EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Corporate Win: Supreme Court Says Monsanto Has 'Control Over Product of Life'
- Cornel West: Obama 'Is a War Criminal'
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
How ’07 ABC Interview Tilted a Torture Debate
In late 2007, there was the first crack of daylight into the government's use of waterboarding during interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees. On Dec. 10, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who had participated in the capture of the suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002, appeared on ABC News to say that while he considered waterboarding a form of torture, the technique worked and yielded results very quickly.
Mr. Zubaydah started to cooperate after being waterboarded for "probably 30, 35 seconds," Mr. Kiriakou told the ABC reporter Brian Ross. "From that day on he answered every question."
His claims - unverified at the time, but repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs and newspapers - have been sharply contradicted by a newly declassified Justice Department memo that said waterboarding had been used on Mr. Zubaydah "at least 83 times."
Some critics say that the now-discredited information shared by Mr. Kiriakou and other sources heightened the public perception of waterboarding as an effective interrogation technique. "I think it was sanitized by the way it was described" in press accounts, said John Sifton, a former lawyer for Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group.
During the heated debate in 2007 over the use of waterboarding and other techniques, Mr. Kiriakou's comments quickly ricocheted around the media. But lost in much of the coverage was the fact that Mr. Kiriakou had no firsthand knowledge of the waterboarding: He was not actually in the secret prison in Thailand where Mr. Zubaydah had been interrogated but in the C.I.A. headquarters in Northern Virginia. He learned about it only by reading accounts from the field.
On "World News," ABC included only a caveat that Mr. Kiriakou himself "never carried out any of the waterboarding." Still, he told ABC that the actions had "disrupted a number of attacks, maybe dozens of attacks." A video of the interview was no longer on ABC's website.
"It works, is the bottom line," Rush Limbaugh exclaimed on his radio show the next day. "Thirty to 35 seconds, and it works."
Mr. Kiriakou subsequently granted interviews to The Washington Post, The New York Times, National Public Radio, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and other media organizations. A CNN anchor called him "the man of the hour."
Eight months after the interview, Mr. Kiriakou was hired as a paid consultant for ABC News. He resigned last month and now works for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
His ABC interview came at an especially delicate juncture in the debate over the use of torture. Weeks earlier, the nomination of Michael Mukasey as attorney general was nearly derailed by his refusal to comment on the legality of waterboarding, and one day later, the C.I.A. director testified about the destruction of interrogation videotapes. Mr. Kiriakou told MSNBC that he was willing to talk in part because he thought the C.I.A. had "gotten a bum rap on waterboarding."
At the time, Mr. Kiriakou appeared to lend credibility to the prior press reports that quoted anonymous former government employees who had implied that waterboarding was used sparingly. In late 2007, Mr. Ross began pursuing Mr. Kiriakou for an interview, "leaning on him pretty hard," he recounted.
On Dec. 10, in the subsequent interview, Mr. Kiriakou told Mr. Ross that he believed the waterboarding was necessary in the months after the 9/11 attacks. "At the time I was so angry," he told Mr. Ross. "I wanted so much to help disrupt future attacks on the United States that I felt it was the only thing we could do."
Mr. Kiriakou was the only on-the-record source cited by ABC. In the televised portion of the interview, Mr. Ross did not ask Mr. Kiriakou specifically about what kind of reports he was privy to or how long he had access to the information. "It didn't even occur to me that they'd keep doing" the waterboarding, Mr. Ross said last week. "It doesn't make any sense to me."
He added, "I didn't give enough credit to the fiendishness of the C.I.A."
Mr. Kiriakou refused an interview request last week. In a statement to ABC, he said he was aware only of Mr. Zubaydah's being waterboarded "on one occasion."
The C.I.A., which considered legal action against Mr. Kiriakou for divulging classified information, said last week that he "was not - and is not - authorized to speak on behalf of the CIA."
Paul Gimigliano, a C.I.A. spokesman, said: "This agency did not publicly disclose the frequency with which the waterboard was used, noting only that it was employed with three detainees. If reporters got that wrong, they weren't misled from here."
In the days after Mr. Kiriakou's media blitz, his claims were repeated by an array of other outlets. For instance, the Fox News anchor Chris Wallace cited the 35 seconds claim to ask a congressman whether the interrogation program was "really so bad."
Months later the claims continued to be amplified; the National Review editor Jonah Goldberg used Mr. Kiriakou's assertions in a column last year to argue that the waterboarding was "right and certainly defensible."
Mark Danner, a journalist who has written extensively about the covert program for The New York Review of Books, said the news reports had fed the idea that brutal interrogations could instantly glean information about terrorist plans.
"There was a completely mistaken impression put about that this technique was not cruel because it could break detainees so quickly," he said.
(An article in The New York Times on Dec. 13, 2007 described his comments to ABC and added a quotation from Mr. Kiriakou: "I think the second-guessing of 2002 decisions is unfair. What I think is fair is having a national debate over whether we should be waterboarding.")
When Mr. Kiriakou was later hired by ABC to provide commentary on terrorism cases, Mr. Ross said that network officials had been concerned about the appearance of a tie between the interview and the job. For that reason, "I felt that we should sort of wait," he said. "I didn't want anyone to think that he was promised something for the interview. He was not."
Mr. Ross, who received a George Polk Award for a series on interrogation, expressed no regret about the Kiriakou interview and praised him for speaking publicly. He said ABC was preparing a story that would address the previous reporting.
"Kiriakou stepped up and helped shine some light on what has happening," Mr. Ross said. "It wasn't the huge spotlight that was needed, but it was some light."
As talk continues about possible prosecutions of people involved in the interrogations, waterboarding is once again a hot topic. Last week, Sean Hannity, a conservative Fox News host, said he would agree to be waterboarded (for charity) when a guest proposed that he experience it.
But the recent Justice Department memo has led some commentators to revisit their earlier impressions about the technique.
"I've always been on the fence about whether waterboarding constituted torture," Mr. Goldberg of the National Review wrote last week, but if the figures are true, "then I think the threshold has been met."
He added: "Debating whether it was worth it still seems open to debate, depending on the facts."
Scott Shane contributed reporting from Washington.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

24 Comments so far
Show AllHey ABC how about a retraction of your story?
Torture:The rest of the world? No!The US of A?Of course!Tony
Keith Olberman offered to pay Hannity $1000 per second for being waterboarding and showing it is just a little game, Apparently Hannity does not think he could do even one second for charity as the brave big talker is backing out.
The fact that 'extraordinary rendition' to 'secret sites' in other countries than the USA is a simple statement that no one thought that the many activities that so many were committing, whether under orders, or by direction of 'legal council' or any other reason---------were legal and just.
The fact that the military admits to training US Military personnel to lie when tortured---especially if they all tell the same lies----is an admission that the information coming from these techniques is unreliable.
The fact that so many people---all of them calling themselves "patriots" and "good americans"----would perform acts against other human beings that they would not allow to be performed on themselves---is another admission that the people who participated, from the "order givers"---to the "order followers"----knew that they were doing wrong---and did it any way.
It simply is just one more affirmation that America is a rogue nation, and not only a danger to others but to themselves as well---the sooner they crumble into the dismal failure that they reveal themselves----with each day that passes---the better the rest of the world will be.
Good Luck America, you really need it.
Typical media misinformation campaign. Repeat the lies so often that they turn into the truth for people inclined to believe them. This is why there HAS to be an investigation to bring it all out in the open. Obama is losing the little credibility he had.
Is Brian Ross a dupe or a collaborator? He's probably the most experienced investigative journalist on television, yet he claims he was too credulous about this highly dubious claim? Hinky! He must have known better.
Remember too, Brian Ross was the one who broke the "exclusive" report in 2001 that the anthrax mailed to Senators and journalists had been traced to Iraq . . . thereby helping the Bush gang make their case for invasion. When investigators learned the anthrax had come from an Army lab in the U.S., Ross declined to correct his report.
Something smells!
Goebbelian logic all over again, "Repeat the _big lie_ over and over."
Soon this lie becomes social truth, or is it more accurate to use the phrase "cultural myth?"
Nativeson has exposed the sheer hypocrisy behind the "extraordinary rendition" scheme. Everyone involved knew it was _absolutely wrong_ and wished to delude themselves that by exporting prisoners and "outsourcing" pain-infliction that they could "wash their hands" and absolve their guilt and personal accountability.
Methinks I hear echoes of the Nuremberg defense already.
p.s. I don't have Olbermann's thick wallet but I will donate one dollar to CD for every second Hannity sustains waterboarding. And Chris Hitchens has _some_ cojones...ca.
Why not bring back the rack or taking out a persons' finger nails or burning at the stake or any of the other wonders from our forefathers the English? To say they didn't know it was turture is pure b.s. It has been known for many years that waterboarding was illegal. I heard in Viet Nam the ops guys woulkd tie a persoin up, shove a rad down their throat and pour water on it until their belly swelled and they talked. Trouble was some died first. Wonders of America.
Let's make waterboarding part of the job interview for CIA employment since it is such a benign technique and so quick and effective in eliciting truthful answers to questions.
well, you can accomplish just as much, maybe more, by other means. for example, i have personally disrupted, prevented and caused not to happen 127 separate terrorist attacks on the u.s. mainland since 9/11. needless to say the nature of these failed attacks, and of course their intended targets, are classified so don't ask me for details. were i to disclose such information, or betray my methods, it would be a threat to national security. so trust me. the point is, i did all this work without torturing anyone. i didn't even twist anybody's arm. it was easy.
Can't trust the CIA, ever!
Come to think of it... can't trust any of these guys either!
"Mr. Kiriakou subsequently granted interviews to The Washington Post, The New York Times, National Public Radio, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and other media organizations. A CNN anchor called him "the man of the hour.""
While on the surface this appears to be yet another reason to kill your television, newspapers and radio were also infected.
The owners of abc have a vested interest in war. WHY WOULD ANYONE BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY??
The owners of EVERY MAJOR network has a vested interest in war...They seem to all be cousins.
STOP MEDIA CONTROL!
The truth is that US media, dominated by zionists, has done a brilliant job of painting such a horrible picture of Muslims and Arabs that many Americans ejaculated when they heard that we were torturing "them".
A number of Muslim prisoners in our custody have complained of being forced to wrap themselves in Israeli flags...NOT American flags. Question: Why is the flag of a foreign entity part of what our soldiers pack to go to war?
I think that the entire world knows that torture can produce results, that however is not the point. IT IS ILLEGAL! I could get great results at the local bank were I to present a .357mag along with my request for funds. That is ILLEGAL. It does not matter what is produced it is internatiolly recognized that torture is ILLEGAL!!! TRY THEM AND THEN HANG THEM!!!!
tmbluesbflat
You have a child, your only child (maybe for medical reasons you and your wife cannot have any more, many couples face this problem), he/she is lets say 8 years old he/she goes to a public school. A group of terrorists invade the school kill a number of teachers and kidnap lets say 60 children. Not far fetched it happened in Beslan Russia Sept. 2004. Now these terrorists put the children in a truck and disappear (maybe into a warehouse) some place where it will take the police a long time to find them. They demand that the US surrender to the will of allah and that Iran appoint the new US leader, the US has 48 hours to comply or the children die. Later that day the police arrest a known member of this terrorist group and "nicely" question him. He says he is in on the plot but has no intention of talking. 24 hours later the police receive a box with the ears of all the children and a note repeating their demand. The police again question the captured terrorist and he says we wants to die for allah so he can get his 72 virgins to fornicate with for all eternity. Now the police "could" use enhanced interrogation methods (including warterboarding) to try and find out where the children are BUT as you said "IT IS ILLEGAL!." 24 hours later the terrorists demands are not met and the police receive a few boxes with the heads of all the children and a video of the beheadings.
Now this is quite plausible (unlike the atomic bomb in NY scenario, 172 children died in Beslan), now their demand is totally unreasonable (like the terrorists demands in Beslan) and can not be met. Now you have the head of your only child in your hands (the police still do not know where the bodies are). The police questioned this terrorist for 48 hours, made mild threats, "you could get the gas chamber if the children die", tried to bribe him, pleaded for the safe return of the children. He still refused to talk. Are you satisfied the police did all they could to bring your only child back to you alive? Or like most if not all the other 59 parents wonder why no one warterboarded him, after all 5 minutes of water boarding "could" have gotten the children's location. Dry him off and no one can prove what happened to him. But "IT IS ILLEGAL!"
I personally do not believe waterboarding is torture - it does not meet any dictionary definition of torture. 10 minutes after waterboarding he is dried off and walking around like nothing happened, it does not entail extreme pain and suffering. No I have never been warterboarded but I have come within a few seconds of drowning on several occasions, I still go swimming.
In the morning as you watch your child go off to school, think about this scenario, think if your child was actually kidnaped by men who really did not care if they died an certainly don't care if your child dies. Would you be satisfied with normal police interrogation methods that get no results (remember the terrorists wants to die for allah). Or would you realizing the impending death of your child demand the police do "more" up to and including "skin the Bast@rd alive if you have to", to bring my child home alive?
Not an easy answer, some like maybe you would let your child die, a difficult decision I know to let your only child die by being beheaded, scared sh@tless listening to the cries of pain from the other children until it's your child's turn to die because your moral convictions are so strong "that torture is ILLEGAL!!!". Others like myself say the constitution is not a suicide pact.
Then what exactly are we fighting for? That's an easy answer, so your children and their children's, children never have to live under a 7th century cult of violence, destruction and death.
Wolf, your scenario is believable. I'm sure many parents and many police would do what ever they could including waterboarding to get a captured terrorist to talk. They would use whatever they could, repeated tazering, plastic bag over the head, water, whatever. Would you also agree to torturing the suspected terrorist's kids in front of him if they could be located? It might seem a fair trade off if it worked. But what if it doesn't work because the suspect doesn't have the needed information?
The problem is that a variation on your scenario is more like our current situation. Suppose the police or a group of parents decide that the abduction required inside help. Suppose they start interrogating school staff, delivery people and neighbors. All deny having any knowledge of the abduction, but not everyone believes them, so do they start waterboarding selected candidates? Maybe some staff point fingers at other staff, especially muslim staff, and suggest people who might be complicit with the waterboarding.
End result, innocent people tortured to no avail because they really don't have any information.
Condoning torture makes it easy for our enemies to recruit more terrorists to fight. Everyone one has heard, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" so what example has the Bush administration set for treatment of US troops or citizens who might be captured? Torture is criminal and works against us. As a policy, torture is illegal and wrong.
Elmwood
You watch too many conspiracy movies. The scenarios was for 48 hours, The suspect is a known member of the group, has admitted to having knowledge of the crime and refuses to talk and wants to die for allah. If "a group of parents decide that the abduction required inside help", then normal police investigative procedures would be used to make that determination.
The object of the scenario was to show that the vast majority of the US population is against torture. BUT it is extremely easy to sit behind your keyboard and spout platitudes about how torture is illegal (even though more then 2/3s of the countries in the world have or are currently torturing people mostly political prisoners, moslem nations are the biggest offenders), yet when it comes down to the life of your child the vast majority of people will not hesitate switch their opinions.
"so what example has the Bush administration set for treatment of US troops or citizens who might be captured? Torture is criminal and works against us."
Moslem terrorists and governments (Iraq in gulf war 1 & 2) tortured captured soldiers and terrorists torture captured civilians. You think Nick Berg or Daniel Pearl did not feel excruciating pain when being slowly beheaded? Islam condones the torture of captives. Mohammed "the perfect man to be emulated at all times", on many occasions tortured his captives (many examples are in the hadiths) thus you argument if we torture them it will give them an excuse to torture us fallacious. They will do it anyway and to say otherwise shows a complete lack of knowledge about islam.
"As a policy, torture is illegal and wrong."
Quite true, but as I said before, the constitution is not a suicide pact.
STOP MEDIA CONTROL!
www.meetyourworld.com
nycdread maybe there were contractors with dual nationality. After all, those USA soldiers and the Israeli defence forces are blood brothers and sisters in arms eh? Congress loves anything Israeli, they get so excited ejaculation seems inevitable.
tmbluesbflat when illegal settlements are called 'disputed' do you think that illegal torture cannot be also called 'disputed' or not? You don't need a .375mag to get money from us when you are an Israeli looking for security. Their government lets recollect legalised torture in the past. I wonder who outdoes who when it comes to war crimes and torture? How depraved and sick can any democracy get that it flaunts the law with hideous criminal policies without conscience with bipartisan enthusiasm. Makes me sick to the stomach.
"At the time I was so angry," he told Mr. Ross. "I wanted so much to help disrupt future attacks on the United States that I felt it was the only thing we could do."
The shocking thing here is that this is being advanced as a defence. A complete loss of rational control leading to savage and barbaric behaviour is somehow justified by anger. It of course echoes the mood in the US immediately after the attacks, and is as frightening to hear now as it was then. It is also regarded as exculpatory now as it was then. Why do we privilege primal, inhumane emotion over rational, humane principle? This confrims that the principle damage done to the US by the September 11th attacks was done not by the terrorists but by those Americans who despise humane, civilised, rational behaviour and who idolise the angry, the violent, the vengeful. Unleashing these emotions, authorising the cult of violence (already rampant in the media, and still riding high there), destroyed American credibility and moral authority. And until this is acknowledged and rejected, not excused and romanticised, the harm will not be undone.
Focus is DIRECTED towards waterboarding everytime we discuss torture. I believe this to be an organized manipulation of the situation. Truth is, we did many more vulgar, depraved things to innocent people than waterboarding them. People got shitted on...literally. They got sexually assaulted.
All the violence simply does not sit well with my conscience. Therefore, I suggest we start talking about compensation for those who were violated and their families, in addition to setting them free, as we've already messed things up beyond the legitimacy of any court proceedings.
LET'S TALK ABOUT THE VICTIMS, AND HOW TO RESTORE THEIR FAITH IN HUMANITY, BY SERIOUSLY DEBATING THE BEST WAY TO COMPENSATE THEM FOR THE EVIL WE'VE DONE TO THEM.
STOP MEDIA CONTROL!!!