Posted on 12/12/2007 6:37:32 AM PST by UKrepublican
'Waterboarding broke al Qaeda captive in 35 seconds,' says former CIA agent defending torture
Use of the interrogation technique known as "waterboarding" was approved by the White House and gets results, a former CIA agent admitted yesterday.
The technique - which simulates drowning - was used against Al Qaeda captives with success, John Kiriakou told a U.S. TV network.
The one-time CIA interrogator is the first to speak out about the "torture" methods that have earned President George Bush's administration worldwide condemnation.
The White House has denied torture is used on terror suspects, but Mr Kiriakou said waterboarding "broke" one stubbornly silent Al Qaeda recruiter after just 35 seconds.
Waterboarding involves wrapping plastic or fabric around a detainee's face then pouring water over the top until it is forced up the nose and down the throat to simulate drowning.
Suspects are told they will die if they do not talk.
And although the technique is supposed to be low-risk, critics say it can result in long-lasting psychological damage, injury to the lungs and even, in extreme cases, death.
Mr Kiriakou told the ABC network that he had fought an "intellectual battle" in his mind over the use of waterboarding, and had concluded that it is justified as it saves lives by preventing terror attacks. "This isn't something done willy-nilly," he added. "This was a policy made at the White House, with concurrence from the National Security Council and Justice Department."
Mr Kiriakou told how waterboarding was used on Zayn Abu Zubaida, the first high-ranking Al Qaeda member captured after the September 11 attacks in 2001.
Abu Zubaida was seized in a gun battle in Pakistan in the spring of 2002. For weeks he refused to talk and remained ideologically zealous, defiant and unco-operative. Then he was flown to a secret CIA prison - believed to be in Afghanistan - and strapped to a board with his feet in the air.
Cellophane was wrapped around the Al Qaeda man's face and water was forced up his nose and into his throat to make him think he was drowning.
The suspect lasted only 35 seconds before he broke.
"It was like flipping a switch," said Mr Kiriakou.
"From that day on, he answered every question. The threat information he provided disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks.
"Like a lot of Americans, I'm involved in this internal, intellectual battle with myself weighing the idea that waterboarding may be torture versus the quality of information that we often get.
"I struggle with it.
"At the time, I felt that waterboarding was something that we needed to do."
Mr Kiriakou said he did not interrogate Abu Zubaida, but learned the details from colleagues.
His account came as the U.S. Congress began questioning CIA director Michael Hayden yesterday about why the agency destroyed at least two videotapes of controversial interrogations.
Many senators believe it was done to hide evidence of illegal torture that could have been used against CIA agents in a war crimes tribunal.
General Hayden, speaking to the closed-doors Congress hearing yesterday was expected to say that CIA lawyers ruled that the interrogations were legal and the tapes were destroyed in 2005 to protect the identities of CIA employees who appear on them.
The torture scandal is likely to become a major issue in next year's presidential election.
Abu Zubaida - who says he was coerced into making false confessions - was eventually moved to the U.S. prison camp at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where he is now held in solitary confinement.
He is likely to be tried next year on terrorism charges and the CIA expects that he will spend the rest of his life in custody.
Mr Kiriakou, a 14-year veteran of the CIA who worked in both the analysis and operations divisions, left in 2004 and works as a consultant for a private Washington-based firm.
So you are unable to answer the real questions.
Guess you are one of those “keyboard cowards” sitting in the comfort of your room protected by brave souls that you choose to insult.
Your refusal to answer my simple questions is answer enough as to your so called “culture”.
You have no “culture”.
Seriously, have we EVER faced an enemy that abided by the “rules of war” because we did?
Easy way to cut through the crap -
Romulus, would you waterboard someone to save your family & friends’ lives?
Sorry but the current problem is that the democrats want us to look bad in their desperate attempt to gain back the white house by making everything republicans do look bad.
If we are so hated then why is everyone trying to get here to live in freedom?
Asked and answered.
He said no he would not waterboard even if it saved his own family and the lives of everyone in the city he lives in.
He called me hard hearted and of dark intellect yet would sacrifice his family and perhaps millions of others for his “culture”.
One life for many is a price that may need to be paid.
############################################
Visualize an American soldier. Somewhat resembling Beetle Bailey. What used to be called “an eight ball, goldbrick” or in other words, a goofball recruit who can’t seem to become “ all that he can be”, but is qualified to wear the uniform, barely.
This single American soldier is worth waterboarding a dozen or more AQs to save. A little perspective, please.
>>Sorry but the current problem is that the democrats want us to look bad in their desperate attempt to gain back the white house by making everything republicans do look bad.
If we are so hated then why is everyone trying to get here to live in freedom?<<
Actually tourism to the U.S. is way down but I meant lack of support in money and personnel for our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Yes.
Next question?
I will point out that Arthur Harris was not in command of US air assets, and that even if Churchill's analysis of Harris' intentions were accurate - which in point of fact it wasn't - Harris' intentions have nothing to do with US air assets or their deployment.
I will also note that Churchill's comments were made not only after Dresden but after the bombing of Dortmund, Essen, Chemnitz, Jena, Bielefeld, Hanover, Leipzig and Nuremberg. Several of these attacks utilized more aircraft and more ordinance than at Dresden against cities smaller than Dresden with lower-priority military targets than Dresden.
Is it possible that Churchill was referring to these instead of Dresden?
I will further point out that Churchill himself commissioned the Secretary of State for Air (the civilian oversight for the RAF and Harris' boss) to produce a report outlining priority military targets for aerial bombardment months before he wrote this letter to Harris.
Churchill received the Secretary's report on Jan 27, 1945. It mentioned Dresden as one of four key military targets that should be attacked as quickly as possible to assist Allied ground forces to sustain their post-Bulge positions.
By February 4th plans were drawn up to attack Dresden. During all this time there was no talk of inflicting terror or death on German civilians, but of the best way to prevent the successful redeployment of 42 divisions of German infantry and armor to the Eastern front, which was the purpose of the Dresden raid.
Nine days later, the Dresden raid took place.
Three weeks after Churchill's letter to Harris, Dresden was raided yet again, on April 17, to prevent the Nazis from rebuilding rail arteries across the Elbe to elude Allied forces.
That raid evoked no complaints from Churchill.
G&S condemns indiscriminate acts of war. You are defending them. Renounce and repent.
Nothing about Dresden was indiscriminate. Perhaps you should repent of twisting magisterial documents for rhetorical effect.
It’s considered rude not to ping people you mention in a post.
Your question wonders if I view moral questions differently when my personal interests are at stake.
Would you steal a billion dollars to save your mother’s life? Your cousin’s? Your cousin’s friend’s car mechanic who lives in another state? Why or why not? Is it really about the life at stake, or about you? Analyze and discuss.
I was not aware that tourists were coming here to live.
People all over the world would love to live here in freedom.
Do you dispute that?
Still lack of support is because the rats amd the drive by media in suport of the rats are doing everything they can to make us look bad because the President is a republican.
If the pres were a rat then they would be saying everything was fine.
Do you dispute that?
What about to save members of code pink who then turn around and spit on you?
Your own words condemn you.
Are they dedicated to cutting your head off? Are they offended enough to want you dead?
Are you saying there are US Citizens you would let die?
Whether you agree with their politics or not is not the question. It's a question of US Citizens lives. There is NOT ONE US Citizens life worth sacrificing.
Not one.
Your postulations are ridiculous.
If you would sacrifice your own family and the lives of those in your city then any moral dilema’s your propose are irrelevant.
Please explain what culture you come from that would sacrifice millions of your “fellow” citizens.
Why would you expect me to disagree with that?
Their bias doesn’t change the fundamentals.
He said no he would not waterboard even if it saved his own family and the lives of everyone in the city he lives in.
Liar.
It was not “torture” and if congress thought it was they had an obligation to speak out when they first learned about it, in ‘02!
Glad to see you answered it.
It’s worth more to you to spare a terrorist 35 seconds of discomfort than to save your family.
I believe this will be a question that I ask anyone that seeks to date my daughters. Shows where their priorities are.
Thank you. You answered correctly.
I did not advocate sacrificing code pink. I simply asked a question.
Of course we save their lives because that is what freedom is about. The freedom to criticize and protest.
And the freedom to be ungrateful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.