Ed Schultz think's it's to make the Democrats look "weak on terra"

Frist! and yeah, "although we did it and it produced good info, no one else should do it" Huh?

jr @ 1:

Ed Schultz think's it's to make the Democrats look "weak on terra"

and the

republicans

strong on torture

heh...

how will americans

like to be treated if

they are captured

heh...

I saw this guy interviewed on the Today Show and I completely agree that something smells really fishy about him coming out to say, almost unsuredly, that he now feels waterboarding is torture, but at the time it was necessary to prevent another attack on American soil. Hmmmmm. Not much of a mea culpa.

This why you have transparency in govt and not allow those that are emotionally angry make decision of how to conduct illegal procedures. This event is so far remove of what our govt was base on. In short, we have mob rule in the White House.

Who believes they have only waterboarded TWO people? C'mon. Is the new defense going to be "I was angry", that's why I waterboarded?? Man, these Bushies are beyond belief. There *is* something odd about this guy...anyway, what he says doesn't change the fact that Obstruction Of Justice charges need to be brought againts those who destroyed evidence.

"It may be that Kiriakou is merely a plant to help the CIA’s battered reputation, "

Which on is the plant the ex CIA agent or Brian Ross or both?

Have we confused the truth enough for today? Just try and sort through this mess.

None of that changes the fact that war crimes have been committed. War Crimes. By the United States of America.

Think about it, won't you?

The guy looks like a patsy. And not the sublime Miss Cline.

It's hard to be reasonable with them, because of our anger of them of not being reasonable to us, so we decide to save lives by destroying another. That it seem reasonable at the time.

have I miss anything? is that what the plant wanted to sprout?

Everyone who watched this video is now hypnotized.

So now that he's come forward to admit it, why doesn't Pat Leahy subpoena him and ask him all hte details? And he (Kiriakou) can't refuse to give information, since he's already given us information that was "classified."

Of course, he could always lie and say that nothing else of this nature happened, no one else was involved, etc. A few months in jail, a pardon, and a lucrative new job as a lobbyist.

Why did I even bother?

Beau Jangles @ 18:

Laying the foundation for all talking points on this matter. Sounded rehearsed.

Very much so.

TOTAL PLANT!!!

as soon as he said, "and as 9/11 has moved farther and farther back, I have changed my mind (about waterboarding)."

First off, NOBODY thinks like that, here is a person who has been waterboarded and has been in the room during interrogations. first hand knowledge and he is able to rationalize his decisision to be against waterboarding because the shock of 9/11 is wearing off???

that plays exactly into the dog-tired propaganda line of the right media outlets, inciting domestic complicity to crimes by invoking 9/11. It also fits the attack against those who are opposed to these crimes by saying they want another 9/11 or don't care about 9/11.

this guy is a soundbite machine for the far right propagandists.

I wonder how much they are paying this guy.

Funny how they wont spend some exclusive time with the 99% of agents that are against waterboarding.

A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down. This guy appears to be the spoon full of sugar, to me.

I seen him on CNN this morning. He's also been on TODAY and ABC also? The guy is making the rounds that's for sure. I agree that something isn't quite kosher about this. Sounds like collective ass-covering at the least. If that's what it is, collective ass-covering...why? Since when does the CIA, or anyone in the organization feel the need for such a thing? After all, they're the cloak-and-dagger dudes. Maybe there is a super-sized load of shit getting ready to hit the fan and a whole lotta people are going to get spayed. I hope Cheney and Bush are the first ones to get it and get it GOOD. Did Hayden ever retire from the military like he said he would do? Isn't it against the law for military to be heading up the CIA?

Ah, I love Republicans! It is a good idea to torture someone if it will save lives! It is a good idea to experiment with stem-cells if it will save lives... er, um wait!! That's different. But the President can declare war (killing hundreds of thousands of people- combatants and non) and should not be second guessed... just like women can decide to have an abortion (ending a life?) and not be second guessed... oh crap.

Their priorities are all messed up. We should not torture, period. Do "good guys" torture? No. It is time we progressives start calling it like it is. There is nothing valiant or brave about torture or pre-emptive war. True bravery is the decision to face violence with peace.

Security dude Bruce Schneier on the topic:

"those tapes must have been really damning. Old interrogation tapes can yield valuable intelligence; you don't ever erase them unless you absolutely have to."

(This was as an aside to a different story about recorded interrogation, which itself is well worth the read.)

There are no "former" CIA agents...and that includes Valerie Plame.

We saved lives, but we did torture. This is the trial balloon for the plea that will given by those who are thrown to the wolves and brought to trial.

It's the President's excuse too.

"Yeaa...ahhh...I tortured. I'm the decider guy...and I thought it more important to save lives than to adhere to laws written in the past...yada yada yada...commander guy...yada yada...9/11...yada yada...Osama....yada yada yada...

The first thing to understand is the outing of pelosi/rockefeller et al and this guy stepping forward are of a piece. This guy would not be talking w/o whitehouse orders. The object is clear, hang the use of torture around the dems as well as the admin and dare the dems to do anything about it. Then, of course to give everybody the excuse, "that was then, when torture was necessary to save lives, and now is now, when we have everything under control." So, the whitehouse challenges the dems, and we know they will fold, while assuring the public that a little torture can go a long way and you sleep safely because we have the guts to do what liberals are to squeamish to approve but to cowardly to stop.

I think the CIA in general, and this guy in particular, see he writing on the wall reagrding their interrogation techniques. If your defense is that you were "just following orders," it's never too early to make your case.

This guy was on CNN this morning doing the same shtick and I couldn't help but ask the exact same WTF question. The whole interview felt heavily controlled including one moment where John Roberts made an odd (and unasked for) clarification to a clear question on whether or not torture has ever lead to the capture of other terrorists, to help bring about a predictable and scripted response. In fact, every response coming from this guys felt heavily produced, extremely rehearsed and scripted by top PR professionals (and possible lawyers).

Everything this guy said was flat out "There is no doubt in my mind that torture works and that waterboarding is perfectly safe and effective." I mean, the dude directly contradicted what we KNOW about waterboarding when he said (on CNN) that you just "tense up" and fele uncomfortable...you don't actually get water in your lungs. And his "proof" of this? He supposedly had to undergo waterboarding when he was a recruit. Yet he OPENLY STATED that he only lasted 5 seconds. 5 seconds? He's an expert on the dangers of waterboarding because of a 5 second experience? He then stated that one terrorist example was absolutely NOT talking and NOTHING else worked no matter what they tried...but it only took 35 seconds of waterboarding to get the guy to talk? WHAT? Nothing worked but making him feel "tense" and "uncomfortable" supposedly only took 35 seconds to break him? Hell, I can hold my breath for over a minute...and I'm expected to believe a non-dangerous interrogation technique involving water will work after only a few seconds? Not only that, but he really made a point of emphasizing the fact that nothing worked on this evil guy except waterboarding and after that the guy gave up all his accomplices and all his plans? That stinks like a lie if i've ever heard one.

Finally, what really took the cake was how this guy is going around as an expert on waterboarding and how effectively it works...yet he openly states he didn't get to witness or take part in the interrogations. So if he doesn't take part, then wtf is he talking about and why is someone who's only experience is 5 seconds of waterboarding being presented as an expert?

I agree. This guy reaks of a PR stunt. It only furthers my suspicions that after 2 interviews now on major news, where he basically praises and defends waterboarding the whole time, then throws in a one sentence disclaimer at the end of the interview? "Yeah, waterboarding is easy and effective and doesn't hurt anyone and always leads to the capture and prevention of future terrorist attacks...but we shouldn't do it...starting now." Are you kidding me? A whole interview praising waterboarding? A whole interview saying it works and has done good and is perfectly safe and then a throwaway line that it shouldn't continue? That makes absolutely NO SENSE.

The only logical way to wrap my mind around this guy and his "interviews" is that these interviews are PR spots intended to actually get audience/viewer SUPPORT for waterboarding, and therefore support for Bush. I can't see it any other way. Otherwise, why is every interview DOMINATED by stories from this questionable "expert" on how awesome waterboarding is? It makes no logical sense unless put into a pro-Bush context and a context of SUPPORT for waterboarding. Add that to the heavily scripted and rehearsed nature of the questions being asked AND the responses he gives (clear and concise but absolutely certain of the awesomeness of waterboarding) and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a high priced PR campaign.

The only question is who is this guys REALLY and who is paying for this campaign?

here's a helpful hint when trying to figure out what a gov't official says:

DON'T BELIEVE A GODDAMN WORD.

The CIA will need to be depoliticized by the next administration.

If balding men have plugs inplanted in their scalps what does that make earplugs?

Rozen reports that sources say Teh Agency is p*ssed.

waldo @ 51:

The CIA will need to be depoliticized by the next administration.

I doubt that will happen.

anon @ 58:

He is handsome.
He is well spoken.
He is thoughtful.
He is in some way sweet.

Look into the face of a monster.

He objected to waterboarding in part on the grounds that mistakes could be made.

I expect Charlie Manson to willfully inflict pain and misery - he is a monster. I expect those of use who are not monsters to reject the willful infliction of pain and misery on grounds of decency.

This fellow is the archetype of the 21st century american. He is a monster.

Remember Ollie "he's telegenic" North...and the wild haired airhead Fawn Hall.

North was a monster...still is. Hall was just another empty headed GOP bimbette.

The President is required to protect the constitution over the protection of the American people, therefore allowing torture to take place under the guise of saving lives is illegal. The President is criminally negligent in carrying out his duties as President and should be removed immediately based on the 25th Amendment in which Congress can declare by law that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. It's really quite simple except for that guy named Cheney.

59 Liberal AND Proud

I remember arguing in a film class that Christopher Lee's casting as Dracula in the 1950's was not Cold War thematically, but World War II era Nazi supermen as the new face of evil. David Peel made it moreso in the sequel the Brides of Dracula.

I also argued that the science fiction horror of the same era in America, where we were all looking to the skies, was probably equal parts fear of the bomb as fear of another Pearl Harbor.

I don't even have to watch ... his face shows he is LYING!

Freaking bastards!

The 1st thing that surprised me was the anecdote about his former colleague who asked Zabaydah what he would do if he could leave, and after saying he'd kill who you would expect him to kill, Zabaybah adds that "It's nothing personal" ????? I would think that his desire would be stronger than before his torture. That gives me pause. Hmm, he only lasted 5 seconds. As for the next point, he dismisses the tack of "building a rapport". There's a Sting lyric that goes "men go mad (or crazy, I forget) in congregations, they only get better one by one". His changed opinion as the memory (or more likely, shock) of 9/11 receded into memory floats the defense "I was scared, panicked and not thinking clearly. A dodge, disseminated to the masses allowing them to forgive themselves from the violations perpetuated in our names. Now it's ok to debate this (thanks for the permission fella). Torture was not up for being debated before this administration actually used it. Now it is a subject for debate. Torture as a national debate! What is that chipping sound I hear, ah, that's the sounds of rights and principles being eroded away. He thought the cameras weren't for additional review as well as a video transcript. That is BEYOND naive. Where does this sudden idea that the interrogators weren't trusted? If that was true, what was the morale like? I think that whole portion is a poor attempt to, again, float a defense of the violations through a seemingly nice likable guy. I'll be curious to see if any of my thoughts will be reflected in the MSM. I have noticed that the administration has used this tactic of "trial balloon" every time they want to plant a seed of mis information and then use there echo chamber to bring it into mainstream discussion. God give us strength to see where deception resides.

Peace (to all)

John B

It doesn't matter if they were able to obtain information from torture. It is possible to obtain information from someone using means other than torture. Torture is illegal. Police acquire information without torture across the country every day.

It's possible to become rich from robbing a bank, it doesn't mean robbing banks is allowed in certain circumstances. I hope this torture question goes to court someday. I hope the people responsible for it spend time in prison; for the sake of human dignity.

another good german!

Worst. Kabuki. Evaah!

This guy's stance, not unlike most of those taken by/under the BushCo administration begs the question: What is our ultimate responsibility in service to the United States? Unfortunately, most often their answer seems to be protecting American lives. More unfortunately, the true answer should be protecting the United States constitution and the values for which it stands (As stated directly in the oath of office that many of them have taken). The latter may at times provide conflict with the former, but serving the former alone has proven time and again to undermine the values on which the sustained function of the U.S. rest. I don't want a promise of personal safety at the cost of democratic values.

I'm having some trouble with a few details this former CIA agent has disclosed. This note outlines a line of questions, and some discussion to expand on the concerns. This is intended for Members of Congress and their staff to consider when discussing with this former CIA agent in closed session. This is not intended to be accurate, merely raise some questions for discussion purposes only.

(Briefly) What We've Been Told

1. The former CIA agent was not present during the waterboarding, but was part of a team and got the details of what was said second-hand, not from first-hand/personal observation.

2. The prisoner is alleged to have disclosed information.

3. The former CIA agent alleges there is a link between [a] the information gleaned through waterboarding; and [b] the interruption of an ongoing plan to commit terrorism; yet there is no mention of how it was shown (c) how the information gleaned was (d) directly related to the event, but (e) not available from any other source.

Problems

There are several problems with the disclosures.

A. Hearsay

The former CIA agent asserts he was not present when the waterboarding took place, but relied on information from others. From a legal perspective, this doesn't mean the information is false, it means it is not admissible unless there is evidence to support the validity of the reported observed-events. For example, if I were to tell you that "yesterday, the light was red", and you believed that and reported it, you are reporting not what happened, but what I said happened. Your report of, "They said the light was red yesterday," isn't an assertion on your part that the light was red; or that anyone reported/observed the light yesterday, only that the report was about the color of the light and the day.

In the case of the waterboarding, we have yet to hear anything from the other team members, or the details of the information. Specifically we do not know the following:

- What information was only available through this interrogation?
- What information -- before the interrogation occurred -- did the interrogators review?
- What information -- after the interrogation occurred -- did the interrogators review?
- What information -- only available through this interrogation -- did not watch the real events?

Subsequent to this interrogation, we're told that "this information" resulted in a number of "interruptions":
- Was the information related to the "interruption" only available through the interrogation?
- Is it possible that the interruption was possible because of other information, gathered outside this interrogation?

Let's focus on the supposedly interrupted event itself:
- How far along was the planning?
- Was the "interrupted event" merely in the "speculative phase" or were there actual physical objects/evidence captured that had been positioned and were about to be used?

The key is to recall that an "interrupted event" -- however it is described -- can be anything from an "idea" of something in one person's mind; to a massive plot to do something, well advanced, and the evidence is available. Members of Congress and their staff are encouraged to ask:
- If these "other plots" were interrupted, where is the physical evidence: Physical evidence in terms of receipts for items purchased, photographs of the material to be used, and a trace of funds through ledgers or book-updates showing that funds were being used.

- Were there specific locations which were not known before which had specific equipment which were not known before this interrogation?
- Was there no other method to determine -- before this interrogation -- that these physical objects were ready, getting organized, or were being readied?

B. CIA Team Approach

Valarie Plame in her book openly discusses the CIA "team" approach. An agent does not necessarily act alone as we've been thought might occur in the James Bond world. CIA "teams' are not necessarily where you think they are. Some of the "other team members" are not located in-country; but they might be.

In this case, the former CIA agent does not mention where he was; or where the other members of "his team" were: They could be in-country; they might be at other interrogation sites to include GTMO, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Eastern Europe, and Afghanistan. We don't know how the CIA "teaming" concept on the interrogations was organized geographically, functionally, or by what objective.

- Where was the team?
- Were all the team members in the same interrogation center?
- How many team members were at the CIA contractors outside DC in the McClean, VA area?
- Is it possible that -- when these interrogations occurred before 2005 -- that OVP was putting pressure on any agent to "find" specific results; or that there was any pressure on any CIA contractors to "justify" the budgets for that particular operation, team, or activity?
- Did the team communicate in person, courier, or some other method to exchange information; where are these transmission records; and what discussion was there about the details of these notes/communications?
- When did this former CIA agent meet with "the team" to review the details provided?

C. Timelines

Timelines of prisoner capture, interrogation, and subsequent interruption.

One thing that is not yet clear is the time between (a) prisoner capture; (b) first interrogation; (c) this interrogation including waterboarding; (d) the time the team shared the information; and (e) the time the "interrupted event" was interrupted; and (f) the time that other information was used to determine the information from the waterboarding was actionable, and linked with something real on the ground/physical space.

- Is there any chance that the data used to determine the information gleaned from the waterboarding was not available from any other source?
- What methods were used to test the data?
- What other sources/methods/resources were used -- before declaring the other event "interrupted" -- to verify the information gleaned from waterboarding; and show that the information gleaned was reliable, and linked with something that was real?

D. Data Testing

No discussion on methods to test information disclosed; nor validate the information was not available from another source before the interrogation or the asserted-interruption of the terrorist activity.

E. Presidential Notification

We also don't know how the data provided to the CIA was incorporated into any PDBs; or how this was used as background information provided to the media. Think broadly about what we know about Plame, Iraq, and the Iran NIE: Initial assumptions-assertions proved invalid, but the origianl plans continued.

- What timelines were the case officers associated with the Directorate of Operations using to review the results?
- Once the logistics division in Eastern Europe (CIA logistics center based in Germany) was involved to provide resources to the detention centers in Eastern Europe, how were various timelines, options, and other logistics-related issues modified based on this "new" information?
- Were the plans in place modified; or were they established because of other sources of information which set the "interruption" effort into effect?

What we're getting at is this: If, as we are led to believe, that only this waterboarding yielded new information about an event, we should be able to go to the DO and Admin areas in teh CIA to determine whether there were or were not reasonable/related changes in plans. However, if the plans -- before the interrogation started -- had been adjusted to interrupt the ongoing effort, then we have to consider the other option: Someone already knew within CIA of some other effort; and despite this waterboarding, there was a plan in place -- known prior to the waterboarding -- of an upcoming event. This means, contrary to the assertions of this former CIA agent, there was not "new" information; but this waterboarding merely confirmed what the CIA was assuming: There was something going on.

What we don't know is the novelty of this information; or how "other teams" -- which this CIA agent would not know about -- were already acting on with DoD or DoJ or other intelligence services to thwart "other things". Again, consider the NIE-Intelligence Community model: It is a consensus document; but it is not something that is immediately known: it takes time. Since 2003 until now in 2007 people have not been on the same page on Iran. The same goes with this "interrupted effort"-claim: Given the imperfect knowledge of the NIE, it's not reasonable to assume that this former CIA agent knew all other efforts underway; nor did he necessarily have complete knowledge on NSA-captured information which may have been previously captured before the waterboarding occurred.

The point is: We don't know -- and neither does this CIA agent know -- what other lines of evidence existed before the waterboarding which had set into motion this supposed effort to thwart these other efforts. Information is compartmentalized: NSA, CIA, and DoJ do not freely share all information with themselves or with DoD; nor are the contractor databases adequately integrated to provide timely cross flow of information. Again, consider the delay in updating the Iran NIE since 2003: Four years lag time to get accurate assessments, meanwhile targeting in DoD has been going on based on a non-nuclear program.

At this juncture, it is a dubious proposition to believe (a) this waterboarding directly thwarted a plot that only information from this waterboarding could interrupt. There would have to be other lines of evidence both in the preliminary stages of planning that would be caputred outside waterboarding; and infromation used to ensure the infromation gleaned from waterboarding was accurate/actionable.

Overall, I appreciate that the former CIA agent has provided his testimony. However, there are other issues which need to be addressed -- outside the criminal investigation into alleged obstruction of justice or prisoner abuse -- to determine whether the supposed information has as much importance to a specific future event as this CIA agent claims. It may be; but given the NSA-FISA violations, rendition effort, and other non-CIA agents involved, there could be another reason why these options were "thwarted": They were not real, merely asserted to be occurring, but there isn't real evidence that they were occurring. Recall the President's claimed "2002 Los Angeles"-event: Supposedly there were airliners going to do things in Los Angeles. But upon further examination, the details proved to be dubious.

We recommend caution. Take your time in examining the timelines and questions above. The key will be to get a complete picture of the intelligence known prior to the waterboarding; and getting a sense of the events that were underway, not merely in the "mind-planning" stages. Look for the physical evidence, and ask, "If this was in the planning stages, why not let the planners take the events further, rather than interrupting them? Surely if they were this far along, and under surveillance, there would be a benefit to not interrupting anything, let the physical evidence get captured, and then show the security council and American public that evidence. But we have the opposite: The tape has been destroyed.

We have to question:
- Why would the CIA destroy a tape that would answer the above questions;
- If the tape was destroyed, is there really a way to answer the above questions;
- If there is a case to be made for generational warfare against terrorism, why not keep the tape to show the evidence which helped win the war?

The most reasonable answer: We don't have enough information to say that this waterboarding did have a link with a specific event or interruption. It