Senate Testimony Sheds Light on Alleged Torture

[catzmeow]

Senate testimony sheds light on alleged torture

Yet amid the political brawl, testimony Wednesday from a former FBI interrogator, Ali Soufan, and a Bush State Department deputy, Philip Zelikow, revealed a sobering portrait of fear-struck officials resorting to simulated drowning - or waterboarding - extreme sleep deprivation, prolonged confinement in small spaces, humiliation and other interrogation methods without examining their history, their efficacy or their larger consequences in the battle against extremism.

Soufan, testifying behind a screen to shield his identity, painted a picture of incompetence by outside contractors hastily flown in from Washington using "amateurish, Hollywood-style interrogation methods." He also accused Bush administration officials of making false claims about their success.

Soufan said his own interrogations of captured al Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, using proven methods of psychological manipulation, had within one hour yielded the identity of the Sept. 11 mastermind, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. Until then, he said, "we had no idea of KSM's role in 9/11 or his importance in the al Qaeda leadership structure."

Within a few more hours of questioning, Soufan said, he and other interrogators elicited information about alleged "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla.
Inexperienced contractors

But Soufan said he was pulled off the interrogation within a few days, to be replaced by contractors with no expertise in al Qaeda. They soon introduced nudity and sleep deprivation, loud noise and temperature manipulation and confinement in a small box. Zubaydah stopped talking, Soufan said. As the methods progressed, Soufan testified, FBI Director Robert Mueller pulled his agents off the case, saying, "We don't do that (torture)."

Soufan said the harsh techniques ignore knowledge of the detainee, his mind-set, culture and vulnerabilities, trying to force submission rather than elicit cooperation.

Aside from legal and diplomatic complications, he said, torture poses practical problems. Terrorists are trained to resist it. That is why, he said, "the contractors had to keep getting authorization to use harsher and harsher methods until they reached waterboarding and there was nothing they could do but use that technique again and again." Abu Zubaydah was subject to waterboarding 83 times, and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed 183 times.

Information gleaned from torture may be unreliable and lead agents on goose chases. Its use also resurrected the "Chinese Wall" between the FBI and the CIA, obstructing information sharing, one reason the Sept. 11 plot went unnoticed in the first place.

If Soufan gave the Senate an inside view of interrogations, Zelikow provided a look into fierce debates within the Bush administration over the techniques and an atmosphere of terror inside the White House, which was fielding reports of apocalyptic threats that have never been made public.

Zelikow described a strange dynamic between bearded undercover agents overseas and deferential officials in wood-paneled Washington suites who were "rarely aware" of arguments in the field over what to do.

He said the CIA had no institutional capability to question enemy captives and so "improvised an unprecedented, elaborate, systematic program of medically monitored physical torment." It ostensibly was based on U.S. military training to help soldiers resist torture, and then "sold to policymakers as being no more than 'what we do to our own trainees.' "

He said the government's top legal officers "assured the government's leaders that the proposed program was lawful." The history of interrogation techniques, and valuable experience gained in World War II when the stakes were every bit as high, may have been ignored during critical White House debates, he said.

The question is not whether the CIA program produced useful intelligence, he argued. It did, as would be expected from an agency that had exclusive custody of top terror suspects for years. He said the question is in comparison to what, including interrogations in Iraq that produced valuable information without torture.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has opened an aggressive public crusade to challenge such arguments, insisting on declassifying memos that show the harsh interrogations saved potentially hundreds of thousands of American lives.

..Pelosi is unlikely to veer from her position that she was told in a briefing Sept. 4, 2002, that the administration had legal grounds to use the techniques but had not begun using them, a position at odds with a CIA timeline that said Pelosi has been briefed on techniques that "had been employed."

I guarantee that this is going to play out as FBI vs. CIA. Having worked with both agencies, I'm not a huge fan of the FBI, but they are about a million times more worthy of the public trust, as an agency, than the CIA is.

I love the quote from Robert Mueller: "WE DON'T DO THAT." It makes me happy to note that there are still leaders in the federal law enforcement agencies that remember who we are, and what we are.

 

[Pyrite]

I guarantee that this is going to play out as FBI vs. CIA. Having worked with both agencies, I'm not a huge fan of the FBI, but they are about a million times more worthy of the public trust, as an agency, than the CIA is.

I love the quote from Robert Mueller: "WE DON'T DO THAT." It makes me happy to note that there are still leaders in the federal law enforcement agencies that remember who we are, and what we are.

I was noticing the same conflict, and it seemed for a while that the CIA was reacting by trying to attack Speaker Pelosi. It seems, at this point, that this strategy backfired, as under pressure from that attack Pelosi is countering with her own against the CIA.

 

[DiveCon]

I guarantee that this is going to play out as FBI vs. CIA. Having worked with both agencies, I'm not a huge fan of the FBI, but they are about a million times more worthy of the public trust, as an agency, than the CIA is.

I love the quote from Robert Mueller: "WE DON'T DO THAT." It makes me happy to note that there are still leaders in the federal law enforcement agencies that remember who we are, and what we are.

I was noticing the same conflict, and it seemed for a while that the CIA was reacting by trying to attack Speaker Pelosi. It seems, at this point, that this strategy backfired, as under pressure from that attack Pelosi is countering with her own against the CIA.

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

 

[Article 15]

I guarantee that this is going to play out as FBI vs. CIA. Having worked with both agencies, I'm not a huge fan of the FBI, but they are about a million times more worthy of the public trust, as an agency, than the CIA is.

I love the quote from Robert Mueller: "WE DON'T DO THAT." It makes me happy to note that there are still leaders in the federal law enforcement agencies that remember who we are, and what we are.

I was noticing the same conflict, and it seemed for a while that the CIA was reacting by trying to attack Speaker Pelosi. It seems, at this point, that this strategy backfired, as under pressure from that attack Pelosi is countering with her own against the CIA.

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

If she's lying and was in fact complicit with full knowledge that we were torturing then she needs to held accountable as well.

No free passes here.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I was noticing the same conflict, and it seemed for a while that the CIA was reacting by trying to attack Speaker Pelosi. It seems, at this point, that this strategy backfired, as under pressure from that attack Pelosi is countering with her own against the CIA.

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

If she's lying and was in fact complicit with full knowledge that we were torturing then she needs to held accountable as well.

No free passes here.

Not just her, BUT a lot of High Ranking Democrats in BOTH HOUSES KNEW and supported it.

IF it were illegal then not only did they do nothing about it, they SUPPORTED it.

But we do not have retroactive LAWS in this Country. Waterboarding was not declared Illegal UNTIL this YEAR. So what happened in 2002 to 2008 are irrelevant. EXCEPT now we can get Pelosi for bald face lying in a political attempt to prosecute her opponents.

 

[editec]

I suspect as the information about this torture issue comes to light, what we're going to dsicover is that the Bush II team was just as incompetent about gathering information from pisoners as they were at everything else.

The above is a fairly good example of that fact coming to light.

 

[dilloduck]

I suspect as the information about this torture issue comes to light, what we're going to dsicover is that the Bush II team was just as incompetent about gathering information from pisoners as they were at everything else.

The above is a fairly good example of that fact coming to light.

I can't wait to see how successful Obama's team is at it.

 

[DiamondDave]

I suspect as the information about this torture issue comes to light, what we're going to dsicover is that the Bush II team was just as incompetent about gathering information from pisoners as they were at everything else.

The above is a fairly good example of that fact coming to light.

Funny

Bush and his cabinet and his appointees had nothing to do with interrogations... .there are and were professional interrogators who know their job that were doing this

So no matter if you think Bush was 'incompetent' or not is irrelevant

 

[Nik]

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

If she's lying and was in fact complicit with full knowledge that we were torturing then she needs to held accountable as well.

No free passes here.

Not just her, BUT a lot of High Ranking Democrats in BOTH HOUSES KNEW and supported it.

IF it were illegal then not only did they do nothing about it, they SUPPORTED it.

But we do not have retroactive LAWS in this Country. Waterboarding was not declared Illegal UNTIL this YEAR. So what happened in 2002 to 2008 are irrelevant. EXCEPT now we can get Pelosi for bald face lying in a political attempt to prosecute her opponents.

Uhh, no. If waterboarding is torture, its always been illegal. Legal memos by bush administration officials can't change that.

 

[jillian]

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

 

[Ravi]

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

 

[editec]

The CIA has been lying to our POTUSs and CONGRESSES since its inception.

Read Legacy of Ashes for particulars.

Almost no POTUS since TRUMAN (and including Truman) TRUSTED the CIA.

What's that tell yas about that organization?

Neither Republican NOR Democratic POTUSs trusted that organization information, or activities.

The CIA has a very long record of operative plans that went FUBAR.

Did they lie to Pelosi?

We can't know until we see the records.

But I would NOT doubt it for a moment.

It's a crying shame, because our nation needs a top flight organziation which can bring it REAL information.

Sadly the CIA has never done a very good job of doing that.

 

[jillian]

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

you should have heard joe and mika today... they were practically sending her off to be drawn and quartered

to be fair, her statement yesterday was ill-advised because it wasn't well done or clear and left more questions than it answered.

but i saw someone on the news this a.m... oh wait... it was ron paul, who said, "well good, maybe this will be a distraction to keep them from doing the other things they want to do".

typical right wing tactic.

 

[American Horse]

I was noticing the same conflict, and it seemed for a while that the CIA was reacting by trying to attack Speaker Pelosi. It seems, at this point, that this strategy backfired, as under pressure from that attack Pelosi is countering with her own against the CIA.

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

If she's lying and was in fact complicit with full knowledge that we were torturing then she needs to held accountable as well.

No free passes here.

Ha! Politicians (especially of a particular stripe) have a special dispensation to lie. It's for the good of the country, dontcha know?

 

[Ravi]

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

you should have heard joe and mika today... they were practically sending her off to be drawn and quartered

to be fair, her statement yesterday was ill-advised because it wasn't well done or clear and left more questions than it answered.

but i saw someone on the news this a.m... oh wait... it was ron paul, who said, "well good, maybe this will be a distraction to keep them from doing the other things they want to do".

typical right wing tactic.

She said she wanted a Truth Commission to investigate and get to the bottom of all the issues.

 

[DiveCon]

except Nancy has been shown to be a LIAR
since Porter Goss was at that very same briefing, and HE says the same thing the CIA says

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

yeah, another Dem now claiming the CIA lied to them

 

[Ravi]

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

yeah, another Dem now claiming the CIA lied to them

In this case the CIA admitted they were wrong.

 

[DiveCon]

except, realistically, pelosi is a non-sequitur. the who issue is an intentional distraction from the real issues.

and there is another congressman who said the CIA lied (and later retracted) about briefing him. (i can't recall the name offhand).

But AGAIN, it's an irrelevancy... and a distraction from the actual issue.

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

you should have heard joe and mika today... they were practically sending her off to be drawn and quartered

to be fair, her statement yesterday was ill-advised because it wasn't well done or clear and left more questions than it answered.

but i saw someone on the news this a.m... oh wait... it was ron paul, who said, "well good, maybe this will be a distraction to keep them from doing the other things they want to do".

typical right wing tactic.

oh PALEEZE
ron paul is a kook and always has been
LOL

 

[DiveCon]

Bob Graham is who you are probably thinking about.

I have yet to see any evidence that Pelosi lied, btw.

yeah, another Dem now claiming the CIA lied to them

In this case the CIA admitted they were wrong.

REALLY?
got proof of that?

 

[billyboy]

This is not FBI vs. CIA. Handing out baked beans at lunch time doesn't qualify you as having "worked for both agencies". What struck me as relevant was the fact that the so-called witness chose to hide his identity. You either have beef or you don't. Don't hide behind a sheet when you give your testimony.