CIA Waterboard Video Eludes the Internet

Hi James.

I saw that today and ate my words for breakfast. :^)

But the Abu Ghraib photos are still a different kettle of fish from the interrogation tapes in terms of how they were handled and the susceptibility of thier leakage.

While the article does shed new light on the considerations that went into the decision to destroy the tapes, I still do not believe destruction of the tapes solely to avoid the potential embarassing ramifications of their potential leakage is defensible in light of their evidentiary value in criminal trials.

Ironically, tapes the CIA hoped to provide exculpatory evidence of wrongdoing in the handling of high value captives turned into potentially incriminating documents of harsh treatment as more questionable interrogation methods were approved. It seems the tapes could provide chronological signposts of where the Administration, and their agents, turned toward methods that had tenuous legal underpinnings.

 

Shimown,

The New York Times published an article today that offers more insight into the controversy surrounding the destroyed CIA interrogation tapes:

Here's a link to the entire article: Tapes by C.I.A. Lived and Died to Save Image

According to the article, the events that took place in the Abu Ghraib prison were relevant.

The article says: "The discussion about the tapes took place in Congressional briefings and secret deliberations among top White House lawyers, including a meeting in May 2004 just days after photographs of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq had reminded the administration of the power of such images."

James

Wow!  YouTube is the enemy, we must destroy all evidence of our own misdeeds or else it will be spilled on the Internet by Joe YouTube user.

With all due respect Mr. Winkler, you know better than that.  These tapes were surely classified TS-SCI or TS at a minimum.  Anyone within a hundred feet of them would likely be cleared through that level, and the physical security practices in place should be fairly sufficient to keep them off the Web.  Honestly, since you left the NSA, how many SCI-level docs have you seen on the Web?  Seriously? 

The issue with Abu-Ghraib is irrelevant here in terms of comparison.  The photos taken by prison military and civilian staff were captured with uncontrolled devices, and the products were apparently not effectively managed under any classification scheme, resulting in very incriminating documentation of serious misdeeds.  The ramifications of their revelation were horrible, but the recorded misdeeds were, nevertheless, worthy of examiniation.

I do agree, and do not dispute the point that exposure is seriously damaging.  But it is not de facto true that the existence of a physical document will inevitably be revealed, especially those under rigourous security control.  The photos at Abu-Ghraib were not such documents.   I will admit to a certain naïveté here, as it has been a long time since I have had anything to do with classified materials, but really, is the CIA that lame?

In any case, to say that such materials with potentially enormous evidentiary value in criminal proceedings should be destoyed solely because they might leak out on the Web is a tenuous premise at best.  By such arguments, all of the Nixon tapes and  all of the Pentagon papers should have been destroyed contemporaneous to those events, else they would be leaked and, oh wait, they were discovered, and bad things were uncovered.  Is it possible Mr. Winkler that you are counter-discovery becaiuse you think the government should be able to hide their misdeeds in the name of national security?  Do you think citizens in a democracy are too stupid too know what is good for them? 

Even if there was a strong argument to made, would it be beyond the capabilities of the CIA to reinforce their current security practices to provide redundant, effective security for such sensitive material?

But maybe I am wrong, and there is a world of controlled, extremely sensitive compartmentalized intelligence oozing onto the Web all the time, and it's just a matter of time before the U.S. intelligence agencies divulge all of their most intimate secrets?  Any URIs you'd like to share?

Now LiveLeak is a different matter... ;^) 

I have to agree. When dealing with this terrorist group, especially when, as was stated on a news program last night, they live to die as suicide bombers and martyrs, you "gotta do what you gotta do"!

You can't look at all the suicide bombers, beheaddings of innocents and such, then feel bad that some who have been caught are having water poured over their face, being scared by dogs, etc. We're not dumbing down to their level, we're dealing with them on the only level they know. Except that they can then go screaming about unfair treatment and all of a sudden, the murderers are the victims and those trying to save out hides are the villans.

The world needs to make a decision. Give in or fight back by any means you need. Those who want to sit back and give in, then I have one question...WHY? To be honest, if we did not have the instantaneous news coverage that we do have, maybe we would be better off, as every move being made with the captured terrorists/potential terrorists would not be under a magnifying glass and whatever needed to be done, would.

I'm not a fan of government, and I think the US government is putting the screws to the American people in our own country. But I also believe they are not "torturing" terrorist wanna be's. I believe they do know who they have, an idea of what they might know.

First off: That ain't Groucho. That's a Groucho impersonator.

And other off: The Groucho Impersonator poster actually appends his very own, complete name to each post. So he's merely hiding his face (which may be horribly disfigured) not his identity. In fact, maybe that is his face. 

But: None of this matters in the least.

I spell my name: HULOT.

Jasper, the complete irony in your post is that you do everything that you accuse me of, by going off and launching a purely personal attack, even to the point of accusing me of denegrating Europeans as a whole.  My heritage is completely European.  However, I guess you know best about the tone of my reply and what I would think about Europeans, the Internet, and the subject at hand, as a whole.  There really is nothing more I can say to you on that.

To your points, or lack there of, I never mention anyone on the forum besides Elisa and Groucho.  I will not respond to what you refer to as Elisa's well thought out response to my posts, because I never said or believe in what she said I wrote.  That is the point of my post to which you now refer, and obviously did not read thoroughly.  Elisa made assumptions and wild extrapolations of what I wrote, and went off on complete tangents, all the time attributing them to me.  The possibly offending reference to "daddy" is one that she made several times throughout her original post, as a person who is supposedly knowledgeable on the matter.

And to the point of denegrating Groucho, when there is a very complicated discussion of world matters, I do totally discount the input of anyone who conceals their identity and/or does not provide a background establishing any minimal knowledge in the subject.  Not only might their opinions be completley irrelevant or based on Fox News or Radio America, they are not accountable for anything they say.  At least you, wallyc, and Elisa are not afraid to take accountability for what you write.  Groucho on the otherhand decided to denegrate someone else for expressing an opinion.  Additionally just imagine trying to take anyone seriously dressed as Groucho in a public debate of any sort.  Whoever is behind Groucho, could have just as easily taken the personae of Einstein, Mother Teresa, etc.  THEY chose Groucho.

You shouldn't have indeed. One rule of thumb in polemic disputes is to never ever respond in the heat of the moment––it typically doesn't enhance the quality of one's argument and oftentimes exposes one's weak spots to one's opponents. So too this time.

Not only do you over generalize "just about all people" on this forum, you choose the personal attack over the sophisticated argument. Elisa's very well developed argument was probably too much for you, if you've even bothered to read it at all. In that case, the proper response––often practiced by intellectual heavyweights like Bill O'Reilly––is to accuse others of not reading your post well, so bravo. You call people lazy, yet chose the easy way out when initially responding only to the non-argumented one-line comment (!) that happens to agree with you. Even better: what most appeals to you in wallyqc's post is his profile picture. In stead of actually responding to Elisa's questions, you decide to offend her and Groucho, and anyone who hasn't been working for the Agency for that matter. Bravo again.

For the record: in Europe I did not consider myself a liberal, but here in the States I'm having a hard time maintaining that position. But I'm sure that as a European I have no clue what I'm talking about anyway, so please feel free to pick on anything about me that's completely unrelated to the argument. You probably won't respond to this anyway...

I shouldnt, but I will.  Again, this is a case where someone (Elisa) is just so set on getting their own opinions out that they dont bother actually reading my article.

First, this post you reference was to specifically disprove "Groucho's" (like I can take anything assocaiated with that picture seriously) smart ass comment back to another poster that waterboarding did not stop potential terrorist attacks.  Nothing more, nothing less.  So dont start implying any other comments to my quote, but if this is how you spend your free time, I guess I cant stop you.

I also never argue for a lack of accountability.  The waterboardings are exceptionally well documented, and there is no question about the fact it was done.  Again, if you actually decided to READ the article, you will see that I just argue that the existence of the video is unnecessary and only a liability to the country as a whole.

And whether or not you used the word "random", to trivialize the masterminding, organizing, funding, logistics, etc. of the 9/11 attacks and dozens of other terrorist attacks, resulting in THOUSANDS of deaths; which you now refer to as "insane actions of an individual", you truly do not understand what you are talking about. 

KSM is not an "insane individual".  He went through excrutiating details in planning the attacks.  He recruited dozens of other people to gladly take part in his DOZENS of "insane" plans.  He funneled money to them over a long period of time.  The reason why even some of the most liberal people in Congress are not questioning the usefulness of the waterboarding is that even they acknowledge that we face a very sane adversary, who thinks that even YOU are the Great Satan and they would be doing God's work by killing you and as many of rest of us as possible.  Again, if you dont acknowledge that we are facing a very sane and organized adversary, you are living in a fantasy world.  Just ask daddy.

So again, if you want to waste your time dwelling on what I say so that you have something to write about, at least try to read and understand what I write.

The central argument in the Time piece is-

“the congressional inquiry into the destroyed videos may limit itself to matters of bureaucratic accountability”.

The author, Adam Zagorin, is disappointed by this (and Winkler too, it seems), whereas I agree with the importance. In fact, accountability was the core message in my lengthy response to Winkler's piece.

The author further argues-

“Most of those speaking out are more concerned with questions of accountability and possible obliteration of evidence than they are with what those tapes might have shown about the treatment of detainees.”

Zagorin implies that the treatment of detainees is not a concern of those focused on accountability and evidence obliteration, when in fact, the protection of detainees is the very reason that accountability and evidence are important. It provides a structure allowing us to monitor and protect all persons from unjust and unlawful treatment.

To remove the structure undermines a valuable process of accountability – it also

1. makes it impossible to know what those detainees experienced*
2. makes our government seem untrustworthy.

I still feel, despite the evidence Winkler offered (and it was appreciated even by your dissenters, Ira), that the destruction of evidence by any government agency, is unacceptable. Government accountability is of the highest importance, especially to sustain trust with its citizens. And Groucho's questioning of government-supplied info shouldn't come as much of a surprise, following a scenario where the CIA destroys evidence with a thumbs up from the White House.

Winkler's article provides justification for unaccountability by the government. Despite his thorough arguments about the importance of securing information from terrorists - he fails to understand why this is a dangerous outlook.

As an ignorant plebe,  I offer instead the voice of four-star General McCaffrey, who highlights how damaging this attitude has been under Rumsfeld's watch -

“illegal DOD orders on the abuse of human rights; disrespect for the media and the Congress and the other departments of government; massive self-denial on wartime intelligence; and an internal civilian-imposed integrity problem in the Armed Forces…”

When you justify the destruction of evidence - you support unaccountability. And that is wrong.

Also, you misquoted me, Mr. Winkler. I never used the word “random” in reference to KSM. My point in that paragraph was simply that insane actions by an individual are poor justification for inhumane treatment.

*the Time piece reveals that there is information about other interrogation processes. The fact remains that this specific interrogation process was removed from history and information that was previously available is now gone forever. Also, it's just skeevy.

Good Time story. As it points out, Congressional Democrats are concentrating their weak fire on the destruction of the tapes, while carefully avoiding the substance thereof. Kinda like prosecuting Al Capone for tax evasion, I guess.

Time, though, also equivocates pretty well:

"Torture is forbidden under U.S. law, but Attorney General Michael Mukasey has repeatedly refused to say whether waterboarding is torture..."

Therefore:

"the technique of waterboarding exists in a legal gray area..."

What what what?

I resort to Wikipedia, everybody's friend:

Waterboarding is a form of torture that consists of immobilizing a person on his or her back, with the head inclined downward, and pouring water over the face and into the breathing passages. Through forced suffocation and inhalation of water, the subject experiences the process of drowning in a controlled environment and is made to believe that death is imminent. In contrast to merely submerging the head face-forward, waterboarding almost immediately elicits the gag reflex. Although waterboarding can be performed in ways that leave no lasting physical damage, it carries the risks of extreme pain, damage to the lungs, brain damage caused by oxygen deprivation, injuries (including broken bones) due to struggling against restraints, and even death. The psychological effects on victims of waterboarding can last for years after the procedure.

Waterboarding has been used in interrogations at least as early as the Spanish Inquisition...

Sure sounds like torture. And if it were being practiced on American soldiers (as it may well be), there'd be no talk of a "legal gray area," no matter what the AG "refuses to say."

But I'm just one of those craven know-nothings who "have little knowledge of the subject being discussed." So let's open the floor to John McCain, who knows a thing or two about the matter, based on personal experience:

“Anyone who knows what waterboarding is could not be unsure. It is a horrible torture technique used by Pol Pot and being used on Buddhist monks as we speak.

“People who have worn the uniform and had the experience know that this is a terrible and odious practice and should never be condoned in the U.S. We are a better nation than that.”

Does it work? That's hardly the point.