Waterboarding Our Democracy

When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, was it also destroying the truth about 9/11? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day--and the definition of the enemy in this war on terror that George W. Bush launched in response to the tragedy--comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers. The commission was never allowed to interview the prisoners, or speak with those who did, and was instead forced to rely on what the CIA was willing to relay.

On the matter of the existence of the tapes, we know the CIA lied, not only to the 9/11 Commission but to Congress as well. Given that the Bush administration has for six years refused those prisoners any sort of public legal exposure, why should we believe what we've been told about what may turn out to be the most important transformative event in our nation's history? On the basis of what the CIA claimed the tortured prisoners said, President Bush launched a "Global War on Terrorism" (GWOT), an endless war that threatens to bankrupt our society both financially and morally.

How important to the 9/11 Commission Report were those "key witnesses"? Check out the disclaimer on Page 146 about the commission's sourcing of the main elements laid out in its narrative:

"Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. ... Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses ... is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogation took place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process."

Videos were made of those "sensitive" interrogations, which were accurately described as "torture" by one of the agents involved, John Kiriakou, in an interview with ABC News. Yet when the 9/11 Commission and federal judges specifically asked for such tapes, they were destroyed by the CIA, which then denied their existence.

Of course our president claims he knew nothing about this whitewash, and he may be speaking the truth, since plausible deniability seems to be the defining leadership style of our commander in chief. But what about those congressional leaders who were briefed on the torture program as early as 2002? That includes Democrats such as Nancy Pelosi, who has specialized in heartfelt speeches condemning torturers in faraway places like China.

Pelosi press aide Brendan Daly told me that The Washington Post report on her CIA briefing was "overblown" because Pelosi, then the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, thought the techniques described, which the CIA insists included waterboarding, were merely planned and not yet in use. Pelosi claimed that "several months later" her successor as the ranking Democrat, Jane Harman, D-Calif., was advised that the techniques "had in fact been employed." Harman wrote a classified letter to the CIA in protest, and Pelosi "concurred." Neither went public with her concerns.

Harman told The Washington Post, "I was briefed, but the information was closely held to just the Gang of Four. I was not free to disclose anything." The "Gang of Four" is an insider reference to the top members of the House and Senate intelligence committees and not to the thugs who ran Mao's China during the Cultural Revolution.

Not only did the congressional Gang of Four fail to inform the public about the use of torture by our government, but it also kept the 9/11 Commission in the dark. Pelosi testified before the commission on May 22, 2003, but uttered not a word of caution about the methods used. However, more than two years later, on Nov. 16, 2005, Pelosi stated correctly that on the basis of her "many years on the intelligence committee," she knew that "[t]he quality of intelligence that is collected by torture is ... uncorroborated and it is worthless."

Having admired Pelosi for decades, I hope I am missing something here. If she and the others in the know have another version of these events it's time to come clean. As matters now stand, they not only concealed torture but, more significantly, they abetted the waterboarding of our democracy.

Comments

[ld]

Robert - Please think about the following possibility when analyzing the current intelligence scandal:

From what I've read some lifetime CIA people put their careers on the line to release the Iran NIE. If so, those were acts of real patriotism in trying to prevent another worthless war. It's very likely that the leak and sudden interest in the CIA interrogation and tape deletions is the Bush administration's way of striking back. The CIA people are striking back by pointing out that the approval came from Chaney/Bush. The Bushies have demonstrated a superb ability to twist any political reality so I think they are counting on being able to pin this on the career CIA people regardless.

[realitytrumpsbull]

Don't look now, but global digital East Germany
is coming...

[sugarmoes]

i wonder which candidate currently running for president would not pardon bush and throw him in prison - after a trial and such yada yada yada.

might only be ron paul or kucinich who would do that.

[sugarmoes]

lemme guess... the torturees said "saddam did it" and bush believed 'em? probably sumthin close to that. as IF bush wasn't gonna invade iraq any-damn-way anywho!

IMPEACH BUSH NOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

[lucnyc]

Oh please. "That's what the CIA Agent said" You can do better than that. I guess we'll just have to take their word for it since they have been so forthcoming and so dead on with their intelligence estimates in the past. What planet are you on? At this point the CYA rules are now in play. This administration reeks. Nancy Pelosi should have said something then. As usual the Dems lack the balls to truly stand up and do what is right and what this nation deserves.

[emerywood]

Where is Amnesty International ?
Are they still pestering China for human rights violations for detaining activists ? Here we have a modification of the Chinese water torture called waterboarding that has been used on captured combatants, seemingly legally and that doesn't bother them ?

[outnow]

Robert,

Aside from the issue of torture, these interrogation tapes were "smoking guns" in so many other ways. In fact, the tapes were "bazookas." If the entire war on terror and the conclusions of the 9-11 Commission were founded on uncorroborated information obtained by torture from a detainee, then the policies behind the many wars we are engaged in are suspect as well.

The tapes are also evidence of torture being used. Oftentimes, the so-called "outtakes" are even more interesting - the detainee is tortured until he says the "right thing." The right thing is captured on the edited-down version of the tapes. The tapes are then used as "evidence" of the facts asserted. It even looks as though the facts were "coerced," and, therefore must be even "more true." The guy wouldn't have said it unless it was "true" because it was "tortured out of him."

In forensic science the outtakes are always requested. Cross-examination is not possible. Then when the "facts are wrapped around the policy," the ostensible policy is then implemented and the tapes can be destroyed. "Plausible deniability" allows an escape from "command liability." The interrogator then comes out on TV and says that he felt bad about hurting the detainee but that "many lives were saved." Turns out the he was not even there himself when the detainees guts were spilled so he can not really be sure that any lives were saved.

So much like Curveball and the Yellow Cake plutonium documents from Niger, the entire affair begins to reveal a deep, systemic pattern of deception based on fear-mongering and lies.

Bush's father as director of the CIA was uniquely positioned to be privy to all manners of CIA cloak-and-dagger techniques. As President Reagan's VP, there were eight years of Middle East "operations" in diverse places such as Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iran, Latin and South America. If Bush, Jr. did not acquire these techniques of intrigue, torture and deception, he missed the example of Iran/Contra and all the rest.

[zizyphus]

Pelosi should have beens screaming to the the high heavens about our use of torture.

How many crimes will this administration get away with before people rise up in unison and demand their impeachment? They have done more accumulative damage to our nation's legal and economic systems than all of our enemies combined.

The first thing you need to know about the CIA is that all they do is lie. The morons who started the CIA employed thousands of Nazis after WWII, guiding them to safety here in the US and abroad, while putting them on the US payroll as spies.

It now seems that the Nazis have won after all, if we willingly allow torture in our name.

What you resist, you become. - Nietzche

[solarfared]

Too bad we can't corroborate what was on those the tapes with the documents that Sandy Berger shoved down his pants and get the whole 911 story, huh Mr. Scheer?

[victormisrock]

It has been confirmed that waterboarding was employed on those videotapes -- here is some leaked footage that has been uncovered, perhaps from the CIA?:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-GcXl1y_mQw

[wldnswmmr]

Mr. Scheer,

Long a fan, since the Berkeley Barb days. Before you accept the idea, even tentatively, that Bush's "plausible deniability" has some merit, please consider the opinion of Judge James Robertson in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, which was issued in November, 2004. The Supreme Court, that collective of political half-wits and corporate insiders, borrowed his decision in toto. Judge Robertson's decision held that al Qaeda prisoners at Guantanamo were entitled to Common Article 3 protections. This was a serious wake up call for the Bush Inquisition, and it was 2 years before the Supreme Court decision. The handwriting was on the wall. One year later, Nov. 2005, the tapes were destroyed. Bush knew that he personally was on the line for war crimes because of the misguided policy sold to him by Gonzales, Addington and Yoo. Note the reliance on counsel provisions of the exoneration provision in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. It's a pattern. No one ever tells the President anything? Plame, the Iran NIE, now this? Don't believe it. He's in it up to his eyeballs.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Of all things in the essay, the item that is stuck front and center in my mind is how Mr. Scheer of all people can remain a fan of Senator "Impeachment is off the table" Pelosi.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

As long as those detainees are alive, they can repeat what was said on the destroyed tapes.

[Prut]

Nailed it. Thanks once again Mr. Scheer for wrapping this embarrassing, immoral situation up neatly for readers. Pelosi's hands are dirty, if not by this specifically, then by her failure to do whatever is necessary to protect the Congress, the rule of law, and the reputation of this nation. If the Democrats retain control of Congress in 2008 despite themselves, she should step down from her leadership position.

[bronceye]

Personally, I feel that the 9/11 commision acted with "a lack of curiosity", themselves.