PDA

View Full Version : CIA man admits waterboarding 'torture'



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5

fibula
12-11-2007, 05:27 AM
But says suspect broke in 35 seconds and provided information that disrupted dozens of terrorist acts



CIA man admits waterboarding 'torture'
Print From correspondents in Washington

December 11, 2007 01:45pm

A RETIRED CIA agent has confirmed interrogators used a simulated drowning technique on an al-Qaeda suspect and admitted that the disputed method is a form torture.

In an ABC News interview aired yesterday, retired agent John Kiriakou, who led a CIA team that captured and interrogated al-Qaeda suspect Abu Zubaydah, said using the "waterboarding'' technique was necessary and yielded crucial information.

Mr Kiriakou said the method broke Zubaydah - one of the first top al-Qaeda suspects captured after the September 11, 2001 attacks - in less than 35 seconds, according to ABC.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to co-operate,'' Mr Kiriakou said.

"From that day on, he answered every question,'' he said.

"The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.''

The technique involves pouring water on the covered face of a restrained prisoner.

Although Mr Kiriakou admitted waterboarding was used, he did not entirely approve of it.

"We're Americans, and we're better than this. And we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing.''

But he also said that in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, there was a sense of urgency in getting information on terrorist groups.

"What happens if we don't waterboard a person, and we don't get that nugget of information, and there's an attack,'' Mr Kiriakou said.

"I would have trouble forgiving myself.''

Mr Kiriakou's comments come amid a growing scandal over the CIA's destruction in 2005 of videotapes made in 2002 of interrogations of Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, another top al-Qaeda operative, as first reported by The New York Times.

The videotapes reportedly showed harsh interrogation techniques used on the suspects.

Mr Kiriakou said he was unaware that the Zubaydah interrogation was being secretly recorded by the CIA and that the tapes were subsequently destroyed.

CIA director Michael Hayden, who was not leading the agency when the tapes were destroyed, has said that getting rid of the tapes was necessary to protect the identity of CIA agents.

The White House has stopped short of denying any involvement in the affair.

The Justice Department and the CIA's internal watchdog said they had opened a preliminary inquiry.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22906236-5001028,00.html

EternallyIgnorant
12-11-2007, 12:02 PM
America is far worse than this, not better.

MsThang
12-11-2007, 03:20 PM
"Mr Kiriakou said the method broke Zubaydah - one of the first top al-Qaeda suspects captured after the September 11, 2001 attacks - in less than 35 seconds, according to ABC.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to co-operate,'' Mr Kiriakou said."

So he was waterboarded for 35 seconds and then the next day he decided to cooperate?

I guess I don't see the two being specifically connected. Any number of things could have happened between waterboarding and the next day. I'm not saying it FOR SURE wasn't the waterboarding, but it could have been that he really did feel Allah visited him, or numerous other things.

EternallyIgnorant
12-11-2007, 03:58 PM
I'm thinking he probably cooperated after 35 seconds, then the next day he told the guy WHY he cooperated. I was thinking the same thing.

TheZenMan
12-11-2007, 04:00 PM
"Mr Kiriakou said the method broke Zubaydah - one of the first top al-Qaeda suspects captured after the September 11, 2001 attacks - in less than 35 seconds, according to ABC.

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to co-operate,'' Mr Kiriakou said."

So he was waterboarded for 35 seconds and then the next day he decided to cooperate?

I guess I don't see the two being specifically connected. Any number of things could have happened between waterboarding and the next day. I'm not saying it FOR SURE wasn't the waterboarding, but it could have been that he really did feel Allah visited him, or numerous other things.

I don't think you have the context accurate. It was the 35 seconds that got him to co-operate. The visit from Allah was his mind's justification for his actions.

If he didn't co-operate, Allah would have visited with a different message.

At least that's how religion usually works.

MsThang
12-11-2007, 04:22 PM
So, maybe it was just typed in a way I didn't understand? He cooperated after 35 seconds, and that's when he talked? The way the statement read to me was that he talked the next day. My mistake.

TheZenMan
12-11-2007, 04:26 PM
Well, there is no significance to 35 seconds unless he at least agreed to co-operate at that point. If not, then the waterboarders simply chose to stop at 35 seconds and the rest was entirely the man's decision.

So at 35 seconds, he caved. And as justification for his failure/weakness, Allah "visited" to guide him.

MsThang
12-11-2007, 04:31 PM
Yeah, what I'm trying to clarify is that did he talk immediately after being waterboarded or did he talk the next day? The CIA op's statement doesn't make that clear to me.

TheZenMan
12-11-2007, 04:33 PM
Yeah, that's what "broke" means.

MsThang
12-11-2007, 04:35 PM
ugh. You always have to be so difficult.

TheZenMan
12-11-2007, 04:38 PM
It was in 35 seconds. He "broke" at 35 seconds, then talked.

The visit from Allah is of no consequence to anyone but him.

EternallyIgnorant
12-11-2007, 05:38 PM
I read it again and retract my explanation. It sounds to me like the CIA had this guy admit to water boarding, just so they could get pressure off of them. Hes retired, so it sounds like it happened a long time ago to people, he says it worked, and who knows what would have happened if they hadn't tortured him, and it worked after 35 seconds, (but not really).


It was in 35 seconds. He "broke" at 35 seconds, then talked.

The visit from Allah is of no consequence to anyone but him.


That sounds wrong.

Day 1: CIA dude tortures (with waterboarding) Zubaydah for 35 seconds.

Night between Day 1 and Day 2: Allah supposedly visits Zubaydah and tells him to cooperate. This implies he has not cooperated at this point.

Day 2: Zubaydah presumably cooperates for the first time during Day 2 and then tells CIA dude that:

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to co-operate,'' CIA dude said."


Unless he wasnt talking about the previous night, but some other night, but if thats the case, he wouldnt have needed to be tortured because he would have been cooperating. In other words the CIA dude is full of shit.

EternallyIgnorant
12-11-2007, 05:40 PM
It was in 35 seconds. He "broke" at 35 seconds, then talked.

The visit from Allah is of no consequence to anyone but him.

The Allah visit is only important because of when CIA dude said the other guy said it happened, the night AFTER the water boarding incident.

TheZenMan
12-11-2007, 05:52 PM
I read it again and retract my explanation. It sounds to me like the CIA had this guy admit to water boarding, just so they could get pressure off of them. Hes retired, so it sounds like it happened a long time ago to people, he says it worked, and who knows what would have happened if they hadn't tortured him, and it worked after 35 seconds, (but not really).




That sounds wrong.

Day 1: CIA dude tortures (with waterboarding) Zubaydah for 35 seconds.

Night between Day 1 and Day 2: Allah supposedly visits Zubaydah and tells him to cooperate. This implies he has not cooperated at this point.

Day 2: Zubaydah presumably cooperates for the first time during Day 2 and then tells CIA dude that:

"The next day, he told his interrogator that Allah had visited him in his cell during the night and told him to co-operate,'' CIA dude said."


Unless he wasnt talking about the previous night, but some other night, but if thats the case, he wouldnt have needed to be tortured because he would have been cooperating. In other words the CIA dude is full of shit.

So they just happen to waterboard him for 35 seconds because that's how long they felt like doing it?

So then, Allah might have really visited this man. If it wasn't the waterboarding, then it most likely would have to be his god that changed his mind.

Armedmadillo
12-11-2007, 06:19 PM
35 seconds stems from the Arabic word "Allah".

EternallyIgnorant
12-11-2007, 06:45 PM
So they just happen to waterboard him for 35 seconds because that's how long they felt like doing it?

So then, Allah might have really visited this man. If it wasn't the waterboarding, then it most likely would have to be his god that changed his mind.

I dont understand what you are saying. You understand ms thangs original confusion, right?

iaacp
12-11-2007, 06:47 PM
Guys, guys, I have figured it out. MsThang visited him in his cell, not Allah.

iaacp
12-11-2007, 06:49 PM
I think he talked after 35 seconds. Otherwise, he wouldn't have "broke". I believe the Allah thing was justification for telling more truths.

TheZenMan
12-11-2007, 06:49 PM
I dont understand what you are saying. You understand ms thangs original confusion, right?

No, I don't.

You both sound kind of loopy to me and I don't really even know if I should take you seriously.

You really think they just happen to go for 35 seconds then go "Well, let's call it a day. Goto your cell." Then overnight, Allah came and told the man to cooperate, so he did?

That's what it sounds like you're suggesting.

I think Ms Thang was just misreading the sequence of events.

Roguesqd23
12-11-2007, 06:51 PM
Waterboarding is torture and wrong and should never be done because it does not net results. OH wait what am I saying. I think I must be going crazy today. At least now it is being backed up by the CIA and not some dumbass elected official who thinks he/she knows what most of the public thinks.