WP: Ex-CIA officer says waterboarding probably saved lives

[SkinsHokieFan]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/10/AR2007121002091.html?hpid=topnews

Waterboarding Recounted

Ex-CIA Officer Says It 'Probably Saved Lives' but Is Torture

By Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen

Washington Post Staff Writers

Tuesday, December 11, 2007; A01

A former CIA officer who participated in the capture and questioning of the first al-Qaeda terrorist suspect to be waterboarded said yesterday that the harsh technique provided an intelligence breakthrough that "probably saved lives," but that he now regards the tactic as torture.

Zayn Abidin Muhammed Hussein abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking al-Qaeda member captured after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, broke in less than a minute after he was subjected to the technique and began providing interrogators with information that led to the disruption of several planned attacks, said John Kiriakou, who served as a CIA interrogator in Pakistan.

Abu Zubaida was one of two detainees whose interrogation was captured in video recordings that the CIA later destroyed. The recent disclosure of the tapes' destruction ignited a recent furor on Capitol Hill and allegations that the agency tried to hide evidence of illegal torture.

"It was like flipping a switch," said Kiriakou, the first former CIA employee directly involved in the questioning of "high-value" al-Qaeda detainees to speak publicly.

In an interview, Kiriakou said he did not witness Abu Zubaida's waterboarding but was part of the interrogation team that questioned him in a hospital in Pakistan for weeks after his capture in that country in the spring of 2002.

He described Abu Zubaida as ideologically zealous, defiant and uncooperative -- until the day in mid-summer when his captors strapped him to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane and forced water into his throat in a technique that simulates drowning.

The waterboarding lasted about 35 seconds before Abu Zubaida broke down, according to Kiriakou, who said he was given a detailed description of the incident by fellow team members. The next day, Abu Zubaida told his captors he would tell them whatever they wanted, Kiriakou said.

"He said that Allah had come to him in his cell and told him to cooperate, because it would make things easier for his brothers," Kiriakou said.

Kiriakou's remarks came a day before top CIA officials are to appear before a closed congressional hearing to account for the decision to destroy recordings of the interrogations of Abu Zubaida and another senior captive, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Last Thursday, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden announced that the recordings were destroyed in 2005 to protect the identities of CIA employees who appear on them.

The recordings were destroyed despite orders from judges that required the government to preserve records related to its interrogation programs. The lawsuits were filed by captives at the Guantanamo Bay military prison who were contesting their detentions.

Also yesterday, the House intelligence committee's chairman, Silvestre Reyes (D-Tex.), and ranking Republican Pete Hoekstra (Mich.) announced that the panel is launching its own investigation into the tapes' destruction. Reyes and Hoekstra said in a statement that Hayden's assertion that the committee had been "properly notified" of the destruction "does not appear to be true."

The Justice Department and the CIA inspector general's office also have begun a preliminary inquiry into the tapes' destruction. Members of the bipartisan commission that investigated the Sept. 11 attacks have said they were repeatedly told that the CIA did not have videotapes of interrogations.

Agency officials have said they briefed intelligence committee leaders from both parties over the course of two years on interrogation techniques. Officials said the briefings included mention of the tapes, but none of the lawmakers asked to view them.

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.

Kiriakou said he did not know that the interrogations were videotaped, although there often were closed-circuit video systems in the rooms where questioning took place. He said he also had no knowledge of the decision to destroy videotapes of the interrogations. 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.

In 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.

In one case, attorneys for Yemeni national Mohmoad Abdah alleged in a motion filed Sunday that the CIA may have violated an order issued in June 2005 by U.S. District Judge Henry H. Kennedy Jr. in Washington. Kennedy told the government to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."

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.

Kiriakou, whose account first appeared in a story on ABC News's Web site, said he decided to go public to correct what he says are misperceptions about the role played by CIA employees in the early months of the government's anti-terrorism efforts.

"It's easy to point to intelligence failures and perceived intelligence failures, but the public has to understand how hard people are working to make them safe," he said.

Kiriakou said he first spoke to Abu Zubaida in a Pakistani military hospital. Abu Zubaida was recovering from wounds he suffered in the gun battle that led to his capture.

After he came out of a coma, Abu Zubaida was initially talkative, holding long conversations with Kiriakou from his hospital bed. The two discussed personal matters that ranged from religion to Abu Zubaida's private regret about having never married or fathered children.

Kiriakou said he repeatedly counseled Abu Zubaida to provide details about al-Qaeda's infrastructure, leadership and plans. Abu Zubaida refused and eventually became more defiant.

He was later flown to a secret CIA prison, where he was subjected to harsher methods, including waterboarding, Kiriakou said. Kiriakou said he made a final appeal to Abu Zubaida shortly before the waterboarding began.

"You have one more opportunity to cooperate. My guys are telling me that you're being a jerk," Kiriakou recalled telling Abu Zubaida. His reply, according to Kiriakou: "They're being jerks, too."

Kiriakou said he now has mixed feelings about the use of waterboarding. He said that he thinks the technique provided a crucial break to the CIA and probably helped prevent attacks, but that he is now convinced that waterboarding is torture, and "Americans are better than that."

"Maybe that's inconsistent, but that's how I feel," he said. "It was an ugly little episode that was perhaps necessary at that time. But we've moved beyond that."

[Burgold]

It's such a hard moral line in reality. If they are guilty and know something that we need to know NOW, torture is probably more than reasonable, it's probably necessary. However, torture itself is abhorent and the problem is how do you know what they know until you know what they know.

I think I am against torture most of the times in most situation, but it's just not black and white. I do agree that waterboarding is torture and in these cases it is used as torture.

[JMS]

I'm confused didn't the CIA destroy the tapes of the torture because they didn't want the identities of the folks doing the torture to be public. "To protect them reprisals by Al Quada". Now the very next day we have a CIA torturer giving interviews in the Washington Post, using his name. Could it possible be that the CIA had different reasons for destroying the tapes of America torturing detainees? :doh:

As for this shmucks statements. I pose the question. Which is more reliable. A guy who admits he tortured prisoners.. Broke United States Law, ( even if he can't be prosecuted for it)... A guy justifying his own dubius acts claiming he heroicly "saved lives"; or the signed petion of every living Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff not appointed by Bush accompanied by fifty other 4,3,2,1 star generals and high ranking Pentagon officals which refute his claims?

The generals state that torturing makes American troops less safe, not more safe. They say it hurts Amerca. Who's more creditable on the issue?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/20/shelton-objects/

[SkinsHokieFan]

I'm confused didn't the CIA destroy the tapes of the torture because they didn't want the identities of the folks doing the torture to be protected from reprisals by Al Quada. Here we have a CIA torturer giving interviews in the Washington Post, the following day, using his name. Could it possible be that the CIA had different reasons for destroying the tapes of America torturing detainees?

As for this shmucks statements. I pose the question. Which is more reliable. A guy who admits he tortured prisoners and is justifying his own dubius acts claiming he heroicly "saved lives" or the signed petion of every living Chairman of the Joint Cheifs of Staff not appointed by Bush accompanied by fifty other 4,3,2,1 star generals and high ranking Pentagon officals?

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/20/shelton-objects/

The generals state that torturing makes American troops less safe, not more safe. They say it hurts Amerca. Who's more creditable on the issue?

They key thing is he is an ex employee of the agencey

I am fairly certain the reason they were destroyed in 2005 was to keep the identities safe of those who still are undercover and work with in some capacity in the intelligence community

I am opposed to tourture and don't feel it works. However on a credibility issue, this guy is more privy to raw intel then any 3, 4, or 5 star general

[GibbsFactor]

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

[Mad Mike]

Not to get too far off topic here but even if those destroyed tapes showed nothing more than some harsh treatment with no waterboarding or any oth form of torture, it would start a storm of protest. Show some yelling and just touch the prisoner and some people would lose their minds. I don't blame them one bit for making sure those tapes are never seen.

On the waterboarding: Clearly, some very aggressive methods are needed in some cases. This isn't a game and these people want to kill americans. If waterboarding is the least harsh treatment that can get results in extreme cases I don't have a problem with using it. To me, the real shame is that the resistance to it makes it harder to monitor for abuse because obviously it should not be used on everyone for any reason.

[DjTj]

Kiriakou said he now has mixed feelings about the use of waterboarding. He said that he thinks the technique provided a crucial break to the CIA and probably helped prevent attacks, but that he is now convinced that waterboarding is torture, and "Americans are better than that."

"Maybe that's inconsistent, but that's how I feel," he said. "It was an ugly little episode that was perhaps necessary at that time. But we've moved beyond that."

Well thanks, Mr. Kiriakou, that really helps ... so the guy on the front line says yes ... but no. :whoknows:

[Mad Mike]

The generals state that torturing makes American troops less safe, not more safe. They say it hurts Amerca.

Torture between nations is regarded and hurting Americans because between civilized nations, we can agree not to use it against each other.

Unfortunately we are dealing with savage terrorists who will make no such agreement. They do things to our people that make anything we do look like a child's prank and our people usually end up dead. They are not going to stop torturing and killing our people if we stop waterboarding. But it seems that waterboarding can save lives if it leads people like the one in this story to give up vital information.

[NoCalMike]

This interview comes at an interesting time, right after the Republican candidates (sanz McCain) stumble all over themselves at their latest debate about whether they would allow waterboarding and whether they consider waterboarding torture......

Hmmm.....

[Larry]

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

Clever the ironic way you decide that the speech of a fictional character (and known and then-current liar) who was wrapping himself in the flag to justify his decision to lie about his actions, and to frame somebody else for murder, is somehow relevant here.

[GibbsFactor]

Clever the ironic way you decide that the speech of a fictional character (and known and then-current liar) who was wrapping himself in the flag to justify his decision to lie about his actions, and to frame somebody else for murder, is somehow relevant here.

It's our world.

[JMS]

I am fairly certain the reason they were destroyed in 2005 was to keep the identities safe of those who still are undercover and work with in some capacity in the intelligence community

The information was made public yesterday.. And this guy comes out the very next day?

And while you might be "fairly certain" of the reasons why the tapes were destroyed those aren't the specific reasons stated by the CIA.

I am opposed to tourture and don't feel it works. However on a credibility issue, this guy is more privy to raw intel then any 3, 4, or 5 star general

And Again I think you would be wrong on that.

( there 5 star generals appointed since World War II, the last living one was General Omar Bradley)

I think four star generals would have a complete and comprehensive view of All of America's inteligence capabilities and proceedures. Remember 90% of America's inteligence budget is controlled by the Pentagon. I think this CIA guy likely is only aquainted with his specific experiences. Again I think the Military Generals and Civilan officals experience would be significantly More comprehensive.

[JMS]

Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Whose gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinburg? I have more responsibility here than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago, and you curse the marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And that my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. I know deep down in places you dont talk about at parties, you don't want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then question the manner in which I provide it. I prefer you said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand to post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to!

The rantings of a fictitional lunatic who conspired to kill his own soldier and justified his acts on the basis that he was above the law..... as he was actively trying to frame two other soldiers under his command for the murders.

Thank you for putting the discussion and those doing the discussion in perspective.

[JMS]

Torture between nations is regarded and hurting Americans because between civilized nations, we can agree not to use it against each other.

Unfortunately we are dealing with savage terrorists who will make no such agreement. They do things to our people that make anything we do look like a child's prank and our people usually end up dead. They are not going to stop torturing and killing our people if we stop waterboarding. But it seems that waterboarding can save lives if it leads people like the one in this story to give up vital information.

And again the petition I brought up specifically mentions Al Quada by name as where the Geneva convention which outlaws torture would be most important, not less important....

[Larry]

It's our world.

If you chose to live in a fictional world where liars wrap themselves in the flag.

[Midnight Judges]

I'm confused didn't the CIA destroy the tapes of the torture because they didn't want the identities of the folks doing the torture to be public. "To protect them reprisals by Al Quada". Now the very next day we have a CIA torturer giving interviews in the Washington Post, using his name. Could it possible be that the CIA had different reasons for destroying the tapes of America torturing detainees?

Kriakou was not the torturer. He was the guy trying to get intel without force.

[SkinsHokieFan]

I think four star generals would have a complete and comprehensive view of All of America's inteligence capabilities and proceedures. Remember 90% of America's inteligence budget is controlled by the Pentagon. I think this CIA guy likely is only aquainted with his specific experiences. Again I think the Military Generals and Civilan officals experience would be significantly More comprehensive.

Clearly you don't understand how the intel process works

Certainly the pentagon sets 80 percent of the budget. Certainly they understood procedures

However, an ops officer on the front line knows far more raw intel then what a general knows. Once that raw intel gets up to the CMO, it is edited and only pertinent information remains in reports for consumers of intel

That along with the compartimentalized way the intelligence community behaves is why this ops officer knows far more abotu what goes on then any 3, 4, or 5 star general

[JMS]

Kriakou was not the torturer. He was the guy trying to get intel without force.

Good point.

[GibbsFactor]

If you chose to live in a fictional world where liars wrap themselves in the flag.

If calling reality, fiction helps you sleep at night...

[The_cavalierman]

Clearly you don't understand how the intel process works

Certainly the pentagon sets 80 percent of the budget. Certainly they understood procedures

However, an ops officer on the front line knows far more raw intel then what a general knows. Once that raw intel gets up to the CMO, it is edited and only pertinent information remains in reports for consumers of intel

That along with the compartimentalized way the intelligence community behaves is why this ops officer knows far more abotu what goes on then any 3, 4, or 5 star general

I agree with some of this and disagree with other parts of it SHF,

The 3,4 star general knows more becuase he is able to see more more than an Ops captain. A General involved in intel gathering, by his rank alone has more clearance and most importantly a need to know more than a captain.

Intelligence is compartmentalized and an Ops Captain may only be working on one piece of the puzzle but the general will be able to look at the works of dozens of captains and put the giant puzzle together.

The Ops captain may know more about his specific area...but not about the entire operation or the big picture per say.

:2cents:

[SkinsHokieFan]

I agree with some of this and disagree with other parts of it SHF,

The 3,4 star general knows more becuase he is able to see more more than an Ops captain. A General involved in intel gathering, by his rank alone has more clearance and most importantly a need to know more than a captain.

Intelligence is compartmentalized and an Ops Captain may only be working on one piece of the puzzle but the general will be able to look at the works of dozens of captains and put the giant puzzle together.

The Ops captain may know more about his specific area...but not about the entire operation or the big picture per say.

:2cents:

Ok, I see the point you are trying to make in that

My point was that this guy who did the interview has more raw intel in this instance then a general, or a CMO, or Condi Rice for that matter

However you are correct in that the general or Condi have a much larger view of what is going on

[JMS]

Clearly you don't understand how the intel process works

Certainly the pentagon sets 80 percent of the budget. Certainly they understood procedures

Not understand the proceedure.. The proceedure is trivia. The Pentagon has a full comprehensive understanding of the value of the information being recovered.

However, an ops officer on the front line knows far more raw intel then what a general knows. Once that raw intel gets up to the CMO, it is edited and only pertinent information remains in reports for consumers of intel

And again I would think you are wrong. I would think an inteligence officer would have limited information only regarding his observed experiences. I would expect the Top Military Generals running the Army and who have oversite over 80% of the intelligence budget for the country to have a comprehensive and complete understanding of the information obtained and the value intelligence gathering methods.

That along with the compartimentalized way the intelligence community behaves is why this ops officer knows far more abotu what goes on then any 3, 4, or 5 star general

I don't believe information is compartmentalized from the Chairman of the joint chiefs. It might be condensed, but I would expect the five Chairman of the Joint Chiefs who signed the petition have a comprehensive understanding on intelligence. To say nothing of the fifty other signatures on the petition.

I think it totally unreasonable for you to suggest that a CIA employee who's rank and experience are not given other than ( 14 years service ) would have superior information to the men who ran the military for the last three decades. ( since 1982)

[JMS]

Ok, I see the point you are trying to make in that

My point was that this guy who did the interview has more raw intel in this instance then a general, or a CMO, or Condi Rice for that matter

However you are correct in that the general or Condi have a much larger view of what is going on

As Midnight Judges pointed out to me.. The guy being quoted in this article did not participate in the interviews in question.

He heard about them second hand via a report.

[JMS]

If calling reality, fiction helps you sleep at night...

The speech in question was given by Jack Nicolson who plays a Marine Colonel in Fictional Movie.. Jack's not in the military in real life.

The Movie was not even based on a historical event.

[SkinsHokieFan]

As Midnight Judges pointed out to me.. The guy being quoted in this article did not participate in the interviews in question.

He heard about them second hand via a report.

I misunderstood your original point. You were correct in your assertion