Destruction of CIA Tapes Can't Hide Barbaric U.S. Torture Methods
By Ray McGovern
Posted on December 13, 2007,
A boyish, inquisitive face with an innocent look peered out from the
Washington Post's lead story Tuesday on torture. It was well-groomed,
pink-shirted John Kiriakou, a CIA interrogator who could just as easily pass
for the local youth minister.
The report by the Post's Joby Warrick and Dan Eggen, which describes
Kiriakou's experience in interrogating suspected terrorists, raises in an
unusually direct way an abiding question: Should the United States of
America be using forms of torture dating back to the Spanish Inquisition?
Nowhere is the mood of that infamous period better portrayed than in the
famous Grand Inquisitor chapter of Dostoyevsky's Brothers Karamazov.
Dostoevsky was unusually gifted at plumbing the human heart. While it has
been 127 years since he wrote Brothers Karamazov, he nonetheless captures
the trap into which so many Americans have fallen in forfeiting freedom
through fear. His portrayal of Inquisition reality brings us to the brink of
the moral precipice on which our country teeters today. It is as though he
knew what would be in store for us as fear was artificially stoked after the
attacks of 9/11.
In the story, Dostoevsky's grand inquisitor (the cardinal of Seville)
ridicules Christ for imposing on humans the heavy burden of freedom of
conscience and explains how it is far better, for all concerned, to dull
that conscience and to rule by deceit, violence and fear:
"Didst thou forget that man prefers peace, and even death, to freedom of
choice in the knowledge of good and evil? ... We teach them that it's not
the free judgment of their hearts, but mystery which they must follow
blindly, even against their conscience. ... In the end they will lay their
freedom at our feet [and] become obedient. ...We shall tell them that we are
Thy servants and rule them in Thy name ... we shall be forced to lie ... We
shall tell them that every sin will be expiated if it is done with our
permission." The Grand Inquisitor, in Brothers Karamazov
Kiriakou was one of the first interrogators to interview suspected terrorist
Abu Zubayda in a Pakistani military hospital, where Zubayda was recovering
from wounds suffered during his capture in early 2002. When he refused to
provide information about al-Qaeda's infrastructure, he was flown to a
secret CIA prison where, according to Kiriakou, the interrogation team
strapped Abu Zubayda to a board, wrapped his nose and mouth in cellophane,
and forced water into his throat. In just 35 seconds, viola! Abu Zubayda
starting talking. That is called waterboarding.
The 15th and 16th century Spanish inquisitors were not squeamish and had
little need for the circumlocutions or euphemisms like "alternative set of
procedures" that are part of President George W. Bush's lexicon. The Spanish
called this procedure, quite plainly, "tortura del agua." Lacking
cellophane, they inserted a cloth into the victim's mouth, forcing the
victim to ingest water spilled from a jar, starting the drowning process.
Four centuries later, the Gestapo put out several technically improved
releases of this operating system of torture, so to speak.
Quick, someone please tell newly confirmed Attorney General Michael Mukasey,
who told reporters yesterday he still cannot decide whether waterboarding is
torture.
Abu Zubayda: poster child
The information from John Kiriakou confirms what has long been a no-brainer
but not definitively established before; namely, that President George W.
Bush's "alternative set of procedures" for interrogation by the CIA includes
waterboarding. Zubayda was given pride of place in George W. Bush's
remarkable speech of Sept. 6, 2006, in which he bragged about the
effectiveness of such procedures and appealed successfully for passage of
the Military Commissions Act. That law allows a president to define what set
of interrogation procedures can be used by the C.I.A. This is Bush on Sept.
6, 2006:
We believe that Zubayda was a senior terrorist leader and a trusted
associate of Osama bin Laden ... [and that] he had run a terrorist camp in
Afghanistan where some of the 9/11 hijackers trained ...We knew that Zubayda
had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking
.... And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures ... The Department
of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them
to be lawful. ... But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were
safe, and lawful, and necessary.
Zubayda was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to
provide information on key al-Qaeda operatives, including information that
helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on
September the 11th. For example, Zubayda identified one of Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed's accomplices in the 9/11 attacks -- a terrorist named Ramzi bin al
Shibh. The information Zubayda provided helped lead to the capture of bin al
Shibh. And together these two terrorists provided information that helped in
the planning and execution of the operation that captured Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed.
Bush claimed that his interrogation program had saved lives, and Kiriakou
says the use of waterboarding "probably saved lives." We cannot know for
sure if this is true. Off-the-record interviews with intelligence officials
strongly suggest that there is much prevarication and exaggeration in the
president's claims about lives saved and operations disrupted, and that his
assertions merit no more credulity than other claims -- for example, that
Iran's nuclear weapons program poses a threat to the United States, even
though it has been stopped for four years.
Other U.S. intelligence officials take issue with the CIA's version of the
questioning of Zubayda. Some say that initially he was cooperating with FBI
interrogators using a nonconfrontational approach, when the CIA assumed
control and opted for more aggressive tactics. After that experience, the
FBI reportedly warned its agents to avoid interrogation sessions at which
harsh methods were used.
As for credibility, never has a U.S. president's word been so cheapened as
it is today. In late July 2007, we Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity joined with Justin Frank, M.D., psychiatrist, professor at George
Washington University Hospital, and author of Bush on the Couch, to search
for insight on how President Bush thinks. See "Dangers of a Cornered Bush,"
from which we excerpt the following:
His pathology is a patchwork of false beliefs and incomplete information
woven into what he asserts is the whole truth ... He lies -- not just to us,
but to himself as well ...What makes lying so easy for Bush is his
contempt -- for language, for law, and for anybody who dares question him.
.... So his words mean nothing. That is very important for people to
understand.
This is oversight?
The past few weeks have witnessed an unseemly square dance in Congress,
highlighting conflicting claims about what those who are supposed to be
overseeing the intelligence community knew and when they knew it -- about
torture, about Iran, about many things. It is nothing short of an insult to
the founders that members of the House and Senate can find nothing more
useful to do than wring their hands over their largely self-inflicted
powerlessness.
Lawmakers have been so thoroughly intimidated by the White House that I get
physically ill watching the likes of Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Bob Graham
and Jay Rockefeller moan about how secretive and nasty the Bush
administration has been. Harman complained recently that when she was
ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee some of the material
(on interrogations) was so highly classified that she had to take a "second
oath" to protect it.
What about the solemn oath they all take to support and defend the
Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic?
Should not that oath transcend and govern others that an administration
might require for access to secret materials?
Senator ***** Durbin of the Senate Intelligence Committee has complained that
he was aware that classified information did not justify the conclusion in
2002 that Iraq had unconventional weapons, but he could not say anything
because it was classified! Durbin explained:
...We're duty-bound once we enter that room to respect classified
information. Everything you hear is supposed to stay in the room ... I
certainly had enough to know that the statements that were made about
mushroom clouds were not the conclusions of someone in the administration
who was really being honest about the full debate. But you really know,
walking in the room, what the rules of the game will be.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, has admitted knowing for several years about the
Bush administration's eavesdropping on Americans without a court warrant.
She was briefed on it when she was ranking Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee when Bush and Cheney took office. One key unanswered
question is this: Was she told that within days of their taking office --
that is, seven months before 9/11, the National Security Agency's electronic
vacuum cleaner had already begun to suck up information on Americans -- the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, not to mention the Constitution, be
damned?
In a Washington Post op-ed of Jan. 15, 2006, Pelosi proudly advertised her
uniquely long tenure on the Intelligence Committee and acknowledged that she
was one of the privileged handful of lawmakers who were briefed. "This is
how I came to be informed of President Bush's authorization for the NSA to
conduct certain types of surveillance." She then proceeded to demonstrate
the bowing and scraping characteristic of her subservient attitude toward
the executive branch:
"But when the administration notifies Congress in this manner, it is not
seeking approval. There is a clear expectation that the information will be
shared by no one, including other members of the intelligence committees. As
a result, only a few members of Congress were aware of the president's
surveillance program, and they were constrained from discussing it more
widely."
And so too, may we assume, with respect to torture? This is oversight?
Neutered watchdogs: Rockefeller and Reyes
What can we expect from the current Senate and House oversight chairmen
regarding the recently disclosed, deliberate destruction of two tapes of
harsh interrogations of Abu Zubayda and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri? (Al-Nashiri
is thought to have played a role in the attack on the USS Cole.) On the
Senate side, expect nothing of Mr. Milquetoast Jay Rockefeller, chairman of
the Senate Intelligence Committee, who, it is said, is so afraid of his own
shadow that he only ventures outdoors at night or in bad weather.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes has a different kind
of problem and should recuse himself. He has been fawning all over José
Rodriguez, the former CIA deputy director of operations who ordered the
tapes destroyed.
On Aug. 16, 2007, Rep. Reyes told a conference in El Paso that he considered
Rodriguez "an American hero," proudly adding that, "with a few liberties
that Hollywood takes, the exploits of José Rodriguez are documented in the
FOX TV series "24." I am told that almost every episode of "24" includes at
least one scene glorifying torture, usually with lead man Jack Bauer playing
a main role. Reyes made it clear he is a big fan of Bauer and "24."
Were that not enough, after Rodriguez's role in destroying the interrogation
tapes became public, Reyes immediately cautioned against allowing
investigations to find just one "scapegoat" (no secret to whom he was
referring). And so, unless Reyes does recuse himself, look for a "complete
and thorough" investigation of the kind favored by the Nixon White House.
(Just when you may have thought it could not get any worse!)
Torture as technique: stark differences in view
On Sept. 6, 2006, the very day Bush bragged about his "alternative set of
procedures for interrogation" and appealed for legislation allowing the CIA
to continue using them, the head of Army intelligence, Lt. Gen. John
Kimmons, took a very different tack. Conducting a Pentagon briefing shortly
before the president gave his own speech, Kimmons underscored the fact that
the revised Army manual for interrogation is in sync with the Geneva
treaties. Then, conceding past "transgressions and mistakes," Kimmons
updated something I learned 45 years ago as a second lieutenant in Army
intelligence:"No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices.
I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last
five years, hard years, tells us that."
Grabbing the headlines the following day was Bush's admission that the CIA
has taken "high-value" captives to prisons abroad for interrogation using
"tough" techniques prohibited by the revised Army field manual -- and by
Geneva, for that matter. Gen. Kimmons displayed uncommon courage in facing
into that wind.
How about -- stop torture because it's wrong?
Have you noticed the shameful silence of our institutional churches,
synagogues, and mosques? True, on occasion a professor of moral theology
will speak out. Professor William Schweiker of the Chicago Divinity School,
for example, has heaped scorn on the scenario of the lone knower of the
facts whose torture is thought to be able to save millions of lives. He
notes that such is "the stuff of bad spy movies and bad exam questions in
ethics courses." Schweiker warns Christians, in particular:
"Not to fall prey to fear and questionable reasoning and this continue to
support an unjust and vile practice that demeans the nation's highest
political and moral ideals, even as it desecrates one of the most important
practices and symbols (baptism) of the Christian faith."
And, to its credit, the National Religious Campaign Against Torture, a
coalition of 130 religious organizations from left to right on the political
spectrum, yesterday issued a strong call for the appointment of a special
counsel to investigate the CIA's destruction of the videotapes of harsh
interrogation techniques. NRCAT's founder, Princeton Theological Seminary
professor George Hunsinger told the press that "to acknowledge that
waterboarding is torture is like conceding that the sun rises in the east,"
adding:
"All the dissembling in high places that makes these shocking abuses
possible must be brought to an end. But they will undoubtedly continue
unless those responsible for them are held accountable. Clearly a joint
probe by the Justice Department and the CIA -- agencies that are both
seriously compromised -- is not enough. A special counsel is an essential
first step."
But where are the official voices of the institutional churches, synagogues
and mosques in this country? In effect, they are ordaining Jack Bauer with
their silence.
This happened before
With very few exceptions, the institutional churches in Nazi Germany kept a
shameful silence, denying believers the moral authority and leadership so
needed to stand up to Gestapo torturers. Indeed, many of the bishops -- like
military leaders, and jurists -- swore a personal oath to Hitler. For his
part, the Nazi leader moved quite quickly to ensure that there was a
pastor -- whether evangelical or Catholic -- in every parish in Germany. He
saw this as a source of support and stability for his regime. And, sadly, it
was.
While the Nazis were systematically torturing and even murdering defenseless
victims, they kept repeating assurances that not a single hair of anyone's
head would be harmed. (Shades of the familiar refrain "We do not torture.")
And the propaganda machine under Joseph Goebbels made a fine art of what
President Bush calls the need to "catapult the propaganda."
Sebastian Haffner, a young German lawyer in Berlin during the '30s kept a
journal that his children subsequently published in book form as "Defying
Hitler." His fascinating account of Germany in the '30s provides many
thoughtful insights into prevailing attitudes and the lack of moral
leadership. Haffner's journal depicted the kind of ambiance in which the
approach of the grand inquisitor would, and did, flourish -- "in the end
they will lay their freedom at our feet [and] become obedient:"
"The weather in March 1933 was glorious. Was it not wonderful to ... merge
with festive crowds and listen to speeches about freedom and homeland? (It
was certainly better than having one's belly pumped up with a water hose in
some hidden secret police cellar.)"
Breeding and breakdown
Haffner closes his chapter on 1933 with observations that, in my view, apply
much too aptly to America today:
The sequence of events is, as you see, not so unnatural. It is wholly
within the normal range of psychology, and it helps to explain the almost
inexplicable. The only thing that is missing is what in animals is called
"breeding." This is a solid inner kernel that cannot be shaken by external
pressures and forces, something noble and steely, a reserve of pride,
principle and dignity to be drawn on in the hour of trial. It is missing in
Germans. As a nation we are soft, unreliable and without backbone. That was
shown in March 1933. At the moment of truth, when other nations rise
spontaneously to the occasion, the Germans collectively and limply
collapsed. They yielded and capitulated, and suffered a nervous breakdown.
CIA's John Kiriakou says he is now convinced that waterboarding is torture
and is against it. He adds, "Americans are better than that."
But are we better than that?
Sadly, that remains to be seen. With virtually all religious institutions,
politicians and educators squandering what moral authority they have left,
the Jack Bauer culture threatens to win out in the end. We cannot let that
happen.
The upcoming duel on the missing interrogation tapes will again bring the
issue of torture front and center. And, strangely, waterboarding and other
Jack Bauer tradecraft tools still enjoy a strong constituency.
Here's where we come in, for we are the ones we've been waiting for. As one
of my intelligence alumni colleagues noted recently, this is about our
country losing its soul. Let's rise to the occasion and stop unconscionable
policies like torture. True patriotism goes well beyond a flag on the lapel.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. noted, "Sometimes you have to put your body
into it." Besides, we need to keep the water hose from pumping up our
bellies and those of our loved ones. I only wish that were as remote a
possibility as it was before President Bush and his associates came up with
their "alternative set of procedures."
Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity.
.
|
