does this story have a bottom?

Posted on Friday 17 April 2009

The first use of waterboarding and other rough treatment against a prisoner from Al Qaeda was ordered by senior Central Intelligence Agency officials despite the belief of interrogators that the prisoner had already told them all he knew, according to former intelligence officials and a footnote in a newly released legal memorandum. The escalation to especially brutal interrogation tactics against the prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, including confining him in boxes and slamming him against the wall, was ordered by officials at C.I.A. headquarters based on a highly inflated assessment of his importance, interviews and a review of newly released documents show.

Abu Zubaydah had provided much valuable information under less severe treatment, and the harsher handling produced no breakthroughs, according to one former intelligence official with direct knowledge of the case. Instead, watching his torment caused great distress to his captors, the official said. Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, “seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect.”

C.I.A. officers adopted these techniques only after the Justice Department had given its official approval on Aug. 1, 2002, in one of four formerly secret legal memos on interrogation that were released Thursday. A footnote to another of the memos described a rift between line officers questioning Abu Zubaydah at a secret C.I.A. prison in Thailand and their bosses at headquarters, and asserted that the brutal treatment may have been “unnecessary”…
What were we thinking? Who was doing our thinking?
Quoting a 2004 report on the interrogation program by the C.I.A. inspector general, the footnote says that “although the on-scene interrogation team judged Zubaydah to be compliant, elements within C.I.A. headquarters still believed he was withholding information.”
A cooperating captive was the target for the Bybee/Yoo memo quoted below with this introduction:
What were they thinking? "dislocate his expectations regarding the treatment he will receive…" He’d already given them information. Who were the "elements within C.I.A. headquarters still believed he was withholding information" they mention? What "secret C.I.A. prison in Thailand" – in Thailand? Were those "elements" really in the C.I.A.? Or were they in the O.V.P.? How does "Even for those who believed that brutal treatment could produce results, the official said, ‘seeing these depths of human misery and degradation has a traumatic effect’" fit with all that stuff in the Memo about not causing "Severe Mental Suffering?" It sounds like even the onlookers suffered. Imagine how the tortured guy felt. This case stinks to high heaven…
  1.  
    April 18, 2009 | 7:19 AM
     

    It fits exactly the scenario we know was true about other things: Cheney, who kept going over to CIA headquarters and demanding more and more information, even if they didn’t have any more.

    But where is Rumsfeld in all this? His name didn’t come up, but surely he must have been involved as DoD Chair.

  2.  
    Joy
    April 18, 2009 | 8:00 AM
     

    Cheney and Rumsfield knew how to keep their fingerprints off the pages with their vast experience working inside President Ford’s administration and Bush1’s (Poppy to his insider friends) Cheney reminds me of the bully who gets his little people to do the bad stuff so he doesn’t get blamed. The word coward comes to mind.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.