|
What the CIA Had to Destroy
The many reasons this torture evidence was too hot to handle
By Nat Hentoff
17/01/08 "Village
Voice" -- - So what was on those videotapes
destroyed by the CIA? Let's put a face to it. Abu Zubaydah was
captured in Pakistan in 2002 and, after being shot in the groin
while trying to escape, was sent to recover in a CIA secret
prison. He would be the first of the CIA's many "ghost
prisoners"—and also the first to test the value of what the
president has often described as an "alternative set of
[interrogation] procedures . . . that are safe and necessary."
As described by Ron Suskind in The One Percent Doctrine: Deep
Inside America's Pursuit of Its Enemies Since 9/11 , Zubaydah—held
in an ice-cold cell—was denied medication for his wounds,
threatened with death, prevented from sleeping, incessantly
blasted with pounding rock music (by the Red Hot Chili Peppers,
among others), and, at last, waterboarded. After 30 seconds of
feeling that he was on the verge of drowning, he was more than
eager to answer any questions.
In a September 6, 2006, speech, George W. Bush triumphantly
called Zubaydah "one of the top operatives plotting and planning
death and destruction on the United States." After the
application of those "alternative" interrogation procedures,
which the president described as "designed to . . . comply with
our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations, [and
which] the Department of Justice reviewed extensively and
determined to be lawful," the detainee "disclosed Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed [to be] the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks" and
"also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack
being planned for inside the United States."
But, Suskind added, two weeks before Bush's words of praise for
these "coercive" interrogations, Dan Coleman—the FBI's leading
expert on Al Qaeda—asserted that Zubaydah was "insane,
certifiable, split personality," and that he wasn't the top
operative he was made out to be. The CIA was informed of
Coleman's assessment, and it was, "of course, briefed to the
President and Vice President." Undaunted, Bush made his
congratulatory speech and then surreptitiously said to CIA
director George Tenet: "I said he was important. You're not
going to let me lose face on this, are you?"
After his involuntary contribution to the advanced arts of
interrogation, Zubaydah became a resident of our penal colony at
Guantánamo Bay, which the president has made an entirely
law-free zone, much like the CIA's secret prisons. But after two
Supreme Court decisions contradicted the commander in chief in
his assertion of unfettered war powers, the Bush administration
reluctantly set up a transparently prosecutorial kangaroo court
there.
In April of last year, appearing before a status-review tribunal
to determine whether he had been accurately designated as an
enemy combatant, Zubaydah testified, as reported in the New York
Times, that as a Palestinian, and because of American support
for Israel, "I have been an enemy of yours since I was a child."
However, he insisted that as a longtime adherent of "defensive
jihad"—and despite what he'd said after being waterboarded—"I
disagreed with the Al Qaeda philosophy of targeting innocent
civilians like those at the World Trade Center. . . . I never
conducted nor financially supported, nor helped in any operation
against America."
He explained that he'd made false statements while being
tortured by the CIA. Asked by the president of the tribunal, an
Air Force colonel, "Can you describe a little bit more about
what those treatments were?", Zubaydah obliged.
Not surprisingly, his answers are not part of the transcript. I
expect that Attorney General Michael Mukasey would consider
those waterboarding details to be "state secrets" involving
highly classified "sources and methods."
Paul Gimigliano, a professional Pinocchio (i.e., spokesman) for
the CIA, said that however Zubaydah described his treatment,
"The United States does not conduct or condone torture. The
agency's terrorist interrogation program has been implemented
lawfully, with great care and close review."
If you have any doubts, just ask Attorney General Mukasey, whose
department is conducting a close review (but close for whose
sake?) of the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes starring Abu
Zubaydah. But the Justice Department says that it cannot tell us
how long this inquiry—which is being conducted in conjunction
with the CIA—will take.
That's not surprising in view of the intricate tapestry of
cover-ups woven by both agencies and by the White House. With so
little time remaining before the next administration takes over,
a special independent prosecutor must be appointed before more
criminal evidence disappears.
According to a December 30 investigation by The New York Times,
as "interrogations of Abu Zubaydah had gotten rougher" in the
CIA secret prison, "each new tactic [had to be] approved by
cable from headquarters."
CIA headquarters? Justice Department headquarters? White House
lawyers? Names, please!
There's another crucial dimension to uncovering the effects of
what Zubaydah— terrified that he was about to drown— allegedly
revealed during those "rougher" interrogations: There are
several cases of purported terrorists before our courts who are
being prosecuted on the basis of Zubaydah's desperate testimony
in that CIA black site.
For example, American citizen José Padilla was arrested at
O'Hare Airport in 2002, after allegedly conspiring with Zubaydah
and Al Qaeda to set off a "dirty bomb" in the United States.
Padilla—himself relentlessly tortured while being held for years
as an "unlawful enemy combatant"—first appeared in court on
those charges before none other than Michael Mukasey, at the
time a federal judge in New York. Mukasey ordered him imprisoned
on a material-witness warrant, based in part on the information
that had been proffered by Zubaydah under waterboarding. Then,
suddenly, Padilla was taken out of the federal-court system by
order of George W. Bush and vanished for years without even a
hearing or charges or access to a lawyer.
Marjorie Cohn, a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law,
says: "It is not clear whether Mukasey knew Zubaydah's
statements were obtained by torture. But since he issued the
warrant, Mukasey has a real or apparent conflict of interest" as
one of the heads of the current investigation into the CIA-
destroyed torture videos. Mukasey has appointed a career federal
prosecutor to head the investigation and report back to him.
Cohn adds: "[Mukasey] has said it is premature to appoint an
outside special counsel. But like the Nixon administration, the
Department of Justice cannot be trusted to investigate itself.
Congress should be pressured to pass a new independent-counsel
stature."
There are bipartisan constitutional lawyers beginning to apply
that pressure, but there will be passionate resistance from
Congressional Republicans. Do you think that Democratic
Congressional leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi will give a
damn?
Copyright © 2008 Village Voice LLC
Click on "comments" below to read or post comments
Comment Guidelines
Be succinct, constructive and
relevant to the story.
We encourage engaging, diverse
and meaningful commentary. Do not include
personal information such as names, addresses,
phone numbers and emails. Comments falling
outside our guidelines – those including
personal attacks and profanity – are not
permitted.
See our complete
Comment Policy
and
use this link to notify us if you have concerns
about a comment.
We’ll promptly review and remove any
inappropriate postings.
Send Page To a Friend
In accordance
with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material
is distributed without profit to those who have
expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational
purposes. Information Clearing House has no
affiliation whatsoever with the originator of
this article nor is Information ClearingHouse
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
|
