US News
US waterboarded three senior al-Qaeda operatives
Feb 5, 2008, 20:02 GMT
Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell (C) talks with Director of the CIA General Michael Hayden (R), as Director of the FBI Robert Mueller (L) takes his seat, prior to testifying before the Senate Select Intelligence Committee\'s hearing on the \'Annual Threat Assessment\' on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., USA, 05 February 2008. EPA/SHAWN THEW
Washington - The director of the CIA said Tuesday the agency used waterboarding to interrogate three high level al-Qaeda detainees, including the suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
Michael Hayden told the Senate intelligence panel that waterboarding was used to glean information from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri at a 'critical time' because of worries more attacks were planned against the United States.
'We used it against these three high-value detainees because of the circumstances of the time,' Hayden said. 'Very critical to those circumstances was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were imminent.'
Hayden's comments marked the first time a US official has identified detainees who were subjected to the technique that simulates drowning. He said the three men were the only ones who were waterboarded, and that the CIA has not used the practice in five years.
'Waterboarding has been used on only three detainees,' Hayden said. 'It was used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. It was used on Abu Zubaydah. And it was used on Nashiri.'
Mohammed was captured in Pakistan in March 2003 and held in a secret CIA prison for years before being transferred last year to the US detention facility at Guantanamo, Bay, Cuba where he faces a military trial.
According to the Pentagon, Mohammed admitted to his role in planning the September 11 attacks and in the brutal 2002 slaying of Wall Street Journal reporter and US citizen Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.
Zubaydah was one of Osama bin Laden's closest deputies until his capture in Pakistan in 2002. He was also secretly held before being transferred to Guantanamo. Al-Nashiri, a senior level al-Qaeda operations planner captured in the United Arab Emirates in 2002, is also being held at Guantanamo.
The Bush administration refuses to say whether waterboarding is a violation of US torture laws. President George W Bush has insisted the United States does not torture but has acknowledged the use of tough interrogation techniques in the war on terrorism.
The top US law enforcement official, Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey, told the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that because the CIA was not currently using the practice, there was no need for him to specify whether it was legal.
'Given that waterboarding is not part of the current programme and may never be added to the current programme, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to pass definitive judgment on the technique's legality,' Mukasey said.
Mukasey said there are some circumstances under US law that would 'clearly' ban the use of waterboarding during interrogations, but in other cases it would 'present a far closer question.'
'If this were an easy question, I would not be reluctant to offer my views on this subject,' Mukasey said.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in US
- 1. Mitt Romney Addresses Tea Party Summit Pictures
- 2. Seven injured as US Navy plane crashes into apartments
- 3. At least three injured in US Navy plane crash
- 4. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, others to face death penalty trial
- 5. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, four others to face death penalty trial
Older Talkback
page: 1
Better than having your head chopped off. They don't seem to protest that
If it saved one innocent life, it was well worth it.
the people who don't want any one to be water boarded, live in a dream world.they don't seem to understand that we are at war with real nut cases who would cut off their heads without even thinking about it.
Let me at them and they will beg for water boarding as a break.
All the above posters forget a few thingds ;First of all people being tortured will confess anything,even false stuff,whatever you ask from them they will comply.So what is the result in terms of efficiency?
Second point is that you lose moral superiority ,when you use methods you claim to combat in others ,there is no more difference between you and them .
Third point is that untill a just trial is carried out,these people are suspects,and should be treated as such,whatever their crimes might be .
I see too much posts based on primitive hate and lack of thinking and it makes me wonder sometimes ,is there any diefference between the thinking patters of these supporters of torture and the islamic taliban.Scary thought for which they are responsible,not me .I just hope other people have more sense.
'First of all people being tortured will confess anything'
You are an expert tonny? Sure the information should be confirmed, but you can be pretty sure that there are times when people do really 'break' and confess. If a hardened terrorist is not willing to cooperate, I think it is reasonable to try to coerce him to do so. It should be documented and reported and the people who do it should be accountable. It is not something anyone should be proud of. It should not be done for shallow propaganda or sadistic reasons. It is unfortunate that terrorists create circumstances where coercive interrogation is required at all.
'Second point is that you lose moral superiority, when you use methods you claim to combat in others ,there is no more difference between you and them.'
Why do these obtuse arguments circulate and get traction?!? If I kill a terrorist who murders innocent people, that does not make me a terrorist or his equivalent. That is just stupid. If I use coercive methods (sleep deprivation - even waterboarding) to interrogate a terrorist, it is not the same as a terrorist drilling holes in the knees of captured innocents in order to inflict pain (or slicing off their heads for that matter).
If tonny and others cannot comprehend the difference, then they are immune to reason.
'Third point is that untill a just trial is carried out,these people are suspects,and should be treated as such,whatever their crimes might be'
Says who? Under what legal jurisdiction do you make that broad claim? A 'just trial' in a time of war might be a soldier's millisecond decision to pull the trigger. That might be perfectly legal by any normal standard. Perhaps it is an officer deciding that the captured 'suspect' is not in a formal uniform of a combatant and therefore subject to immediate execution as a spy? Maybe they should be interrogated and then shot?
A terrorist is not a civilian. A terrorist is not a prisoner of war.
From Geneva Conventions:
4.1.2 Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, provided that they fulfill all of the following conditions:
-that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance (there are limited exceptions to this among countries who observe the 1977 Protocol I);
-that of carrying arms openly;
-that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
A terrorist should think very hard before they create situations of mortal danger for innocent people who must be protected by what we already know are imperfect means. The police, the legal system, the military - all very blunt instruments. That will never change. what is the latin for 'terrorist beware'? People who support terrorists should be aware of same. Their support creates situations where necessarily blunt force must be applied and where innocents may suffer unintentionally.
I agree that these processes should be closely monitored and certain criteria should be established and challenged/maintained so that extreme interrogations are not abused.
'primitive hate and lack of thinking'
It is the primitive hate and lack of thinking by terrorists that create these unfortunate situations.
'is there any diefference between the thinking patters of these supporters of torture and the islamic taliban.'
As I mentioned before, just because you cannot comprehend the difference, does not mean there isn't one.
page: 1
CharlesFeb 5th, 2008 - 20:18:11
Think of all the deluded hyperbole that has been associated with this issue...
Evil Cheney or Rove salivating as they strip the skin from helpless screaming victims (most likely children)...
While you were reading this AQ really did murder someone in horrific fashion.
What has caused supposedly sane people to engage in this 'transference' whereby the evils of AQ are superimposed on the US and its leaders?
I just have to shake my head.
Report this comment