
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, was photographed shortly after his capture during a raid in Pakistan on March 1, 2003.
The lead story in today’s Washington Post, headlined “How a Detainee Became An Asset,” provides a one-sided and distorted account of the torture and abuse of Khalid Sheikh Muhammad (KSM) and demonstrates the urgent need for a blue ribbon bipartisan commission to create a comprehensive and authoritative narrative of the eight years of misgovernment of the Bush administration.
The prosecution of low-level CIA officials and government contractors for resorting to torture and abuse beyond the sordid guidelines of the Justice Department will allow the major players of the Bush administration as well as the lawyers of the Justice Department to escape retribution and judgment. Since President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney would never be held accountable, the entire nation would be better served by a full understanding of the war crimes that they authorized in our name.
Today’s article argues that the techniques of torture and abuse turned KSM into the CIA’s “preeminent source” on al-Qaeda. Citing an intelligence assessment by the CIA’s Counterterrorism Center, which was presumably prepared for Vice President Cheney, the Post article argues that waterboarding was the key to breaking KSM’s spirit and eliciting valuable intelligence on the “inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group’s plans, ideology, and operatives.”
This view contradicts the findings of the authoritative 2004 report on detainees and interrogations of the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) as well as the personal views of the Inspector General (IG) himself.
As the Post acknowledges, John Helgerson, the former IG who commissioned the 2004 study, said that the work of the OIG did not permit “definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of particular interrogation methods.” Helgerson acknowledged that waterboarding and sleep deprivation “elicited a lot of information,” but the OIG didn’t “do a careful, systematic analysis of the use of particular techniques with particular individuals and independently confirm the quality of the information that came out.”
As a result, Helgerson recommended (but the Post article chose to omit) the creation of an independent panel of experts to “systematically evaluate the quality of the intelligence gained as related to the specific techniques used, or not used, in particular cases. This would clarify the value of the information and the utility of various approaches.” This recommendation was one of ten recommendations in the 2004 IG report; unfortunately, the Justice Deparment (presumably due to the importuning of the CIA) chose to redact all ten IG recommendations from the declassified report.
There is ample testimony to challenge the view that torture and abuse worked. There were FBI agents at the site where KSM was held who testified that torture and abuse didn’t lead to eliciting valuable intelligence. And a CIA operative has noted that KSM was willing to talk before being tortured, noting that “tea and crumpets” were all that was needed. The former head of U.S. Army intelligence, Gen. John Kimmons, remarked in 2006 that “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.” And more recently, several veteran FBI and military interrogators called for an investigation of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques (EIT),” because of their concerns about the legality, morality, and effectiveness of EITs.
It is important to remember that the 2004 IG report emphatically stated that the information elicited by torture and abuse “did not uncover any evidence that [any] plots were imminent.” Other CIA memoranda stated that information gained from detainees led to “arrests [that] disrupted attack plans in progress,” but did not attribute this information to the use of torture and abuse.
The IG study could not even determine if the 83 waterboardings given to Abu Zubaydah were the reason for his increased willingness to talk. The study noted, moreover, that torture was contrary to the Eighth Amendment against “cruel and unusual punishments;” the 1984 UN Torture Convention, which the United States took the lead in drafting and ratifying; and domestic law.
Finally, it is more important to remember that torture and abuse are evil. Illegal, immoral, counter-productive, but most importantly evil. George Bush told a press conference in 2005 that “this country does not believe in torture,” but the fact is we conducted torture on those who were guilty and those who were innocent.
And Dick Cheney, who has fanatically been waging his own personal jihad in defense of torture and abuse, told Fox News in an interview that will air tomorrow that CIA interrogators were justified in exceeding even the broad authorizations provided by the Justice Department, suggesting that the ends justify the means. Perhaps the Washington Post could give front-page coverage to the 18-page memorandum that the CIA gave to the DoJ’s Office of Legal Counsel in 2004, which provides extraordinary details of the interrogations in plain, but sordid and sadistic, language.
Two years ago, then CIA director Michael Hayden released a collection of long-secret documents compiled in 1974 that detailed domestic spying, assassination plots, and other CIA misdeeds in the 1960s and early 1970s. In releasing the documents, known as the “family jewels,” Hayden told a group of historians who had been pressing for greater disclosure from the Agency, that the documents provided a “glimpse of a very different time and a very different agency.” He also stated that, when the government withholds information, myth and misinformation “fill the vacuum like a gas.”
In order to prevent the Washington Post and others from adding to the myths and misinformation of torture and abuse, it is time to appoint a blue ribbon commission to study all aspects of the CIA’s detentions and interrogations policies.
Melvin A. Goodman, a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy and adjunct professor of government at Johns Hopkins University, is The Public Record’s National Security and Intelligence columnist. He spent 42 years with the CIA, the National War College, and the U.S. Army. His latest book is Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA.











Referring to <> [Special Review CIA, released last Monday] I read on page 88 “This Review did not uncover any evidence that these plots were imminent”. Jay S. Bybee pre-authorizes torture.
But Jay S. Bybee assumes at least some imminent plots without proof & evdence.
All training-camps in Afghanistan & Pakistan were construced either by the
U.S.-Secret Service or by the Pakistan-Secret Service. And Al-Kaida is a term
the Interrogators in this Special Review say about:”The Agency lacked adequate linguists or subject matter experts and had very little hard knowledge of what particular Al-Kaida leaders – who later became detainees – should know”[ loc.
cit. page 83]. Please draw Your own conclusion if the CIA tortures somebody why
he was at the wrong time at the wrong place.
Thanks for pointing to the importance of preventing the poisoning of the well of debate by deliberate acts of sabotage such as the “myths and misinformation” of WaPo.
Establishing a truthful narrative of our experiments in torture is absolutely vital for the health of the nation. How are we to govern ourselves if we don’t know where we are or how we got here or what we can expect as consequences?
Recall that we have threatened Britain with reassessing our information sharing with them, if they reveal how we tortured Binyam Mohamed. So the truth no longer sets us free?
No, for our torture team and their apologists, the truth is to be feared. So now that we’ve made truth Public Enemy #1, which way forward?
The people who led us here can only lead us deeper into this god-forsaken Waste Land. They have no intention of forming a more perfect union. We absolutely must out the truth.
“…a comprehensive and authoritative narrative of the eight years of misgovernment of the Bush administration…”
While sorely needed, I think our national experience with such commissions mitigates against expecting the production of anything other than a Kabuki Theater whitewash negotiated behind closed doors… handsomely bound in so-so quality leather, of course.
Rather than that, the tools now exist for those who’ve worked this beat for all of these many years — specialist bloggers, human rights groups, the ACLU, international law experts, agency whistleblowers, U.N. officials… even stifled members of Congress — to instead collaborate on a mixed-media trial-in-absentia project of the Torture 13. Let all of the questions be asked which the political elites will shy away from… show all of the evidence which already exists on the record. File FOIA requests — more in the nature of a demand — and start loudly shaming government agencies which refuse to respond adequately. And include damning, detailed indictments of media outlets like the Washington Post, and enabling ‘media stars’ like Ignatius. Make THAT comprehensive and authoritative account — WWWeb accessible, of course… in multiple languages — become the handsomely-bound-in-leather coffeetable picture book and DVD collection.
I’d start it off, were I doing such a thing, with the compelling human drama of the unlikely partnership-for-justice between Mohammed Jawad’s defense attorney and his former and would-have-been prosecutor, Darrell Vandeveld.
That’s just me. Others will have their own suggestions.
Torture leads directly to a 9-11 re-investigation. Kean/Hamilton say the original investigation was ‘obstructed’ by the CIA due to torture,
9/11 Commission: Our investigation was “obstructed”
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/02/obstruction/
and when you see why Obama won’t investigate torture fully,
The Obama Adminstration is Helping to Upgrade Pakistan’s Nuclear Weapons
How the U.S. Has Secretly Backed Pakistan’s Nuclear Program From Day One
http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew06242009.html
you find that Valerie Plame-Wilson’s company, Brewster Jennings, was exposed in 2001 three years before she was ‘outed’ by Robert Novak in 2003,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×2771387
Further begs the question of ‘control’
““We want to get in there and manage [their nuclear program]. If we manage it, we can make sure they don’t start testing, or start a war.” In other words, the U.S. is helping the Pakistanis to modernize their nuclear arsenal in hopes that the U.S. will thereby gain a measure of control.”
from Andrew Cockburn’s article link posted above from Counterpunch.com
Yes, let the US start the wars and reap any ‘profits’.