csmonitor.com - The Christian Science Monitor Online
from the December 13, 2007 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1213/p02s02-usju.html
Is waterboarding torture? Key question in furor over CIA tapes
Probes by Attorney General Mukasey and others could help determine how far
the controversy reaches.
By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
In the Watergate scandal of the 1970s and the Iran-contra scandal of the
1980s, government watchdogs used a conventional set of questions designed to
expose attempts to cover up wrongdoing.
In this year's emerging Al Qaeda tapes controversy, lawmakers are asking a
more fundamental question: Is waterboarding torture?
It is a question that has followed Attorney General Michael Mukasey from his
Senate confirmation hearings in October. And it is a question that continues
to dog some Central Intelligence Agency officers who were authorized in 2002
to use harsh interrogation techniques to break Al Qaeda suspects.
On Tuesday, in his first press conference, Mr. Mukasey said he is examining
the series of legal memos written by Justice Department lawyers condoning
coercive tactics.
He says he intends to assess the legality of the memos. Then he will try to
determine whether the methods actually used by the CIA conformed with legal
requirements established in the opinions.
Mukasey's findings could play an important role in determining whether the
controversy over the destroyed Al Qaeda interrogation tapes explodes into an
administration-wide scandal or is ultimately viewed as an intra-agency
mistake.
Trying to explain tapes' destruction
There are several investigations now under way in Washington related to the
destruction of the interrogation tapes. Most involve preliminary attempts to
answer why the tapes were destroyed by CIA officials in November 2005
despite judicial and other orders that they be produced or preserved.
Some analysts suggest the agency was attempting to head off a CIA version of
the Army's Abu Ghraib scandal. The goal: eliminate the pictures - the
indelible images - before they leak to the press and public.
"It really shows a mind-set and pattern of lawlessness, not only to engage
in illegal behavior like torture, but to then destroy the evidence and
attempt to cover it up," says Jonathan Hafetz, a lawyer at the Brennan
Center for Justice at NYU Law School, who represents several detained Al
Qaeda suspects.
CIA Director Michael Hayden has been attempting to head off congressional
outrage over news of the destruction of the tapes. He met for 90 minutes
behind closed doors with the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, and
he was set to face House Intelligence Committee members on Wednesday.
Officials with the Justice Department and the CIA's Office of the Inspector
General are working together in a preliminary inquiry to gather facts about
the destruction of the tapes. That effort is being headed by Assistant
Attorney General Kenneth Wainstein.
Mukasey told reporters that he's given Mr. Wainstein an open mandate. "He's
going to go where the facts lead him," the attorney general said.
The action came as a former CIA covert officer, John Kiriakou, confirmed in
a series of media interviews that Al Qaeda associate Abu Zubaydah was
subjected to waterboarding as part of his CIA-authorized interrogation in
2002.
Waterboarding involves strapping a suspect to a table or board with his head
below his feet, placing a covering over his head, and pouring water over his
face. The action initiates drowning and causes the suspect to experience an
intense sense of helplessness and the belief he is about to die.
The destroyed CIA tapes documented the interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah and a
second man, Abd al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, the suspected mastermind of the USS
Cole bombing.
Mr. Kiriakou, who has since retired from the CIA, said Zubaydah refused to
talk after his capture. But that changed after about 30 seconds of
waterboarding. The former CIA officer said that in 2002, he did not believe
the technique amounted to torture. He said it had helped thwart ongoing
terror plots and saved lives.
He said he now believes waterboarding is torture. "We're Americans and we're
better than this, and we shouldn't be doing this kind of thing," he told
ABC's Brian Ross.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina raised the waterboarding
issue during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing on Tuesday. But he did
it with a slight twist.
The witness was Brig. Gen. Thomas Hartmann, chief legal adviser at the
Pentagon's Office of Military Commissions.
"General Hartmann, do you believe waterboarding violates the Geneva
Convention?" Senator Graham asked.
"Torture is illegal in the United States," the general said, echoing the
Bush administration's standard response to questions about interrogation
methods.
Graham was not satisfied with the answer. Suppose there is a downed American
airman in Iran, the senator asked, and the Iranian government is
waterboarding the airman to learn when the next US military operation will
occur. What should be the response of the uniformed legal community
regarding such activity?
Hartmann: "I'm not equipped to answer that question, senator."
Graham: "You mean you are not equipped to give a legal opinion?"
Hartmann: "I am not prepared to answer that question."
View from a former inspector general
Frederick Hitz has experience grappling with difficult moral and legal
issues in an environment of intense secrecy. From 1990 to 1998, he served as
inspector general of the CIA.
There are times when intelligence officers must make difficult judgment
calls to quickly obtain crucial information, says Mr. Hitz, who now lectures
at the University of Virginia Law School. But, he stresses, "Laws weren't
meant to deal with that situation."
The former CIA inspector general says: "You deal with it at your own
responsibility, and you will attempt to get that information by whatever
means. That is the way things are."
He adds, "But you don't legalize it, and you don't in any way try to build a
system around it."
Hitz says the Bush administration should drop its endorsement of harsh
interrogations and instead abide by the interrogation regulations and
safeguards in the US Army Field Manual. A measure to achieve this is pending
in Congress.
"You might miss the odd bit of warning that was available if you had used
every technique at your disposal," Hitz says. "But at the end of the day you
have probably avoided more problems than you would have solved."
Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and
related links
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright C 2007 The Christian Science Monitor. All
rights reserved.
***********
**********
THE "G" BLOGS...by GyG
http://www.network54.com/Forum/578302/
and....
http://gunnyg.wordpress.com/
Also known as Gunny G's
Globe and Anchor Sites/Forums/Blogs....
~~~~~
HISTORY ETC. -- The Gunny G History Wiki!
http://gunnyg.wetpaint.com/
Police Out of Control! - A Gunny G Wiki...
http://gunnygcops.wetpaint.com/
~~~~~
News-n-Views, Military, History, Politics,
Controversial, Unusual, Non-PC
Eye-opening, Thought-provoking,
Articles Just Not Seen... Elsewhere!
~~~~~
RESTORE THE REPUBLIC/
TAKE AMERICA BACK!
~~~~~
The "Original/The Only "Gunny G"
**********
