The Lies of Michael Hayden

[planosteve]

When then-CIA Director Michael Hayden appeared before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence in April 2007 to testify about the CIA’s coercive interrogation program, he should have felt pretty comfortable.

The program, after all, had been blessed repeatedly by the Justice Department, which by then had written multiple secret memos explaining why slamming people into walls, depriving them of sleep for up to 10 days and waterboarding them was perfectly legal. President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Attorney General John Ashcroft, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice and other Cabinet officials had all personally approved of the program. Bush had declared a few months earlier, in fact, that the program had “saved innocent lives.” The Senate committee, whose leaders had been briefed on the program as early as September 2002 and had done nothing to halt it, had a reputation for coddling as much as overseeing the intelligence community. This was hardly a hostile audience. Hayden was talking to the home team.

Why, then, did Hayden misrepresent virtually every aspect of the program to the committee?
His misstatements are carefully catalogued in a damning appendix to the committee’s report, released Tuesday.

http://cryptome.org/2014/12/cia-hayden-lied-latimes-14-1210.pdf

According to the appendix, Hayden made false or unsupported statements about the genesis of the program; the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, the CIA’s first disappeared detainee; the qualifications and training of the interrogators; the ability of interrogators and observers to halt interrogations at any time; the number of detainees held; the intelligence allegedly obtained from coercive tactics; abusive and illegal conduct by interrogators; and the effectiveness of waterboarding. Hayden has objected that the committee took some of his statements out of context, and he has noted that, in any event, the program preceded his tenure as CIA director. But the evidence of false and unsupported testimony is overwhelming.

Consider just three examples. Hayden claimed that all of those conducting the program were “carefully chosen and carefully screened” and underwent more than 250 hours of specialized training. In fact, the CIA’s records show that it chose interrogators who “had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues, and had reportedly admitted to sexual assault,” according to the Senate report. Some interrogators were given no training at all; others had 65 hours — not 250.

Hayden also claimed that all interrogations were observed by nonparticipants and that “any observer can call ‘knock it off’ at any time.” He said no one expressed any reservations. In fact, CIA records show that many involved did object to the procedures, to no avail. When one team member questioned the legality of the techniques being applied to Abu Zubaida, for example, CIA supervisor Jose Rodriguez instructed the team member to stop using “speculative language as to the legality of given activities” in agency cables. During the interrogation of Abu Zubaida, CIA cables report that several team members were “to the point of tears and choking up,” and that two or three said they would seek transfers if the abuse continued. (And it did continue.)

Hayden also denied that any interrogators ever punched anyone or threatened family members of detainees, and assured the committee that any abuse would be reported. In fact, CIA records disclose the use of a “hard takedown” method, in which about five team members jumped a detainee, hooded him, cut away his clothes, punched him and dragged him down a hallway. Other records show that interrogators threatened to kill, capture or assault family members if suspects did not talk. Some of the most notorious abuses, including the use of a gun and an electric drill to threaten one detainee, were never reported, because the supervisor assumed the tactic had been approved.

Hayden was following a well-trod path. The CIA gave false information about Abu Zubaida to the Justice Department when seeking initial approval to use waterboarding and other torture tactics, asserting that he was uncooperative when in fact he had been providing a great deal of information to FBI agents using lawful interrogation methods. The CIA later claimed that the waterboarding of Abu Zubaida had produced critical intelligence about other al-Qaeda members, but the agency’s records show that Abu Zubaida provided that information before being subjected to coercive tactics.

The CIA stonewalled Intelligence Committee requests for information about the program, and it falsely told the White House, the Justice Department and the intelligence panel that its coercive tactics had elicited critical intelligence that disrupted plots and led to the capture of many al-Qaeda members. On Thursday, CIA Director John Brennan admitted that the agency does not actually know whether any of its coercive tactics led directly to useful information — and indeed that it is “unknowable.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-the-interrogation-program-was-approved-why-did-the-cia-still-lie-about-it/2014/12/12/e858eeec-8162-11e4-81fd-8c4814dfa9d7_story.html?hpid=z2

[GFB]

We need to torture all the scum held at Gitmo..daily.

[GFB]

"In fact, the CIA’s records show that it chose interrogators who “had engaged in inappropriate detainee interrogations, had workplace anger management issues..."

They chose well.

[Cowman52]

If push comes to shove and the country's survival hangs in the balance, the left aint got enough gumption to stand up to a 90 year old granny with a corn cob and a lightning bug. They would surrender their soul rather than put up a fight or even offend someones feelings.

[Sangersteve]

The Senate Intelligence Committee spent roughly $50 million on its investigation into the CIA and apparently couldn’t find Michael Hayden’s phone number.

The committee portrays Gen. Hayden, the former CIA director, as a liar who deceived Congress about the agency’s interrogation program, yet the committee couldn’t be bothered to interview him.

That’s because it didn’t bother to interview anyone. The committee’s chair, Dianne Feinstein, says such interviews were made impossible by Justice Department investigations into the people responsible for the interrogation program, but those investigations ended years ago.

The reality is that the committee didn’t want to include anything that might significantly complicate its cartoonish depiction of a CIA that misled everyone so it could maintain a secret prison system for the hell of it.

It isn’t an insult to call the resulting report partisan; it is a simple fact. Republicans stopped cooperating as soon as it became clear that Feinstein wanted a prosecutor’s brief, not a report tainted by any hint of fair-minded inquiry.

The Feinstein report scores some points. It makes plain that the CIA program wasn’t adequately controlled, especially at the beginning, that it went too far and that the agency became too invested — not unexpectedly, given normal bureaucratic imperatives — in defending it.

But the thrust of the report is devoted to the proposition that torture, or harsh interrogation, never works. This is important to critics of the CIA program because they are almost never willing to say that torture is wrong and that we should never do it — even if it sometimes works and potentially saves lives. They lack the moral conviction to make their case solely on principle.

Even though its executive summary runs more than 500 pages, the report lacks basic context, specifically an account of the post-Sept. 11 environment in which nearly everyone expected another attack, and wanted to do everything possible to avoid it. The New York Times ran a piece in May 2002, saying that “there has been a drumbeat of warnings from top officials that further terrorist attacks, even a nuclear one, are all but inevitable.”

This is why the impeccably liberal Jay Rockefeller, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, could at this time practically sound like the much-maligned Michael Hayden.

After the capture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in 2003, Rockefeller said on CNN that we should be “very, very tough with him”; that he has information that will save American lives and that “we have no business not getting that information”; and that we should consider shipping him to a country with no laws against torture. “I wouldn’t take anything off the table where he is concerned,” Rockefeller declared, “because this is a man who has killed hundreds and hundreds of Americans over the last 10 years.”

The interrogation program was born against this backdrop. When we caught KSM, no one was saying, “Let’s give him some dates and olives and hope, once he finds out what nice people we are, he spills his guts and gives up Osama bin Laden’s location.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... z3LvhoxZRk

[planosteve]

George Bush has cancelled his planned trip to Geneva in Feb. for fear that he could be arrested and tried as a war criminal for personally approving waterboarding which most countries consider to be torture.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1354211/George-W-Bush-cancels-Switzerland-visit-fears-arrest-torture-charges.html

[ralph]

good , even though the Bush's aren't my favorite people I wouldn't want to see GWB arrested if anyone has the nerve to try and arrest him . I'll check out the link in a minute but that's my initial thinking .

[planosteve]

I expect the name waterboarding was made up to hide what it really is, torture. I believe the original name was the water torture. Torture is not a method. That is just someone's opinion. If you mean to cause someone physical or mental pain then you are torturing them. I think we executed Japanese that used that water torture procedure on Americans.

[GFB]

Well, I certainly HOPE the 3 people that were actually water boarded felt like it was torture.

[planosteve]

Well, I certainly HOPE the 3 people that were actually water boarded felt like it was torture.

So, it's OK if you water torture someone 183 times since it's only 1 guy? And it's worse if you torture 183 guys 1 time?

[GFB]

Well, I certainly HOPE the 3 people that were actually water boarded felt like it was torture.

So, it's OK if you water torture someone 183 times since it's only 1 guy? And it's worse if you torture 183 guys 1 time?

No, torturing 183 guys once is much better.

But torturing 183 guys 183 times would be the best choice of all.

[ralph]

aww man , funny !!

[grouchy]

Steve, I want to ask you a question or two but also want you to know that I'm not trying to pick an argument. A discussion is always better.
Torture, in general terms you seem to be against it. Most folks are. Many doubt that it works.

But......would you torture someone if you thought there was chance to stop a terrorist act? Or on a less stressful level would you give someone else authorization to do so?

[planosteve]

Steve, I want to ask you a question or two but also want you to know that I'm not trying to pick an argument. A discussion is always better.
Torture, in general terms you seem to be against it. Most folks are. Many doubt that it works.

But......would you torture someone if you thought there was chance to stop a terrorist act? Or on a less stressful level would you give someone else authorization to do so?

No, because there is no chance it will work. If you ask anyone that acutally knows anything about it, John McCain for instance, they will tell you that it doesn't work. Anyone that says it does, either doesn't know anything or is lying.

[grouchy]

Steve, I want to ask you a question or two but also want you to know that I'm not trying to pick an argument. A discussion is always better.
Torture, in general terms you seem to be against it. Most folks are. Many doubt that it works.

But......would you torture someone if you thought there was chance to stop a terrorist act? Or on a less stressful level would you give someone else authorization to do so?

No, because there is no chance it will work. If you ask anyone that acutally knows anything about it, John McCain for instance, they will tell you that it doesn't work. Anyone that says it does, either doesn't know anything or is lying.

Ok, thanks. I disagree, but we all have the right to our individual beliefs.

[planosteve]

"Terrorists" exist because they are created. If you want to get rid of terrorists stop doing what creates them. Specificly, invading their countries, overthrowing their governments and killing their people.

[Kiamichi]

I don't remember who it was, but that person perfectly summed up the whole dilemma over the use of torture: it works, and everyone engaged in the debate knows that it works, but torture is something so abhorrent to civilized people that we must pretend that this option does not exist.

I don't doubt that for any person on earth there is some situation where he would put aside qualms about deliberately inflicting pain on a person in order to obtain information that would save the lives of loved ones, or look away while someone else did it. Anyone who says he would never do so is speaking secure in the knowledge he will never have to make such a decision.

John McCain has said that as President he would absolutely forbid the use of anything that fits the definition of torture, but also said that if absolutely necessary for the security of the country he would give the order to inflict it and accept the responsibility. I believe he would, but he did not explain why he would consider the use of something he claims to believe does not work.

[grouchy]

I don't remember who it was, but that person perfectly summed up the whole dilemma over the use of torture: it works, and everyone engaged in the debate knows that it works, but torture is something so abhorrent to civilized people that we must pretend that this option does not exist.

I don't doubt that for any person on earth there is some situation where he would put aside qualms about deliberately inflicting pain on a person in order to obtain information that would save the lives of loved ones, or look away while someone else did it. Anyone who says he would never do so is speaking secure in the knowledge he will never have to make such a decision.

John McCain has said that as President he would absolutely forbid the use of anything that fits the definition of torture, but also said that if absolutely necessary for the security of the country he would give the order to inflict it and accept the responsibility. I believe he would, but he did not explain why he would consider the use of something he claims to believe does not work.

Well said. Thank you sir.

[planosteve]

everyone engaged in the debate knows that it works

No they don't. That's why there is a debate. What the experts believe is that people will say whatever they think will make the torture stop. So, even if it happens to be the truth, it can't be relied on.

[GFB]

Steve, I want to ask you a question or two but also want you to know that I'm not trying to pick an argument. A discussion is always better.
Torture, in general terms you seem to be against it. Most folks are. Many doubt that it works.

But......would you torture someone if you thought there was chance to stop a terrorist act? Or on a less stressful level would you give someone else authorization to do so?

No, because there is no chance it will work. If you ask anyone that acutally knows anything about it, John McCain for instance, they will tell you that it doesn't work. Anyone that says it does, either doesn't know anything or is lying.

Of course John McCain says it doesn't work.

If he said it does, he'd have to tell us what information he turned over to the North Vietnamese.

He is the last person on earth to listen to on this.