Former CIA Interrogator: We Carried Out Torture Because The White House Told Us To
Former CIA Interrogator: We Carried Out Torture Because The White House Told Us To
In an interview last night with ABC News, John Kiriakou — the CIA official who headed the team that interrogated al Qaeda leader Abu Zubaydah — said that Zubaydah was waterboarded, but defended those actions as having prevented “maybe dozens” of planned attacks and “probably saved lives.”
But despite his vigorous defense of his past conduct, Kiriakou says he now views what he did as torture and says that he would not recommend those tactics going forward. “We don’t need enhanced techniques to get that nugget of information,” he said in an interview with Matt Lauer this morning on The Today Show.
Lauer asked Kiriakou where the permission was given to carry out torture. “Was the White House involved in that decision?” Lauer asked. “Absolutely,” Kiriakou said, adding:
This isn’t something done willy nilly. It’s not something that an agency officer just wakes up in the morning and decides he’s going to carry out an enhanced technique on a prisoner. This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department.
Lauer then referenced an earlier interview he did with President Bush, in which Bush said he was assured by the Justice Department “we were not torturing.” “I disagree,” Kiriakou said. Watch it:
As evidence increasingly builds for the argument that CIA interrogators carried out illegal acts of torture, the New York Sun reports that President Bush may soon decide to issue pardons:
With talk of a special prosecutor again in the air and the looming prospect of a Democrat taking over the White House, CIA officials involved in prisoner interrogations and the disputed handling of videotapes of those sessions may seek the only ironclad assurance against any criminal prosecution: a presidential pardon. [...]
“I think there’s a real possibility one of President Bush’s last acts very well might be granting immunity to certain CIA employees,” a defense attorney who has defended military personnel accused of prisoner abuse, Frank Spinner, said. “I think it depends in part on the election.”
UPDATE: Carpetbagger has more.
UPDATE: Larry Johnson writes, “The media is woefully ignorant on the subject of waterboarding and torture. Consider the coverage of former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, who is telling his story as an interrogator of Abu Zubaydah and insisting that waterboarding is an effective technique. ABC and CNN are repeating this absurd propaganda. However, if you read the transcript of his interview some key points are obscured in the media propaganda push:”
* Kiriakou never witnessed the waterboarding. It was carried out by another group of individuals (nfi).
* None of the information provided by Zubaydah concerned threats inside the United States.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
195 Responses to “Former CIA Interrogator: We Carried Out Torture Because The White House Told Us To”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
I was just following orders - Good German!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:09 am“we were not torturing.â€
depends on what the meaning of "were" were
December 11th, 2007 at 10:11 amI've been saying it for years now: Before he leaves office, George W. Bush will be the first President to have pardoned HIMSELF.
My theory is: Cheney pardoned him when Bush went in for his colonoscopy. And Bush pardoned Cheney; Cheney keeps both pardons in his man-sized safe.
Just wait.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:13 amAfter his departure from office, Bush will still be liable for criminal acts he authorized or perpetrated. I sincerely hope the next president doesn't pull a 'let bygones be bygones' and goes after this scumbag.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:14 amDon't they have to be convicted first before a pardon can be issued?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:15 amKeep the investigations and trial going until Bush gets out of office, then convict them all. Bush can't pardon them, and he'll be next in line for prosecution.
The United States does not torture. I think I remember you saying that, Mr. President. Yes, Mr. Bush, the country itself does not torture--it is just a large chunk of land--but it is now clear that its citizens have committed torture. On your watch and under your instructions. Which makes you a scumbag.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:15 amoops
December 11th, 2007 at 10:16 amPlease, everyone needs to stop printing their purported justification that torturing this or that person "possibly saved lives." The words chosen establish that those making the statement have absolutely no idea that what they are saying is true. Possibly. Yeah, and possibly not. Whatever.
Besides, books written on the subject actually state that the exact opposite is true. Imagine that.
At the moment, there is absolutely no reason to give any member of this administration -- or any member of Congress who could have been involved (Democrat or Republican) -- the benefit of the doubt on this. None.
It's time to start cleaning house. It's unfortunate that it will happen during an election year, but so what.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:17 am"Don’t they have to be convicted first before a pardon can be issued?"
Under the Constitution, no.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:18 amYou can run, but you can't hide, W.
I agree with RUC, if we can't prosecute him while in office, let's start ensuring he gets nailed in his post-Presidency years. Along with Cheney and the whole rotten bunch.
Christians, indeed.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:19 amI don't know how to read this guy.
Is he Administration critic coming to the defense of the Agency?
Is he an Administration plant trying to "soften" the torture debate by saying it was ok then but I've reconsidered?
Or is he a loose cannon?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:19 amWhite House discrediting of Kiriakou beginning in
December 11th, 2007 at 10:19 am3...
2...
1...
It doesn't matter how many lives were saved. That is if the CIA is to believed. In the long run we have opened Pandora's Box and torture will not only be standard operating procedure among governments but in local police departments and law agencies in generally. The Bush administration has effectively established policy for decades to come. It doesn't matter if the U.S. renounces torture. The cat is out of the bag.
http://13martyrs.blogspot.com/
December 11th, 2007 at 10:21 amTorture doesn't save lives, it destroys lives. The lives of the tortured and the lives of the torturer. And the lives of their respective families, too. Period!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:24 amExley, If that's true, I learned something this mornng, I thought that a pardon sequentially followed a conviction. How would a pardon read for someone not even charged of a crime, as could be the case for the CIA agents? Sort of a general get-out-of-jail card for all charges brought or that could be brought.....
Another nail in that charred coffin of the chimp's legacy.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:25 amthere's something strange about this interview. this guy doesn't seem like your typical CIA-type --- and even if he is, why is he talking about these things that he actually took part in? wouldn't he be legally prohibited from doing so as part of his agreement with his former employer, CIA? the responses he made to some of matt's questions shows a lack of thought and sophistication that i find hard to believe --- if he was in CIA, he must have been very low level.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:26 amnan ~ 'Another nail in that charred coffin of the chimp’s legacy.'
You are SUCH a wordsmith.
Love it.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:26 amDoes this mean that Barney will have to the Hague too?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:28 amummm, "go". THUD.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:29 amDon’t they have to be convicted first before a pardon can be issued?
Comment by RagingGurrl — December 11, 2007 @ 10:15 am
I don't know how old you are, or if you remember this, but Ford pardoned Nixon when he (Ford) took office -- even though Nixon had not been formally charged with any crimes (let alone been convicted of any).
At the time, there was a fair amount of controversy over the word "pardon" because what Ford issued was essentially immunity. I believe that Ford used the word "pardon" because he didn't want to eradicate the implication of guilt -- he just wanted to end the whole thing. And Nixon accepted the pardon with nary a claim of innocence.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:29 amCarrion...
December 11th, 2007 at 10:29 amBadmoodman,
No, Barney's innocent. Although I have heard a rumor that he's now in charge of the State Department's 'new diplomacy' efforts. Perhaps he can bolster America's image to the rest of the world.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:32 amUnder the Constitution, no.
Comment by Exley — December 11, 2007 @ 10:18 am
exlax, you old devil worshipper you! what does a conservative know of the constitution? (except how to violate it, of course.)
“If you read these far-left websites, you’re a devil worshipper. You are.â€
- bill o’reilly, fox news “the o’reilly factorâ€, 12/07/07
eh?
eh?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:32 amHow would a pardon read for someone not even charged of a crime....
Comment by nanlichi — December 11, 2007 @ 10:25 am
I think it would read something like retroactive immunity for the telecoms!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:32 amif he was in CIA, he must have been very low level.
Comment by jboothe7 — December 11, 2007 @ 10:26 am
How lowlevel is torture ? Do you think Hayden held the suspect down with his own hands???
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 amI think Barney deserves retroactive immunity, too.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 amPerhaps he can bolster America’s image to the rest of the world.
Comment by Zimzone — December 11, 2007 @ 10:32 am
He could crap on the rug in the oval office and bolster our image...
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 amI sincerely hope the next president doesn’t pull a ‘let bygones be bygones’ and goes after this scumbag.
Comment by RUCerious — December 11, 2007 @ 10:14 am
If the next president is a Republican, it's a given that Bush and Cheney will both get their Get Out of Jail Free cards. If the next president is a Democrat (particularly if it's Hillary), there will most likely be a "we need to put this behind us and move forward" statement.
Either way, I don't anticipate Bush or Cheney to be accountable in any way for their crimes in the White House. And that's a sad precedent to set for this country.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:33 amAgain with the pardons!!!
We have got to get the power of the pardon out of the Constitution or at least put a check on it somehow.
It truly is the instrument that any President or his/her people can use to get out of facing true justice.
"Do what you want, I'll just pardon anybody that gets in trouble."
December 11th, 2007 at 10:34 am“we were not torturing.â€
They WERE torturing. They probably STILL are.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:35 amThis does not make any sense that ABC evening news got this guy to make such claims that he was involved in torturing,and got good results.
He looks like a vacuum cleaner salesman..
December 11th, 2007 at 10:35 amI guess we'll never know what specific plots these guys supposedly fessed up to and whether they were, in fact, real plots. The evidence was destroyed. To me, destruction of the evidence says that either A) what they were doing during the interrogation was so horrendous that it would be judged as criminal by any civilized viewer so therefore covering up the activity was more important than being able to prove the true value of the subject's revelations and thereby prove the worth of enhanced interrogation techniques. B) that the subject's revelations themselves could be proven to be bogus, which would be embarrassing and highlight the ineffectiveness of the interrogation technique. or C) Both the techniques were horribly criminal and the revelations of the subject were demonstrably false. Take your pick.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:37 amNanlichi,
The pre-conviction pardon can be worded to pardon all offenses against the United States which the recipient has committed or MAY have committed or taken part in...
There have been a number of pre-conviction pardons in US history.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon before Nixon had been convicted of any crime.
Caspar Weinberger was pardoned by President George H.W. Bush prior to any conviction
President Clinton pardoned fugitive Marc Rich before Rich had been convicted of anything.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:39 amTwo quick points:
1. On the issue of whether to believe Ron Suskind's view or Kiriakou's view of the torture of Abu Zubaydah and his role in Al Qaeda, I believe Suskind for now. Kiriakou sounds like he is trying to cover his fanny by making wild claims about the results of the torture and Zubaydah's role, after the fact rationalizations, possibly to fend off the White House and others. His "torture gets results but we should not torture" argument seems, well, tortured.
2. What are Kirakou's motives for coming out now, in public? Is he a showboat?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:40 amIn Medieval Times in Europe, waterboarding was crudely known as "the water torture."
Watch the MSM phrasing this very carefully. You will not see them call waterboarding torture. You may see 'harsh interrogation', advanced methods, severe interrogation and other terminology, but you won't see the MSM describing the CIA using torture. Why not? Because, just like our trolls, it appears the MSM uses WH talking points themselves.
Is it just me, or does this whole frigg'n country appear blackmailed?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:41 amHere's an interesting one:
Can a subsequent president unpardon someone already pardoned by a previous president?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:41 amEither way, I don’t anticipate Bush or Cheney to be accountable in any way for their crimes in the White House. And that’s a sad precedent to set for this country.
Comment by missmolly
I agree. Political elite class will always protect themselves, god forbids there is a real democracy.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:42 amIt's not surprising that Dear Leader doesn't see it as torture...
December 11th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Retroactive munity, eh RUC?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 amComment by Exley — December 11, 2007 @ 10:39 am
but exlax, will jesus pardon you?
“If you read these far-left websites, you’re a devil worshipper. You are.â€
- bill o’reilly, fox news “the o’reilly factorâ€, 12/07/07
eh?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 amIt's interesting that the article in the AP that I read this morning leaves out completely that Kiriakou now believes that waterboarding is torture - and harps on and on about the "dozens of attacks" that were "disrupted" by the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah....
Got liberal media...?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:43 amOh, one other point: even if Bush can pardon people, he cannot pardon himself. Nor can he pardon anyone in a way that prevents a war crimes trial in Europe.
There are a lot of names in public already as authorizing and participating and supporting torture directly and indirectly, including Senator Rockefeller. There's lots of evidence. Whether it's enough to prosecute Bush and crew the way Pinochet was prosecuted, that's an open question.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:44 amGood call Pete!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:44 amThough compelling, there's definitely something peculiar about Kiriakou's openness. This is the type of admission that's usually made behind dark glasses, a bad wig, with the voice disguised to protect the identity.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:47 amThanks Exley, MissMolly.
Man what I wouldn't do for one of those blanket pardons. What happens in the basement stays in the basement. Except torture. I don't think even a Presidential pardon would fill the holes in your psyche if you stooped to that level. Which could be Kirakou's motive now.
Thanks RUCerious, I have appreciated your posts for years. I flit around the edges and let the more educated do the heavy lifting.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:48 amEvery criminal has a perfectly valid reason for committing their crime. I needed money. She was asking for it. He disrespected me. Our laws are enacted to stop people from using these reasons to commit violent acts against others. Psychologically, having a good reason is always the first line of defense for committing a crime; legally, it's not a defense at all.
Bush can pardon anyone he wants - I'm not so sure he can pardon himself.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:48 amMarcus, and then there's the whole 'rotting in hell' thing...
December 11th, 2007 at 10:51 amStriking resemblance to Nathan Lane.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:52 amWhat this man is trying to tell us is that he witnessed the many good results that he claimed he saw that saved lives..without telling us anything other than that.
But he is also telling us: "yes there is inconvenience here using waterboarding..but guys ...look at what we accomplished, we are saving lives".
He claims he saw it all...
Of course there is no way to verify anything he said,wether by ABC or NBC..
Is he just offering his service to major networks and volunteering.
Hard to believe.!!
Why now...?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:53 amHere's the smoking gun - Kirikou's testimony and public statements indicting George W. Bush! We knew it was coming. Now let's get to ridding ourselves of a president who has broken national and international law!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:54 amKirikou's concerned about his own paduchas, that's clear. He's openly admitting that he engaged in violating national and international law, but not by his own choice, but on the permission of GWBush. I'd say that this is all Congress needs right not to sew up an impeachment proceeding and then turn Bush over to the Hague.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:56 amI'm certain there are more tapes and perhaps even copies of the tapes in question out there somewhere just waiting for the precise time to indict Bush and Cheney.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:57 amAnother Bush lie to the public: "We don't torture! We Don't torture!". Hah!
December 11th, 2007 at 10:57 amIf Bush issues pardons, then it's clear that he's involved and is trying to "buy away" the testimony of those involved. However, who will pardon Bush for his war crimes?
December 11th, 2007 at 10:58 amAnd, if he has the balls to issue pardons, then the people need to take to the streets and protest to remove this president.
December 11th, 2007 at 10:59 amComment by CaptainMantastic — December 11, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Well said.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:00 amBartlebee: I'm with you. My gut tells me that this guy is the real deal - the whistleblower whom Bush fears. What he's already said damages this president further and provides grounds for impeachment.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:00 amOne question.
Did this guy have a CIA non disclosure agreement?
If so, is he in violation of it?
Hmmm....
December 11th, 2007 at 11:00 amCaptainManastic: Would this be the great intel which Bush claims is bogus to which you refer?? And the fact that we "haven't been attacked in 6 years" means what?? We hadn't been attacked in decades before 911 so what does that mean?? Great intel then and great leadership all those years, too?
Your theory doesn't hold water logically. Proving that something "did not occur as a result of any pie in the sky concept" is meaningless. The only valid proof is to measure what has happened - not what has not happened. Ever take a statistics class?
December 11th, 2007 at 11:02 amObviously, not!
December 11th, 2007 at 11:03 amUsing skewed logic to support a premise is Bush Nonsense Theory 101.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:04 amIf the victims of torture gave up names of others still at Gitmo, under duress, the distruction of the tapes is destruction of evidence.
A plain transcript would never show the duress.
'Jennifer Daskal, senior counsel with Human Rights Watch, said that destroying the tapes was illegal. "Basically this is destruction of evidence," she said, calling Hayden's explanation that the tapes were destroyed to protect CIA identities "disingenuous." '
December 11th, 2007 at 11:05 amhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22139312/
Is he just offering his service to major networks and volunteering.
Hard to believe.!!
Why now…?
Comment by tarazan — December 11, 2007 @ 10:53 am
As the Bush/Cheney cabal has gone merrily along for the past seven years, there were a number of us wondering if ANYONE connected to the crime machine had enough conscience to step forward and speak the truth. And for what seemed like forever, nobody did.
Now someone has. Or claims he is. And we have become so skeptical we don't believe anybody anymore -- we just assume everyone has an agenda, and we're just waiting to see what Kiriakou's is.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:05 amIf it is true what this man is saying,then the Congress should bring him to testify under oath..and let him tell all about what he really saw;
December 11th, 2007 at 11:05 amnot just to go only on ABC or NBC networks.
it may be time that what we lose in moral authority has a higher cost than the vulnerability from terrorist attacks that may have abated.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 11, 2007 @ 10:58 am
Sorry, Mantastic, but after months and months of sneering, condescending nonsense from the likes of you, I have no need of your opinion on this matter. Some of us have disliked Chimpy from Day One for all the right reasons and we have been proven right over and over again.
I really don't want a single F-in' word from any rightie about anything anymore. Go away. Feel sorry for yourself on your own time. You have come here repeatedly for months and defended Bush and this disgusting nightmare, and ridiculed us for disliking it.
Moral authority? You and your beloved President kissed that good bye years ago and you're not getting it back in this life time.
Gee, and not a single dirty word... well, okay one...
December 11th, 2007 at 11:08 ami read the carpet bagger report, via google news, before getting to TP...
know what?
i can abide with pardons, "granting immunity to certain CIA employees,â€...
what i want to see is cheeeney and the shrub hung by their BALLS...
December 11th, 2007 at 11:09 amtied together...
to be sure there is enough there to hold 'em up...
cause neither has enough balls alone... the shrub, for sure...
.
not just to go only on ABC or NBC networks.
Comment by tarazan — December 11, 2007 @ 11:05 am
Unfortunately, as bad as ABC and NBC are these days, they STILL have more credibility than our government. BushCo has reduced the Fed to a charred, excoriated cinder. It will take DECADES to rebuild this country mentally, morally, emotionally, politically, spiritually, financially, and physically following the final, long overdue end of "the Bush Era". It cannot come soon enough.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:12 amHelp spread the video of this around the web and catch the attention of the MSM!
THIS VIDEO - We tortured b/c the White House told us to
December 11th, 2007 at 11:14 amhttp://test.redlasso.com/service/svc/clip/playClip?fid=67347de8-0e38-46b8-9308-473762fb9cea
"Whatever the guys motives, he’s a whistleblower, and we don’t hang whistleblowers. "
Not yet anyway.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:17 am#54, 58 ... Captain Mantastic, HellinaBucket
A thoughtful posting, Captain.
This ABC News story does indeed shine a spotlight on the moral complexities of this issue. John Kiriakou comes across as a highly credible, conflicted and patriotic individual. He raises a number of questions about the efficacy of waterboarding, whether it constitutes torture, or whether some methods have any role to play in extracting potentially life-saving information from fanatical, radical terrorists.
In psoting #11, CitiDC writes that he can't get a read on Kiriakou. I that is because this is a complicated topic. For too long, too many posters here have engaged in simplicatic demonization of the CIA and those who have to make the decision between potentially saving lives and using certain interrogation tactics. Hopefully, Kiriakou's interview will lead to a more mature and reasoned debate both here and in Washington.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:31 am.
SINCE WHEN
IS TOURTURE
... L E G A L ?
.Oh, I get it,
It's not torture when the president does it?
.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:31 amWhat has happened to Abu Zubaydah? Did the CIA kill him after he “confessed� Throw him back out on the streets of Pakistan? Order a trial for him and use the “evidence†revealed in his response to being tortured?
What happens to ALL individuals tortured by the US?
December 11th, 2007 at 11:47 amComment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 11:40 am
Bart, get back in your hole. I left you a new messege there. . .
December 11th, 2007 at 11:53 amThis is exactly why Bush should be impeached, not only for his culpability in these crimes but also because of his continuing capability to enable others to escape trial and punishment for them.
December 11th, 2007 at 11:55 amPearl Harbor and 9/11.
*yawn*
December 11th, 2007 at 11:56 amWaterboarding is wrong. It doesn't matter if it saves the whole universe.
Moral complexities, my *ss. You wouldn't have this moral "complexities" if you would stop funding terrorists. I can see Canada, Sweden, Luxemburgo and Norway, saying: well, do we waterboard in order to be the best places to live in the world?
What a load of crap.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:00 pmAfter 9/11 we responded by attacking those directly involved. Remember the "Terrorists and those who harbor terrorists" speech? Afghanistan was the correct response.
The complexities of balancing the need to keep America safe and the abuse of power in using torture is difficult to do. I believe the true moral compass of this administration wandered. Maybe for a power grab, maybe a bastardized notion they were doing "right". Or maybe for reasons yet to be known. But this administration crossed the line and is now covering it's tracks.
Our nation is greater than what Bush has shown the world. We are a nation of laws and this administration has tried to rewrite the laws to suit their needs.
We deserve better.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:02 pmPeople must think you’re tired all the time.
Comment by CaptainMantastic
Better tired than stupid.
Pearl Harbor was a colony of the US and a military base. Japanese planes attacked a military facility, in which is considered an WAR ACT. 9/11 was a series of CRIMINAL ACTS in US soil.
And yes, I'm tired of that silly comparison or have you enlisted or being drafted in order to fight this WW?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:03 pmFrom Geraldn Posner
In my 2003 New York Times bestseller, Why America Slept: The Failure to Prevent 9/11, I discussed Abu Zubaydah at length in Chapter 19, "The Interrogation." There I set forth how Zubaydah initially refused to help his American captors. Also, disclosed was how U.S. intelligence established a so-called "fake flag" operation, in which the wounded Zubaydah was transferred to Afghanistan under the ruse that he had actually been turned over to the Saudis. The Saudis had him on a wanted list, and the Americans believed that Zubaydah, fearful of torture and death at the hands of the Saudis, would start talking when confronted by U.S. agents playing the role of Saudi intelligence officers.
Instead, when confronted by his "Saudi" interrogators, Zubaydah showed no fear. Instead, according to the two U.S. intelligence sources that provided me the details, he seemed relieved. The man who had been reluctant to even confirm his identity to his U.S. captors, suddenly talked animatedly. He was happy to see them, he said, because he feared the Americans would kill him. He then asked his interrogators to call a senior member of the Saudi royal family. And Zubaydah provided a private home number and a cell phone number from memory. "He will tell you what to do," Zubaydah assured them
That man was Prince Ahmed bin Salman bin Abdul-Aziz, one of King Fahd's nephews, and the chairman of the largest Saudi publishing empire. Later, American investigators would determine that Prince Ahmed had been in the U.S. on 9/11.
American interrogators used painkillers to induce Zubaydah to talk -- they gave him the meds when he cooperated, and withdrew them when he was quiet. They also utilized a thiopental sodium drip (a so-called truth serum). Several hours after he first fingered Prince Ahmed, his captors challenged the information, and said that since he had disparaged the Saudi royal family, he would be executed. It was at that point that some of the secrets of 9/11 came pouring out. In a short monologue, that one investigator told me was the "Rosetta Stone" of 9/11, Zubaydah laid out details of how he and the al Qaeda hierarchy had been supported at high levels inside the Saudi and Pakistan governments.
He named two other Saudi princes, and also the chief of Pakistan's air force, as his major contacts. Moreover, he stunned his interrogators, by charging that two of the men, the King's nephew, and the Pakistani Air Force chief, knew a major terror operation was planned for America on 9/11.
It would be nice to further investigate the men named by Zubaydah, but that is not possible. All four identified by Zubaydah are now dead. As for the three Saudi princes, the King's 43-year-old nephew, Prince Ahmed, died of either a heart attack or blood clot, depending on which report you believe, after having liposuction in Riyadh's top hospital; the second, 41-year-old Prince Sultan bin Faisal bin Turki al-Saud, died the following day in a one car accident, on his way to the funeral of Prince Ahmed; and one week later, the third Saudi prince named by Zubaydah, 25-year-old Prince Fahd bin Turki bin Saud al-Kabir, died, according to the Saudi Royal Court, "of thirst." The head of Pakistan's Air Force, Mushaf Ali Mir, was the last to go. He died, together with his wife and fifteen of his top aides, when his plane blew up -- suspected as sabotage -- in February 2003. Pakistan's investigation of the explosion -- if one was even done -- has never been made public.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:07 pmHere's my end-of-the-day re: the torture bullshit:
If torturing people is the means by which the defense of me is accomplished, I do not want to be defended. I will take my chances, and defend myself, before I will have unamerican atrocities carried out in the name of defending me.
Liberty or Death, ain't that what we're here for?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:12 pmBART, you know I'm a fan of you, but that was a little too much.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:13 pmI cant seem to click on my earlier link..
From Gerald Posner:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-posner/the-cias-destroyed-inter_b_75850.html
December 11th, 2007 at 12:13 pmI’ve changed my mind on Bush interrogation policy, in large part, because the situation has changed. Bush has been successful enough to change priorities. Many of you forgot how much people were concerned about future attacks after 9/11. I haven’t. If you asked me honestly if we would have been better off under Gore or Kerry management, I would say probably not. And let’s not forget. Our enlightened Congressmen (R and D), who are also supposed to be responsible for leading this country - were onboard at the time. Because, it made sense under the circumstances.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 11, 2007 @ 11:57 am
What, exactly, has Bush been successful with? I mean, seriously, what in god's name are you talking about? The invasion and occupation of Iraq? The invasion and subsequent efforts in Afghanistan? What has any of that to do with the use of torture, which you sugarcoat as "interrogation policy"?
There was an interesting piece on NPR this morning about the Iraqi government's own admission that the country is simply not ready to have refugees return, in spite of the "success" of the surge. And the refugees were the educated middle class (the only ones who could afford to leave), the very people necessary for restoring the country to stability.
Again, what possible "success" can you be referring to?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pmCaptainMantastic, You are doing a disservice to the efforts of this country during WWII and now. There are no real comparisons after we were attacked. Bush has not energized the industrial industry, he has not called for a draft, he hasn't initiated any rationing of metals, food and fuel. He hasn't solidified this country in committing to a unified sacrifice.
Bush's answer to 9/11 to the country was for us to shop. FDR led this country to it's greatest moment in our history.
Bush has lost any high ground he may have stood on after 9/11. That was his doing by jumping into Iraq. By ignoring the generals that stated several hundred thousand troops will be needed. By not supplying the troops with the proper equipment. By not having a plan after defeating a 3rd world army. By creating Gitmo and naming those held "enemy combatants" he cricumvented current law to suit his own purposes.
Evil was committed on 9/11. Our president has committed evil in the name of 9/11. We deserve better.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:14 pmHopefully, Kiriakou’s interview will lead to a more mature and reasoned debate both here and in Washington.
Comment by Exley — December 11, 2007 @ 11:31 am
Oh, so you cannot be part of it? Bye, bye!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:16 pmthe Captain's civilian identity is "Dr. Reed Richards"
[and that has to be the friendliest insult I've ever made here]
December 11th, 2007 at 12:17 pmThe mass exodus of the Iraqi middle class is one of the many stories that aren't being fully discussed. I too don't see any substanitive "successes" for Bush.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:18 pmWhat does his mother have to do with it, BART?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:20 pm#89
Agreed.
Crude, childish, unnecessary.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pmAnd with this damning evidence what, exactly is congress going to do about it? Most likely nothing, or more letters that will get absolutely no response from the White House.
I was surprised that congress members of both parties had been shown what waterboarding is and yet did nothing to object. Very disappointed in Nancy about this information, and because she knew about it and did nothing, now do you really think she will go after her partners in crime? I don't think so.
Bush/Cheney/Congress
Hague Trials '09
Buck Fush
December 11th, 2007 at 12:23 pmComment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
:D
ha ha
- - - -
Being attacked by a handful of criminals is not the same as being attacked by a country.
I’m tired of those tired comparisons.
The two are nothing alike.
Comment by BARTLEBEE — December 11, 2007 @ 11:40 am
And why are these two nothing alike? Because Bart is having sex with my mother.
Intelligent comment there Bart. Really backs up your point.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:24 pmBART, just ignore. You can go around fighting with everyone, sure, but it just will wear you out and strip your posts or relevancy. Come on, be smarter than angrier.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:25 pmGee, and not a single dirty word… well, okay one…
Comment by The Republic of Stupidity — December 11, 2007 @ 11:08 am
Well said, TRoS.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:28 pmAnd if we would put Bush and Cheney on trial for war crimes it would probably prevent more wars and saved millions of lives. But I ain't one to talk so you didn't hear it from me.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:32 pmComment by CaptainMantastic
You are an idiot. Sorry for the insult, but you should take a trip to Baghdad and ask the people if they feel liberated. Around one million Iraqis have been killed after the "liberation" and some 4 million displaced from their homes while you watch the Pats vs Steelers eating Jack in The Box.
Saddam never had WMDs, he didn't have an airforce. Remeber the words of former Foregin Spanish MInister, that Bush wanted to invade as soon as possible not even waiting for the UN Inspectors evaluation. Do you know that's breaking INTERNATIONAL LAW? Do you know what's that at all?
Do you ever wonder why US forces took first of all the Oil Ministry in Baghdad or why Bush begged Iraqis NOT TO BURN THEIR OIL FILEDS?
You are a tool. No wonder why Americans are seen like a sad, stupid bunch outside the US.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:36 pmAmerica has a worm in the White House.
All of the issues we see everyday here are a direct result of wormage.
Worms are asexual, like dirt & filth, avoid sunlight and crawl into holes.
Worms, I tell you!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:38 pmTHEY CARRY OUT TORTUTE BECAUSE IT IS THEIR 'MODUS OPERANDI'. ONLY WITH THIS CRIMINAL ADMINISTRATION IN PLACE THAT THIS MATTER IS OUT! THE USA DOES TORTURE AND HAS DONE SO FOR MANY DECADES NOW!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:39 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — December 11, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
The WhiteSox also won the world series since Bush took office. None of what you state beside the 6+ years free of domestic terror attacks ( you forgot about anthrax, VTech, Omaha and the other acts of terror).
Lybia had been isolated for years and Gadhafi saw the chance to improve his standing in the region. Not necessarily Bush's doing.
Ongoing war in Afghanistan. How is that a success? Our troops are retaking towns that had been under our control.
I do respect that you are taking a sober look at this event and look forward to more of your posts.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:39 pmViva Juan!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pmCaptainMantastic, go pick up a copy of Cobra II.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:41 pmY - hit the papers - Afghanistan is an abject failure, unless you count record opium production and a resurgent Taliban as "success"
December 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pm"Around one million Iraqis have been killed after the “liberationâ€'
Nonsense, Juan. Avoid hyperbole.
Moreover, the vast majority of Iraqi civilians killed since April 2003 have been killed by the Iraqi "insurgency."
December 11th, 2007 at 12:42 pmSo Capt, you're describing how effective the terrorizing of our public has been - I'd agree - the administration has done a bang-up job of terrorizing the American (and Afghan, and Iraqi) public.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:44 pmEx - you have no proof of that whatsoever. The "fog of war" factor has been intentionally elevated in Iraq to the point that there is no reliable information to be had re: civilian caualties or their cause.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:45 pmIt is not, or has not been, as black and white as you care to remember.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 11, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
Sorry Captain, but in my mind it has always been clear. Always.
I'm not the only one.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pmIf atrocity is the means by which I'm defended, I'll choose to do without.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:46 pmSaddam (despot; .3suspected of having WMD and ties to terrorist organization - by most of the world, before the war) deposed. Iraqi people liberated, able to participate in elections (that most here take for granted).
Iraqi people have had to either live in fear and constant danger or to flee the country, by the millions. Those who fled to Syria have largely exhausted their savings, many have been reduced to poverty and not a few have resorted to prostitution to survive. This scarcely "liberated" and being able to vote doesn't mean squat if the government you're voting in is paralyzed, sectarian and utterly ineffectual.
6+ years free of domestic terror attacks, that most would believe would be impossible after the attacks of 9/11 and the realization that jihadists had declared war on us.
This is a complete straw man. There were virtually no attacks prior to 9/11 and I don't see you given credit for that to Clinton or his predecessors. The absence of domestic attacks proves only that there have been no domestic attacks; there is no correlation to any "success" by the Bush administration. In fact, there have been ample cases where the feeble "security" program the administration has fostered has been easily breached by researchers at airports, and most of the industrial plants in the country remain unprotected.
Iranian halt to nuclear weapons program (if you believe the NIE)
And, again, this has clearly been established to be the result of diplomatic pressure from EUROPE.
Gadhafi commiting to a nuclear free Lybia.
Please try to keep up. Again, this was the product of years and years of negotiations, and largely an economic decision on Lybia's part. There is simply no way in hell to credit this to Bush.
Ongoing war in Afganistan to disrupt the Taliban and other terror groups.
Ongoing because it wasn't successfully completed in the first place. Critical military resources were pulled out of Afghanistan to invade Iraq. A great example of a disastrous decision, not a success.
There are other examples. I don’t expect you to agree. But, please understand that I am just as mystified that you don’t understand what I’m saying as you are mystified with my view. But also understand, that I am trying to understand your view better.
I don't think you're trying very hard, because you keep ignoring everything I've posted in the preceding paragraphs; I'm just reposting information that has been presented to you repeatedly.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pmExley:
Opinion Research Business (ORB) poll conducted August 12-19, 2007 estimated 1,220,580 violent deaths due to the Iraq War. A nationally representative sample of 1,499 Iraqi adults answered whether any members of their household (living under their roof) were killed due to the Iraq War. 22% of the respondents had lost one or more household members. ORB reported that "48% died from a gunshot wound, 20% from the impact of a car bomb, 9% from aerial bombardment, 6% as a result of an accident and 6% from another blast/ordnance.
Now, let's follow your twisted line of reasoning:
Thousands of civilians killed: hyperbole.
3,000 people killed in 9/11: sniff
Beheading: henious and evil
Waterboarding: A matter of moral complexity (that can save lives)
Man up, Ex.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pmThis 6-years-attack-free line is a load of bull - it asks us to grant that up until 9/11 we were being attacked with some kind of regularity, and we were not.
Can't make a trend line on a graph with only 1 data point.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:49 pmKiriakou is a disaffected, alcoholic, homosexual, who has committed a number of undetected crimes, and who was forced out of office as a security risk--did I leave any of the spin out?
December 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pmBart is vindicated.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:53 pmI don’t think you’re trying very hard, because you keep ignoring everything I’ve posted in the preceding paragraphs; I’m just reposting information that has been presented to you repeatedly.
Comment by gummitch — December 11, 2007 @ 12:49 pm
That's the fatal flaw with the Captain. He claims to be here to try to understand our views better, but he never actually manages to achieve any level of understanding -- he just keeps repeating his drivel.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:55 pmUnder the bylaws of Exley's HairSpliiters Lodge, being the indirect cause of something is a-ok. Hence, if I set up a boobie trap to catch Wile E. Coyote, and the Capt. ends up hanging by a heel, that's not my fault, and I'm not to be held responsible for it.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:56 pmTombaker,
Iraq Body Count (hardly a Bush-friendly project) puts the figure at between 78,000 and 85,000.
Brookings Iraq Index puts the figure as of Dec. 2006 at between 53,000 and 59,000 (Yes, that is a year go, but the most recent I can find so quickly, but I don't think anyone is contending that 960,000 Iraqis were killed in 2007).
The vast majority of these deaths come from car bombings and suicide bombings, which are carried out by the insurgency.
See: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/analysis/numbers/biggest-bombs/
So, yes, I do have evidence. Juan's 1 million figure is arbitrary hyperbole.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:57 pmIf we count that one Bart, you've got a 2-point line that runs horizontal - still not a trend line one could use to draw conclusions on the effectiveness of an "anti-terror" agenda - I'm not a Righty, so I don't do the "idiot math".
Ease up on the berserker act, Bart - you're starting to alienate people on your own side.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:58 pmFalwell U!? - you're askin for a momma joke with that kinda smack-talkin, butterball.
December 11th, 2007 at 12:59 pmCaptain, there is a huge gap between the right and the left. I lay that at the feet of KKKarl (notice how I didn't call KKKarl a pus-gut maggot? I am laying off the vitriol) whose MO is to divide and smear. I hate Bush with a passion and feel like I have come to that position honestly. My father loves the guy and supports him even though he concedes that Bush lies often and brazenly. He feels that Bush has to lie and be covert and secretive because Bush is doing the "right thing", God's work. I think Bush is a petty and inadequate little shit who sorely wants to be remembered as something more than a failure. Good luck with that.
Iraq is the biggest bone of contention. I think Bush wanted to be remembered as a War President, he said that long before 9/11, and saw 9/11 as the cover to attack Iraq. It was unnecessary, unwarranted and in no way connected to 9/11. America took her eye off of the ball in Afghanistan and squandered her money, blood, lives and honor for Bush's ego. In doing so, we elevated the jihadists from a tiny minority of religious freaks to the level of enemies and have contributed to their status and numbers.
Much of the remaining nasty scum associated with George falls from His War in Iraq.
Torture
Abu Ghraib
Pat Tillman's murder covered up by Executive Privilege
Valerie Plame
2 trillion dollars wasted
tens of thousands of Iraqi's killed
Guantanamo
Loss of standing in the global community
Immense hate from the Muslim world
Divided America
The list is immense. And yet the right will continue to support this pathetic loser and are willing to let him bomb Iran if he wants. Because he's doing the right thing?
Forgive me if I have zero respect for Bush and his followers.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pmAgain, what possible “success†can you be referring to?
Comment by gummitch — December 11, 2007 @ 12:14 pm
Saddam (despot; .3suspected of having WMD and ties to terrorist organization (false) - by most of the world (false), before the war) deposed. Iraqi people liberated (waaaay false), able to participate in elections (that most here take for granted).
This entire paragraph, while having some true words, is patently false.
6+ years free of domestic terror attacks (no cause/effect correlation), that most would believe would be impossible after the attacks of 9/11 (opinion) and the realization that jihadists (which jihadists?) had declared war on us. (I have seen no such declaration)
Iranian halt to nuclear weapons program (if you believe the NIE) (Ha! Iran reached out to us for a diplomatic solution)
Gadhafi commiting to a nuclear free Lybia. (no cause/effect)
Ongoing war in Afganistan to disrupt the Taliban and other terror groups. (failing, big time)
There are other examples. I don’t expect you to agree (great expectation!). But, please understand that I am just as mystified that you don’t understand what I’m saying as you are mystified with my view. But also understand, that I am trying to understand your view better.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — December 11, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
December 11th, 2007 at 1:00 pmKiriakou is a disaffected, alcoholic, homosexual, who has committed a number of undetected crimes, and who was forced out of office as a security risk–did I leave any of the spin out?
Comment by Doc Rock — December 11, 2007 @ 12:53 pm
What about his ties to Clinton?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:02 pmk Bart - -
That's not what your momma said last night. She told me you were braindead, and that she wishes you'd stop coming into her room at night to dryhump her.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:03 pmThe Civil War was not fought to free the slaves. It was fought to keep the USA united. The Emancipation Proclamation came much later after the War had started.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:04 pmJuan,
Are you actually comparing beheading an individial and pouring water over somebody's face for 30 seconds (See ABC story)?
I hope not.
And yes, the ORB "poll." No one takes it seriously. The best estimates are from Brookings Iraq Index and Iraq Body Count.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:04 pmHey Bart - reading what you say, I'd have to conclude that YOU are HYPING the terror threat, and predicting there WILL BE an attack in the next year.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:05 pmquibbling over sources will get you everywhere, Ex.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:06 pmBart - F yourself - if you had any kind of memory, you'd know who I was, and you wouldn't be going off like a barroom drunk attacking me for agreeing with you.
get a cup of coffee, or sleep it off, or something - you're jacked up, bro.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:07 pmnew Exley nickname: "The Quotidian Quibbler"
December 11th, 2007 at 1:10 pmoh good - just like every other classic barroom drunk, Bart has driven everyone else out of the room. Heckuva job, Bartie.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:11 pmBARTLEBEE
Aren't you aware by now that OBL was not associated with 911? The Bush administration gives credit to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed for being its mastermind. The FBI doesn't even list OBL on its most wanted list for 911, though he is listed for the earlier 1998 African embassy bombing.
From Osama bin Laden
The decision to go to war was taken without a indictment by the US Justice department and corroborating statements by the FBI to the effect that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda was behind the attacks. It was taken without an indictment issued by the Justice Department.
At eleven o’clock, on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that Al Qaeda was responsible for the attacks on the World Trade Center (WTC) and the Pentagon. This assertion was made prior to the conduct of an indepth police investigation conducted by the FBI..
The FBI confirmed in a recent statement (July 2006) that "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on the Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because "the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11" (See the Muckracker Report, See also Enver Masud, FBI: Bin Laden Not Wanted for 9/11? The 'FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11', Wisdom Fund, June 2006). Rex Tom, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy stated in this regard that
Barely four weeks later, on the 7th of October, Afghanistan was bombed and invaded by US troops.
=====
Sorta makes you wonder if even the attack on Afghanistan was the right move, doesn't it?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:12 pmAre you actually comparing beheading an individial and pouring water over somebody’s face for 30 seconds (See ABC story)?
I hope not.
Well, no. Intuitively, when you are being beheaded you gasp for air and you get blood instead. You choke on your blood, with pain, in about 10 seconds
Waterboarding you choke with water. You pass out. Then they revive you. You choke and pass out. Then they revive you. They choke you again... say for about half an hour?
And yes, the ORB “poll.†No one takes it seriously. The best estimates are from Brookings Iraq Index and Iraq Body Count.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:18 pmComment by Exley
Says who? You the unssailable commenter that were wrong about WMDs and Saddam-9/11-AlQaeda link? Pfffff.
Sorta makes you wonder if even the attack on Afghanistan was the right move, doesn’t it?
Comment by anney
I don't know where some regular posters took for granted that Afghanistan = good, Iraq = bad. Invading a country for ONE GUY...ok, invading a country for ONE ORGANIZATION? Complete lunacy.
But this teaches us something, and sorry, folks, but even the liberal mainstream is EXTREMELY Americacentrist. That means that America, is entitlen to do pretty much as its pleases because it is the greatest country in the world, or something along those lines.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:22 pm"say for about half an hour?"
As I discussed back on November 10, extended waterboarding over a lengthy period of time does likely constitute torture under international conventions.
However, as we see from the ABC report and The Washington Post, Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, cracked after about 30 seconds. Hardly a lengthy ordeal. Most likely does not constitute torture under the law.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:28 pmExley, then why were the tapes destroyed?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:34 pmU.S. interrogation techniques are NOT torture, period. Those who are saying differently are incompetent or asserting propaganda for political benefit at the cost of American citizens. No, matter your political party affiliation, and setting aside your thoughts on issues. We all need to remember what it is to be an American Citizen. We need to make sure our elected representatives obey their Oath of Office and keep their Oath of Allegiance. See http://tinyurl.com/2znnvl Know whom you are voting for.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:36 pmExley,
He certainly wasn't a "high ranking al Qaeda member".
December 11th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Bart - come back when you've sobered up and I'm sure we'll be able to understand one another.
I called BS on the Capt. for claiming that 6 attack free years constitutes "proof" of the Cheerleader Prince's "success" fighting terror, and implying that we would have been attacked had we not gone off half-cocked and invaded Iraq. THAT is what I think is BS.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pmMost likely does not constitute torture under the law.
Comment by Exley
The guy above in the picture disagrees, Ex.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:39 pmDrColes, then why were the tapes destroyed?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDr Coles - Are you the head of the CIA or something? I'm supposed to believe you why? Those are some great assertions, but I fail to see their significance.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:40 pmDr. Coles, circular logic, no, thank you.
The US doesn't torture. Therefore, waterboard is not torture. Fantastic, right?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:42 pmJuan,
Not sure he made a legal determination there, but rather one of his own judgment (which I respect). John McCain, another man I respect greatly, also believes it is torture.
No one is saying the undergoing waterboarding is a pleasant experience. It most certainly is not. And I do believe that its use can be considered torture -- and therefore, illegal -- in some circumstances. Whether it always is torture -- and therefore illegal -- under any condition is up for debate.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:44 pmhooooweeee Ex - that's got to be your best split yet - we'll need a SEM to zoom in and determine the dimensions of that one.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:46 pmWhether it always is torture — and therefore illegal — under any condition is up for debate.
Comment by Exley — December 11, 2007 @ 1:44 pm
Wrong, it is torture no matter who does it. It is not simulated drowning, it is drowning.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:47 pmHow can there be an open debate when evidence has been destroyed? What say you Exley?
December 11th, 2007 at 1:51 pmHiB,
The question of whether the decision to destroy the tapes was correct or not is not answerable at this point. Maybe there were good reasons (protecting sources, etc.) Maybe not. Maybe there were nefarious reasons. Maybe not. Needs to be looked into. But a discussion of whether waterboarding always constitutes legal torture under any and all circustances does not require the tapes.
December 11th, 2007 at 1:55 pmExley, the 9/11 commision asked for any and all evidence in the handling of detainees. They asked before the tapes were destroyed. They were told none existed.
You are correct the discussion doesn't require the tapes, but courts of law do for evidence. Evidence that was destroyed. The US Army bans waterboarding.
This administration is the most secretive in our nations history and this is another example of them playing by their own rules, not our constitution.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:01 pmEx - serious question for you here - not a loaded one.
There's a thread underway now that says the DoD has ordered a former employee not to testify before Congress. Is it within the power of the DoD to issue such an order at all, let alone to a former employee?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:03 pmI was thinking the same question tombaker.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:08 pmHiB,
"the 9/11 commision asked for any and all evidence in the handling of detainees. They asked before the tapes were destroyed. They were told none existed."
I am not disagreeing with you. All I am saying is that we don't know all the facts yet. Why the tapes were destroyed and whether such destruction constitutes a crime is a question that is being investigated by the Justice Department. If it is a crime, then so be it and let those who commited the criminal act be prosecuted.
Yes, I know the Army Manual prohibits waterboarding, but that does not necessarily make it illegal for the CIA to conduct some form of it under certain circumstances.
And I cannot disagree with you when you say that this administration is secretive (Whether it is the most secretive is debatable -- A lot of stuff went down during the Cold War (especially in the early days that was extremely secretive)) -- The question is whether the secrecy is necessary and justified or not.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:09 pmTombaker,
I do not know the answer to that. I saw that thread. I would imagine that the military can order one of its members or former members not to testify in some cases....Maybe the former member of the military had access to classified info to which he cannot testify in the open. Maybe they are trying to work out an arrangement by which he testifies in executive session. The military is under the command of Executive Branch, so maybe there are separation of power issues....Maybe there is a statutory justification for the order....But, at this point, I really don't know the legal basis for the order not to testify.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pm"The US doesn’t torture. Therefore, waterboard is not torture. Fantastic, right?"
Yes. It all sends me screaming back to read _Catch-22_ and Kafka.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:14 pmI understand your position Exley. I just don't accept to have this country conducting waterboarding for my safety and in my name. I don't believe it to be the moral high ground that many here would prefer we take. Those who are shifting the goal posts and keeping Americans in the dark about this are covering their own butts under the guise of protecting us.
We deserve better.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:15 pmHiB,
And I understand your position. In the many discussions about this issue in which I have participated here, I have never been one to be a gung-ho, "Waterboard them all!...Who cares if it is torture or not?" kind of guy.
As I said, I respect the opinion of people like John McCain and Lindsay Graham who say it is torture in their opinion. And it does appear that under international and national law, waterboarding CAN be considered torture under certain circumstances, such as being conducted over an extended period of time.
But, I also do say that it appears that it may not always be considered torture. As we see, Zubadiah caved in 35 seconds. I am not prepared to say that pouring water over a person's face for 35 seconds to prevent, say, another 9/11 is automatically illegal or immoral. I just don't think the law or the potential for saving hundreds or thousands of lives automatically warrants that conclusion. As I said in my first posting here today, these are complext issues that warrant serious discussion.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:26 pmWouldn't we end up with some very strange laws, if we predicated them all on hyoptheticals like "another 9/11" or "saving hundreds of thousands of lives"??
December 11th, 2007 at 2:28 pmExley, do you honestly think that the water boarding of Zubadiah was the only thing that may have prevented another attack? Sounds too much like an episode of 24.
It is complex.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:31 pmTombaker,
Not necessarily. We, as a society, pass laws every day that are designed to prevent or at least reduce the possibility of hypothetical and unwanted events. For example, speed limits and environmental laws are passed and enated to prevent or reduce future traffic fatalities and ecological disaster, respectively.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pmnot just the water boarding but the right to confront your accusers. The defining them as "enemy combatants" to avoid the Geneva convention rules of conduct. The placing these "enemy combatants" in Gitmo and not in our country so there wouldn't be a precedent for prisoners rights.
Complex in deed.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:33 pmin deed as in the actions of this administration has been complex on purpose.
We deserve better.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:34 pmThose who torture others for any reason, including waterboarding, under US law must be brought to trial where they may plead for clemency by proving that the torture produced information that was acted on and prevented a horrendous attack on some segment of the US.
Clemency is available after the fact, not before the fact.
This is true for any lawbreaking by any government official, even a president. He may break the law, and then explain why, prove what it accomplished, and ask for clemency from the people.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:36 pm#185,
HiB, The only thing? Probably not....But, according to Kiriakou, who was there, Zubaydah was not talking until subjected to the 35 seconds of waterboarding.
Again, I am not saying it is a technique that should be used right off the bat or over an extended period of time, but, under certain restricted conditions it appears to be an effective, non-physically injurious way to get these murderers to talk.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:38 pmOnce again we find that torturing al queda has infact saved lives. Anyone still silly enough to argue against waterboarding from the moral position is clearly incapable of seeing that the true moral position is saving the lives of innocents.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:39 pmOnce again we find that torturing al queda has infact saved lives. Anyone still silly enough to argue against waterboarding from the moral position is clearly incapable of seeing that the true moral position is saving the lives of innocents.
Comment by ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred — December 11, 2007 @ 2:39 pm
Really then you have proof of a terrorist plot that was thwarted by this interrogation? Do share it with us.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:46 pmOh and Exley where exactly did you get your degree in constitutional law?
December 11th, 2007 at 2:47 pmBut what about laws pertaining to individual liberties?
Certainly we'd have to completely outlaw alcohol and tobacco, and, given the state of our highways, we might have to proscribe individual auto ownership and operation. And forget about your Second Amendment.
Moreover, all of the above are confirmed and documented causes of mass death - not hyoptheticals. If we wanted to get hypothetical, we'd have to start talking about outlawing whole categories of food, lots of industrial products - where would we stop??
December 11th, 2007 at 2:48 pmTomBaker,
Well, first, mass casualty terrorist attacks are not "hypotheticals." That reality struck home on September 11, 2001.
Secondly, all laws that restrict human behavior are a balance between individual freedom and protection against societal harm. The key is make sure that the balance does not sway too far in either direction.
We saw that completely banning alcohol did not work. So, we repealed that. But we still have laws against drunk driving and public intoxication.
We have not banned tobacco (which I would have no problem with with, by the way) but we do have laws banning smoking in the workplace or in restaurants and bars.
We could go on with similar examples....You ask where would we stop. We stop at the point where we think society would not tolerate any further reductions in individual liberty. If the law goes too far in one direction, we look to society via the law to correct that imbalance.
December 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pmShayne,
Direct quote from the CIA man at the center of this article:
...the information wrenched from Abu Zubayda "stopped terrorist attacks and saved lives".
It is a bit annoying to do research for other people when the information is so readily available.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/11/agent.tapes/
I believe that those commenters who were against waterboarding torture because they insisted that it doesn't work must revise their arguements in order to be taken seriously.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:03 pmEven if one assumes the position that "unsavory means are necessary and inevitable" the sheer incompetence, of this administration, becomes obvious and complicit.
Their problem is that they are running out of scapegoats. So, they end up with people publicly defending indefensible positions. Then, with a little luck, they resign to "spend time with their families".
Does anyone think the trolls might see the pattern? What if every single person, in a position of authority, is indicted, or, forced out in disgrace?
It's fast approaching that stage and the lies are unraveling. What's sad is, if George Bush were even close to rational, he could have stopped this insanity by saying, "I fu(ked up and we need the help of the world to fix it".
He could begin repairing the damage if he said that today. But, he won't.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:07 pm"Imbalance" is exactly what I'm saying we've got. Towit:
Is comparing a sum of three thousand to sums of millions even valid? Disproportionate does not begin to describe that.
Let's apply a thought test. Resolve:
Prohibition would have worked, had we only stayed the course; had the "will of the American people" remained firm, and been told "the good news" about the "success stories", instead of getting "pessimistic assessments" from "biased media sources".
December 11th, 2007 at 3:10 pmI can apply the same analysis to every other one of my proposals, and prove conclusively that I would save millions, if not tens of millions of lives in the process.
The GWoT, and its package of supporting laws, and the cottage industries that have sprung up to service it, can't do that at all, yet they're supposed to represent a two trillion dollar value?
I don't know how any of it it passed the "giggle test" for anyone in the first place.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:16 pmThe United States has become a "small" third-world country. How sad.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:17 pm"Prohibition would have worked..."
Not if I had had anything to say about it!!!!
December 11th, 2007 at 3:18 pm"I believe that those commenters who were against waterboarding torture because they insisted that it doesn’t work must revise their arguements in order to be taken seriously."
Comment by ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred
Why ? There is still no conclusive evidence.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:20 pmNone of what Abu Zubayda divuldged was new and ground breaking. He is considered a nut case with multiple personalities. There is no specific terrorist threat averted because of this guys spilling info due to water boarding.
None.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:25 pmDon't I agree. I liked the Dewar's ad that ran this fall inviting people to celebrate Repeal Day, back on the 5th.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:26 pmdude. you've got me confused w/someone else. i recall, along with you, the intel that was reported after the attacks, and have never doubted for a moment that those out there who are truly dangerous, are also exceedingly patient. i also don't think there's much chance such an event would be prevented by what we're doing now.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:31 pm#203,
Tombaker,
Agreed. I was in a bar on "Repeal Day" and some Dewar's reps were there asking people to sign a petition to make Repeal Day a national holiday. I happily signed....
They were also passing out these god-awful shooters of Dewars with some type of fruit juice....I had to gently chastise them that scotch is not to be tainted with fruit juice.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:32 pmThat's what happens when you let a marketing department run free.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:34 pmSome old Scot is churning 'neath the peat, I'm sure.
barfly et al,
This is what I meant about being taken seriously. You must be at least willing to accept the facts in order to then craft a viable argument.
Apparently, waterboarding these guys resulted in intelligence that saved lives, notably information that indirectly to the arrest of 911 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. The CIA didn't know of KLM's importance until after Zubaydah spilled the beans. Its all in the article. You cannot debate the facts, that's not how debate works.
The point here is that the arguments asserted here at thinkprogress.org that waterboarding simply doesn't work has indeed been proven wrong and hence that argument must be conceded if you want to be taken seriously.
Remember, this CIA guy John Kiriakou was actually there, he knows. He's still saying that he's against waterboarding and considers it to be torture and he is essentially on "your" side, so be careful before you dismiss his informed conclusions.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:35 pmThe ground we're holding here,
Mr. toolongofahandletoexpectpeopletotypeatyou,
is that there are certain "measures" of defense that the free people of the USA, just as our Founders and Forebarers, should be willing to do without.
It's about principles. Important, Fundamental Principles.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:39 pmTomBaker,
Yeah, they were two college kids handing out the shots...They had no idea. So young...So naive about the ways of the drinking world.
December 11th, 2007 at 3:41 pmDewar's is actually very good scotch for the $, just as any true Scot would approve - don't think many would approve of the $100 jugs
"wot have ye'done, boy!!"
December 11th, 2007 at 4:02 pm"Give me Dewars or give me Pinch!!!"
Something like that, can't recall the exact quote.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:11 pmtombaker,
December 11th, 2007 at 4:23 pmThere are indeed those here who *still* assert that torturing, specifically waterboarding, doesn't work to extract true information from the terrorists. I think that we all must be open to accept that torturing terrorists can and apparently has saved the lives of innocents, because that point is at the crux of the argument for allowing waterboarding of captured terrorists.
Although actually, I also agree with your point about keeping our principles intact as Americans, at least in theory. It surely sounds good at least. However, preventing the needless deaths of perhaps hundreds or even thousands of Americans is also a valid fundamental principle of our government, and it is also moral to do so. I'm just saying that the moral argument against allowing torture quickly fades when compared to the moral argument *for* allowing torture, at least in those cases where it might save thousands of innocent Americans from being needlessly killed. To me, that is the moral high ground. Additionally, with regards to your point about maintaining our country's principles, I'd just ask you to remember how America dropped two nuclear devises on Japan and carpet-bombed Dresden and other heavily populated cities in Germany, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian deaths. These actions were of course taken to save innocent American lives. Given the American priniples demonstrated by democrats FDR and Truman during WW2, waterboarding known al queda terrorists in the months following 911 is almost not worth getting upset about.
#212, 213,
TomBaker, Nanlichi....
Had my first taste of Johnny Walker Blue several months back....If you haven't had some, I beg you, try it. I had some at a scotch tasting....Amazing.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:27 pmit is scotch season, after all - i'll take that advice, and launch an investigation into this "Blue".
December 11th, 2007 at 4:33 pmTombaker,
I'll warn you, it's pricey. About $200 a bottle...I have no idea how much a glass costs...Try to find a scotch tasting...That's how I did it.
December 11th, 2007 at 4:47 pmI'll endure the momentary stigma of pretentiousness, and find a bar that can dispense a drink (or two) of the stuff.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:16 pmSeeking out a perfect glass of scotch does not make you "pretentious" -- It makes you a discerning gentleman.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:25 pmExley,
Late getting back. You have probably already left, but I got a bottle of Blue about ten years ago as a birthday gift. It was small, about a pint I believe and you are right, it was fantastic.
Oban works too.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:47 pmNanlichi,
That is a NICE gift. Yeah, I was amazed how good it was.
Haven't ever sampled Oban. Thanks for the tip...I shall seek it out.
December 11th, 2007 at 5:51 pmThe Captain's hinting for a nice beer bong for Christmas.
December 11th, 2007 at 6:27 pmCaptain,
Since the thread is dead I will share a story about beer bongs. We were camping with me new father in law and he saw a bong and of course was curious. I told him that I used it at night to pee without getting out of the sleeping bag in the cold. Pee in the funnel and have the hose out on the ground.
He was impressed with my idea and wanted one for himself until later that night he saw us bonging beers.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:07 pmComment by ClintonWasImpeachedAndDisbarred
How simple minded are you? There is no proof, yet you act as if there is. That one CIA operative has come forward isn't evidence of anything. It's just this sort of weak-minded thinking that was convinced we had to invade Iraq, before they nuked us. Grow a pair, and wise up.
December 11th, 2007 at 8:20 pmbarfly,
If you can't accept the facts then you simply won't be taken seriously in this debate. Your juvenile taunts only make your argument even weaker.
The question of whether waterboarding "works" in terms of getting reliable information out of terrorists has been answered. It does, and that's obviously why they do it. Next topic.
December 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pmDo'nt worry about the tapes. There will be copies showing up on You Tube in a couple of months.
They will be shown at the CIA Holiday Party.
December 15th, 2007 at 1:11 pmI would just like to know how simulated drowning could be defined as something other than torture, and who determined it. That's what bothers me most about the issue, and its the same type of subterfuge that characterizes this administration. Refering to torture - in this case the process of systematically submitting someone to emotional, physical, or psychological duress to gain information - as "advanced techniques" completely sidelines every objection a morally conscious person would raise. Regardless of how you feel about the US using torture - if you think its wrong outright, if you think certain circumstances warrant it - you're not being engaged as a citizen, you're not given the opportunity to answer the question for yourself, because no one's asking. Some committe exchanged 'torture' for a euphamism, and the end result is that they move forward with their 'advanced techniques' while all of us are left arguing about irrelevant semantics on some comment board after the fact.
December 16th, 2007 at 4:20 pmPersonally, I don't care how other people on this board feel about waterboarding; for better or for worse, that's their opinion. Fine. I think what everyone should be looking at instead is whether or not our government is acting on behalf of those opinions. Euphamisms are an extremely effective way of masking an issue and all of the complicated questions that go along with it. I think most people would submit that, if done out of absolute necessity, with a clear, greater good at stake, torture is acceptable as a last resort. And that's exactly what the Bush administration tells us they are doing. Then why euphemize it? Why try and hide it? If there is something else going on here, we sure as hell aren't asking about it.
I suppose that is what the Bush administration is thinking too. If they probably all agree, why not bother 'em, right?
Well, my question is, where does that process stop? Who exactly is in control of a government that decides the opinions of its people can be an inconvenience? Not us, but clearly no one seems to mind.