The debate on how to conduct the “War” on Terror continued yesterday after President Obama and former Vice-President Cheney delivered speeches on this issue. Once again, both discussed the interrogation techniques, the release of the CIA memos, and the necessity of Guantanamo Bay. FrumForum.com interviewed former CIA officials to get their views regarding these issues. They want to remain anonymous, because “many of the former CIA officials have already taken quite a beating from the media, Congress, and this administration.”
The release of the CIA memos by the Obama administration has created a public debate on national security. President Obama tried to explain why he released the memos. He stated, “the existence of that approach to interrogation was already widely known… The American people can better understand how these interrogation methods came to be authorized and used. “ All the former CIA officials wish the memos had not been released. In their views, it is not “a rally cry for the enemy,” as Obama stated.
They see just the opposite, that this action gave “aid and comfort to the terrorists.” Instead, they agree with Cheney that the American people should know the content of the memos as well as the techniques. As one former official stated, “I think there are things that could safely be released that would point to what was essential to our security that came out of the interrogation program which still has not been shared by this administration.” Another stated that he does not understand the administration’s argument. This public debate has tied the CIA’s hands, frustrated them, and left them wondering when it is going to stop. The harsh interrogation techniques were necessary and actionable intelligence was gained. As another official pointed out, “this information has got to come out because it’s the only way to protect our reputation.”
The harsh interrogation techniques were used on only three of the most dangerous terrorists. As Cheney noted, “It is a fact that only detainees of the highest intelligence value were ever subjected to enhanced interrogation. You’ve heard endlessly about water boarding. It happened to three terrorists. One of them was Khalid Sheikh Muhammed – the mastermind of 9/11, who has also boasted about beheading Daniel Pearl.” Besides Muhammed, Abu Zubaydah was also water boarded. The consensus is that these two individuals devoted their lives to murder Americans and that they would continue to murder Americans in the event of being released. A former FBI agent who was present during the early interrogation of Zubaydah concurs when he told FrumForum.com that he “is probably one of the smartest terrorists I interrogated… I think he is borderline genius.”
The former CIA officials want Americans to understand that the terrorists were water boarded to get intelligence as quickly as possible to stop further attacks from happening. One former CIA official summarized, “there were emergency circumstances, post 9-11. There was no time to build a relationship.” Waterboarding worked because as another official pointed out, “it is almost impossible to resist… when detainees know that you will check out the information and come back to them if you find it wrong then they are motivated to tell you true stuff.”
So why aren’t these harsh interrogation techniques used today? Part of the reason for using the harsh interrogation methods in earlier years was that the agency did not have the money for the necessary resources. The former officials blame both the Clinton and Bush administrations because the agency’s budget was cut drastically for years prior to 9-11. There was not enough money to hire and train operatives to infiltrate the terrorist organizations. However, there has not been another attack in this country since 9-11 because, as one noted “we have had eight years to develop sources within Al Qaeda and there is no need to gain information through harsh interrogation because we have other methods in place.” He also pointed out that if a captured terrorist threatened to nuke a city in the United States; everyone would say “do whatever is necessary to find out the when and where.” All the former CIA officials agree with Cheney that in a life or death circumstance like that, even “President Obama has reserved unto himself the right to order the use of enhanced interrogation should he deem it appropriate.”
The former CIA officials do not see a problem with the terrorists’ incarceration in high security American prisons under certain circumstances. They would put the terrorists in solitary confinement as is done with other hard core dangerous and vicious prisoners. The consensus amongst the CIA agents is that the prisoners should not be allowed to do crossword puzzles and play soccer like in Guantanamo. Instead, the terrorists should be in solitary confinement with prison rules forcing them to stay in a cell 23 hours a day without any outside contact with other prisoners. As a former CIA official stated, prison treatment would be “a lot harsher than they are getting in Guantanamo right now.” However, Guantanamo should still be an option for those terrorists who cannot be prosecuted because of insufficient evidence. These terrorists have clearly indicated that if released they would return to terrorist activities; therefore, closing Guantanamo would not be practical. As one official stated, “No other country will take them… somebody has to come up with something. Closing Guantanamo doesn’t quite cut the mustard.”
To sum up the CIA officials feelings after yesterday’s speeches: they want the debate to end and they resent the fact that the intelligence community is the focus of this partisan political battle. They want Americans to remember that they saved many lives because of the successful interrogations and that under certain expedient circumstances, harsh interrogation methods must be used. One former official told FrumForum.com with resignation in his voice, that he wishes the debate would come to end because “it makes the agency look like a rogue organization and its not… It is just a bunch of people who really love their country and want to serve it.”
20 responses so far
1 balconesfault // May 22, 2009 at 8:28 am
“A former FBI agent who was present during the early interrogation of Zubaydah concurs when he told NewMajority.com that he ‘is probably one of the smartest terrorists I interrogated I think he is borderline genius.’ “
And here, we have a definite split in opinion among the ranks of “former FBI agents”. From Ron Suskind, author of “The One Percent Doctrine”:
“Suskind reveals that at least one top FBI analyst considered Zubaydah an “insane, certifiable, split personality” and that he was mainly responsible only for logistics like travel arrangements … the interrogation methods used on Zubaydah — waterboarding and sleep deprivation, among others — only yielded information about plots that did not exist.”
Meanwhile, this just doesn’t work: “As one official stated, No other country will take them somebody has to come up with something. Closing Guantanamo doesnt quite cut the mustard. “
Obama has made it clear that he intends to move all our programs back into the realm of the rule of law. If the War on Terror is going to last a generation, rather than a couple years, that is absolutely necessary – we cannot institutionalize non-legal practices. And keeping detainees in Guantanamo simply because it’s a convenient tool for avoiding legalities is absolutely inconsistent with the rule of law.
At the end of the day, acceptance of a breakdown in the rule of law whenever an Presidnet claims it necessary for our security is a much greater threat to America than any terrorists.
2 DrBlogstein // May 22, 2009 at 8:46 am
bottom line: let the experts do their job.
3 balconesfault // May 22, 2009 at 9:05 am
“Frankly, the only reason I can think of concerning WHY Obama won’t release the WHOLE story is that if he did… he’s be the one who loses credibility.”
Perhaps this is a selective memory thing – but I have recollection of at least a few instances over the last decade when the Bush Administration released or leaked covert information when it was politically expedient, and actually caused problems as a result. For example, does anyone still remember the case of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2004_08/004475.php
My guess is that on anything having to do with release of actual intelligence information, the Obama Administration is treading very lightly – while people were ready to forgive the Bush Administration for gaffes such as the above, if the Obama Administration releases information that damages an ongoing intelligence channel, they will be savaged for that error.
4 tdawg11870 // May 22, 2009 at 10:48 am
There’s very little worse in political rhetoric than the use of euphemism and re-naming to paper over a difficult issue. “Enhanced Interrogation” sounds like a feature on my new plasma TV. Waterboarding, whether done by the good guys or the bad guys, is torture. It was used by the Spanish Inquisition, the Khmer Rouge and perfected in Mao’s China. For hundreds of years, waterboarding has been used it to extract confessions from the innocent. There is not getting around that.
Is it effective in getting actionable intelligence? The jury is very much out, with experts coming down on both sides. I tend to think that a method used in the past precisely because it will make people say anything is extremely suspect.
However, the question on which this whole debate is predicated is whether, even if effective, the United States ought to torture people. If we try to get around that thorny issue by re-naming it, we’re cheating ourselves out of a very important national discussion.
5 Chrisc23 // May 22, 2009 at 3:52 pm
I’d love to side with VP Cheney and President Bush. I’m in the general public and do not know what kind of classified information they received, nor do I know what classified information President Obama is receiving. The intelligent side is to trust both sides are doing what is right for this country in their opinion. President Obama has just amount of lives at stake as President Bush did, times change and situations change.
What may have worked in 2002 may not work now. And we have to accept that. I don’t think it is fair for either side to place blame.
6 billy_bob // May 22, 2009 at 4:05 pm
Thank you for these pieces of data and information. I agree that enhanced interrogation should have been used, and still should be used when there are so many lives hanging in the balance, however the discretion to make it s.o.p is not advisable, nor shall it be adopted by reasonable, rational, responsible heads of these agencies. Waterboarding, IMO is just as it has been labeled, i.e. enhanced interrogation technique, not torture.
Torture is commonly identified as treatment which disfigures, inflicts severe physical abuse, pain or injury, mental anguish, perversion, distortion and / or permanent psychological derangement. You cannot associate any of these factors with the techniques used on these three mastermind terrorists. If it is, then I was tortured every time I went swimming and played water games with all my friends in the swimming pool as a kid. C’mon, people! Use your heads for something besides a hat rack.
7 danbmil99 // May 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Sigh, this is so tiresome. We don’t torture. Making someone think they’re about to die by shooting water up their nose so they start to drown, is torture. Stop torturing the language, and stop re-treading “24″.
If it’s going to happen, let it be by some cowboy who doesn’t mind spending a few months testifying to Congress and maybe doing some time (if he’s found out in the first place — what ever happened to covert ops?) Give the President some plausible deniability.
Intelligent discourse on this issue seems sadly lacking.
PS if I was in charge of no-holds-barred interrogation, I’d get these guys hooked on Heroin and then withhold it until they started blubbering. But that’s just me.
8 balconesfault // May 22, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Meanwhile, one more “waterboarding is child’s play” blowhard has a change of heart. At least Mancow had the guts to actually go under the towel himself.
http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/05/conservative-radio-hosts-waterboarded/
I propose that everyone who doesn’t believe waterboarding is torture go through this. And if they come away and insist it’s still not torture, they do it again. And again. I’m willing to accept their authority if they can make it to time #5, asserting again after #4 “nope, not torture – bring it on! And don’t forget to reapply the SPF 30 when you’re done!”
9 barker13 // May 22, 2009 at 4:58 pm
Re: Balconesfault; 9:05 AM –
For anyone not fluent is “Balconspeak,” to translate…
Balconesfault meant to write, “I know you are, but what am I?!”
(*CHUCKLE*)
Re: Tdawg11870; 10:48 AM –
“There’s very little worse in political rhetoric than the use of euphemism and re-naming to paper over a difficult issue. “Enhanced Interrogation” sounds like a feature on my new plasma TV”
(*LAUGHING OUT LOUD*)
Gold star, there, Tdawg.
I actually agree with you. Notice I use the exact term – “waterboarding” – and if clarification is needed, when I add “other methods of enhanced interrogation” I’m referring to sleep interruption and deprivation, raising the heat or raising the AC, that sort of stuff.
Where we may differ is on use of the word “torture.” Sorry, I just don’t see “our” waterboarding as torture.
(We’ve gone over the history – the diverse history – of “waterboarding” as used throughout the world at different times in previous threads.)
“Torture” is kinda like pornography… I know it when I see it. (Doesn’t me you don’t have a “right” to see it differently, but I’m telling you how I view it.)
BILL
10 mdsagemello // May 22, 2009 at 7:00 pm
My two cents: We are the Big Brother USA Troops, not at anytime are we to act less then…….
Home of the Red White Blue United States of America
For the sake of the Pride of all that is Cherished Here
on United States and Sacred for The Last 250 years.
CIA Intelligence Documents remain Sacred Documents
for USA’s Government Eyes Only. Honorable Men and Women took a Oath to uphold their Duties as CIA. So USA’s Government Officials owe these Patriots the Resolution to this Mess and not through Public Humuliation this is not a Primative Nation. This is the 21st Century. Let’s Please begin to act like it.Thank you.Peace
11 GeorgeW.(gfwjr) // May 23, 2009 at 7:08 am
We must do what we must to insure the safety a protection of the America, the American people and the world. I f water boarding saved only one life it would be justified.
Our enemies do much, much worse to our military, after which in most instances they kill our soldiers. Our people are not given three square meals a day, clean cells or colored TVs! there is something terribly wrong with Obama and anyone else who thinks otherwise
12 sinz54 // May 23, 2009 at 8:29 am
tdawg11870 sez: “whether, even if effective, the United States ought to torture people. If we try to get around that thorny issue by re-naming it, we’re cheating ourselves”
Fine.
In the weeks after 9-11, civil libertarian Alan Dershowitz faced the issue without renaming it. And his proposal was that under extreme circumstances, yes we could torture as follows: By law, the President would be required to get a “torture warrant” from a Federal judge before proceeding. That requires the Executive Branch to get written concurrence from the Judicial Branch.
And yes, Dershowitz called this a “torture warrant,” not an “enhanced interrogation warrant.”
13 jreb // May 23, 2009 at 9:02 am
barker13-Elise. You understand this is just a blog, right? You’re not a reporter. This is not a news organization.
Thank goodness this is not a news organization. A Zogby survey of more than 3000 people performed in the two days after the 2008 US Presidential Election found that 37.6% of respondents considered the Internet the most reliable source of news, 20.3% consider national TV news most reliable and 16% said that radio is the most reliable source.
GeorgeW-We must do what we must to insure the safety (and) protection of .. America, the American people and the world.(If) water boarding saved only one life it would be justified.
Amen to that, I believe the silent majority of American people still believe that the terrorists who have murdered innocent people or are plotting to do so have relinquished any legitimate claim to equal protection under our system of justice.
DrBlogstein-bottom line: let the experts do their job.
Why should we have an independent intelligence service if they are subject to the biased whims and recriminations of the political party in power?
14 barker13 // May 23, 2009 at 10:11 am
Re: Sinz54; 8:29 AM –
“By law, the President would be required to get a “torture warrant” from a Federal judge before proceeding. That requires the Executive Branch to get written concurrence from the Judicial Branch.”
Nonsense.
(*ROLLING MY EYES*)
WHICH judge, Sinz…???
I mean… putting aside for the sake of argument your simply making new laws and procedures up out of whole cloth with not even a nod towards constitutional reality, exactly WHICH judge would you have “balance” the unitary executive – the POTUS, who as a duly elected president is Head of State as well as Head of Government?
Jeez… if you’re gonna throw nonsense like this out, at least fluff it up a bit.. (*CHUCKLE*)… “specify” the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or at least a majority of the full Court.
(*SNORT*)
Listen. The Constitution AS WRITTEN already provides all the “balance” you’d ever want. If Congress doesn’t like waterboarding or other specific “techniques,” well, they can PASS LAWS to forbid presidential authorization of such actions.
Or… sticking with the “Sinz School of Making Up Constitutional Law on the Fly,” Congress could include itself in the decision making process – for example, they could grant the president power to “torture” but only if both the Speaker of the House and Majority Leader of the Senate concur.
BILL
15 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 1:06 pm
barker13: “Torture” is kinda like pornography… I know it when I see it. (Doesn’t me [sic] you don’t have a “right” to see it differently, but I’m telling you how I view it.)”
In terms of international and US law, you are wrong, which is fortunate because I’ve no idea what your analogous and subjective pornographic ‘limits’ might be. Not going there, than you very much.
All the current legal hoopla of which you are perfectly capable of educating yourself beyond Heritage Foundation et al*.
strongly points to definitive boundaries with regards to interrogation and the definition of torture.
For you to suggest it is a casually subjective issue, like pornography, is silly.
16 Realist // May 23, 2009 at 1:08 pm
“Dersh” on torture warrants:
“The real debate is whether such torture should take place outside of our legal system or within it. The answer to this seems clear: If we are to have torture, it should be authorized by the law.”
So, we end up resolving the conflict between torture and the rule of law by changing the rule of law to accommodate torture. Is the judicial process so sacred that it’s worth torturing more people in order to preserve it in the merest formal sense?
That’s both tortuous and torturous.
17 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 1:10 pm
mdsagemello :
Your comment is unintelligible. Might you do better and prove a part of constructive discourse?
18 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 1:18 pm
barker13:
Jeez! sinz is a fella you typically agree with, or at least respect, and then you spout off rhetorically silly nonsense like this:
“Or… sticking with the “Sinz School of Making Up Constitutional Law on the Fly,…”
Really. Your cred in terms of sensible dialogue is on the line here, IMHO. Do you not see this?
19 ktward // May 23, 2009 at 1:21 pm
barker13:
oops my bad, I forgot this footnote:
*Well-informed opinion seeks and evaluates information as presented by credible but opposing arguments.
20 KFIR // May 26, 2009 at 5:11 pm
It seems to me that all this debate stirred up between Dick Cheney and Colin Powell (and Obama) is forcing the GOP to defend itself on CHENEY’S terms, and not consider that there is any other type of Republican with different views than what Cheney expresses.
Well it is time for us to finally speak our mind on this. Does ANYONE in the GOP remember what a ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN is?!
Is that such a horrible thing to be? Has the GOP gone so far to the right, even on this torture issue, that we can consider no other approach to issues than an extreme right view on torture, the economy, defense, social issues, and so on. So from now on, on torture and many other issues, I ask you all to keep in mind the term (and look it up) ROCKEFELLER REPUBLICAN!
There is no sin in being one again!!!!
You must log in to post a comment.