| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: WoT |
| Another WaPo Story with No named Sources |
| 2004-06-28 |
| The CIA has suspended the use of extraordinary interrogation techniques approved by the White House pending a review by Justice Department and other administration lawyers, intelligence officials said. The "enhanced interrogation techniques," as the CIA calls them, include feigned drowning and refusal of pain medication for injuries. The tactics have been used to elicit intelligence from al Qaeda leaders such as Abu Zubaida and Khalid Sheik Mohammed. No attribution ... The decision applies to CIA detention facilities, such as those around the world where the agency is interrogating al Qaeda leaders and their supporters, but not military prisons at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and elsewhere. No attribution "Everything’s on hold," said a former senior CIA official aware of the agency’s decision. Aware how? And why is this person talking to the press? "The whole thing has been stopped until we sort out whether we are sure we’re on legal ground." A CIA spokesman declined to comment on the issue. I would decline to comment on intel matters, too. Adults are in charge now. No talking to the press without being arrested. CIA interrogations will continue but without the suspended techniques, which include feigning suffocation, "stress positions," light and noise bombardment, sleep deprivation, and making captives think they are being interrogated by another government. ... The suspension ... is related to the White House decision, announced Tuesday, to review and rewrite sections of an Aug. 1, 2002, Justice Department opinion on interrogations that said torture might be justified in some cases. No attribution The legal debate over CIA interrogation techniques had its origins in the battlefields of Afghanistan, secret counterterrorism operations in Pakistan and in President Bush’s decision to use unconventional tools in going after al Qaeda. The interrogation methods were approved by Justice Department and National Security Council lawyers in 2002, briefed to key congressional leaders and required the authorization of CIA Director George J. Tenet for use, according to intelligence officials and other government officials with knowledge of the secret decision-making process. Guess it’s not a secret anymore When the CIA and the military "started capturing al Qaeda in Afghanistan, they had no interrogators, no special rules and no place to put them," said a senior Marine officer involved in detainee procedures. Involved how? The FBI, which had the only full cadre of professional interrogators from its work with criminal networks in the United States, took the lead in questioning detainees. But on Nov. 11, 2001, a senior al Qaeda operative who ran the Khaldan paramilitary camp in Afghanistan was captured by Pakistani forces and turned over to U.S. military forces in January 2002. The capture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan, sparked the first real debate over interrogations. The CIA wanted to use a range of methods, including threatening his life and family. But the FBI had never authorized such methods. The bureau wanted to preserve the purity of interrogations so they could be used as evidence in court cases. Al-Libi provided the CIA with intelligence about an alleged plot to blow up the U.S. Embassy in Yemen with a truck bomb and pointed officials in the direction of Abu Zubaida, a top al Qaeda leader known to have been involved with the Sept. 11 plot. No attribution to the ’facts’ in this graf In March 2002, Abu Zubaida was captured, and the interrogation debate between the CIA and FBI began anew. This time, when FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III decided to withhold FBI involvement, it was a signal that the tug of war was over. No attribution "Once the CIA was given the green light . . . they had the lead role," said a senior FBI counterterrorism official. Abu Zubaida was shot in the groin during his apprehension in Pakistan. U.S. national security officials have suggested that painkillers were used selectively in the beginning of his captivity until he agreed to cooperate more fully. His information led to the apprehension of other al Qaeda members, including Ramzi Binalshibh, also in Pakistan. The capture of Binalshibh and other al Qaeda leaders -- Omar al-Faruq in Indonesia, Rahim al-Nashiri in Kuwait and Muhammad al Darbi in Yemen -- were all partly the result of information gained during interrogations, according to U.S. intelligence and national security officials. All four remain under CIA control. A former senior Justice Department official said interrogation techniques for "high-value targets" were reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis, based partly on what strategies would work best on specific detainees. Justice lawyers suggested some limitations that were adopted, the former official said. ... The administration concluded that techniques did not amount to torture if they did not produce significant physical harm or injury. However, interrogators were allowed to trick the detainees into thinking they might be harmed or instructed to endure unpleasant physical tasks, such as being forced to stand or squat in stress positions. .... Anyone see a pattern here? I do. Not one named source was used in this article. Why? Is this agenda pushing in the guise of jouranlism? I think so. |
| Posted by:badanov |
| #9 On the other hand, if you're into conspiracies, maybe this leak is deliberate: maybe there's more going on behind the scenes than they want to be made known, so they release reports that make them look a lot more incompetent than they are. There are benefits to misleading a free press, especially when up against an enemy that wants to use our own institutions to destroy us . . . *Takes off tin jacket, slips into velvet coat, checks pocketwatch . . .* |
| Posted by: The Doctor 2004-06-28 1:17:20 PM |
| #8 Good work, badanov. Let's hope for the best that this "former senior CIA official" is talking out of his ass. And now that Bremer is out, maybe the State Dept. will butt out of running the military side of things in Iraq! |
| Posted by: Jen 2004-06-28 9:02:59 AM |
| #7 I admit I didnt read the article closely enough yesterday. But when I saw your reactions to posts made to the sale article you posted, I had to read it closer, and sure enough, this was a mass of, what? No named sources, a LOT of assumptions on the writer's part and no attribution for some elements of the story. I didn't publish this garbage, and I posted errorneously. However, if the DoJ in fact told the CIA to suspend those interrogation tehcnique, then my statement stands. As it is we don't know. You don't know either, Mike, and you're the who posted the original article. |
| Posted by: badanov 2004-06-28 8:37:44 AM |
| #6 Way to ignore the call to stop the flame wars, Mikey. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2004-06-28 8:22:49 AM |
| #5 Yesterday, based on this very same article, you said that the "CIA is throwing the war and the DoJ is signing off on it." Today you yourself indicate that your accusations about the CIA and FBI are based entirely on anonymous sources! . |
| Posted by: Mike Sylwester 2004-06-28 8:20:57 AM |
| #4 Anyone speaking to the WaPo or NYT has an agenda, and is most likely out of the real loop (i.e.: unemployed by the DOJ and Intel agencies after the last election, and yes, I mean you, Eric Holder) |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-06-28 7:58:34 AM |
| #3 Way to go Humpty, like I get it man. Deep. Once the right wing garbage gets it way, no bread. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-28 4:11:40 AM |
| #2 damn Badanov, I'd like to see you disect in the same way some of the right wing garbage that comes out |
| Posted by: Humpty Dumpty 2004-06-28 3:48:51 AM |
| #1 Is the agenda a "what America stands for" thing? Let's see, America; truth, justice and the American way. The American way? Well now what. Oh thats right, bend over and do what non-combadants say. yes, they are thinkers, talk well also, that nose, the sound of a run on sentence. snoot, yes thats it, I'm on with that! |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-06-28 3:44:06 AM |