orders for preserving the records.
Because Abu Zubaida had provided information that led to the capture of several Guantanamo Bay detainees, defense attorneys argue that any recordings of his interrogation should have been preserved.
"The revelation that the CIA destroyed these videotapes raises grave concerns about the government's compliance with the preservation order entered by this Court," wrote Abdah's lawyers, David H. Remes and Marc D. Falkoff. (Waterboarding Recounted)
Memeorandum buzz is here. At present, the following have all weighed in: Think Progress, michellemalkin.com, The Swamp, The Carpetbagger Report, The Opinionator, Prairie Weather, The Heretik, Jules Crittenden, TPMmuckraker and Captain's Quarters
*BN-Politics used the photograph(s) in this post under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial use and sharing. Before copying the photo(s), follow the link to the owner's page and consult the licensing terms. Photo owners do NOT necessarily endorse views expressed in this post.
RELATED POSTINGS
Investigations Launched re: CIA's Destruction of Torture Tapes
Captain Ed: "An Executive Branch that Can Do Whatever It Pleases"
Bush: No Recollection of Being Made Aware of Any Tapes (Updated)
ALSO:
Waterboarding: Learn What It's Like & Why It's Good for You in Two Easy Lessons
US Military & Intelligence Officials Weigh in on Torture Issue (Deaf Ears Dept)
Bush Administration Blocked Critic Who Experienced Waterboarding
Giuliani: Is Waterboarding Torture? "It Depends on Who Does It."
Romney's Pick for National Security Adviser Would Torture 'in a Heartbeat.'
I say 'Torture'; You Say 'Harsh Interrogation Techniques'.... (Updated)
LINKED
Coming in From the Cold: CIA Spy Call Waterboarding Necessary But Torture (ABC News)
Your site has won a Blog of the Day Award (BOTDA)
Award Code
Thank you,
famous quotes
Posted by: Bonnie | December 11, 2007 at 01:38 PM
Hey! Best Blog of the Day? Congratulations!
Posted by: On a Limb with Claudia | December 11, 2007 at 04:10 PM
I agree that Kiriakou's story smells fishy. I did a post on this topic that might be of interest at phoenixwoman.wordpress.com/2007/12/11/are-the-kiriakou-revelations-disinformation/
Posted by: Charles | December 11, 2007 at 09:43 PM