CIA Admits Waterboarding Three Suspects

Human Rights Watch says CIA’s acknowledgment of waterboarding is admission of a crime.

(NEW YORK) - Human Rights Watch says CIA Director Michael Hayden’s admission that the CIA used waterboarding should prompt an immediate criminal investigation by the Department of Justice. Although use of waterboarding has been widely reported in the press, this is the first time that the CIA has openly acknowledged employing the practice.

During a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing today, General Hayden stated that the CIA had waterboarded three al Qaeda suspects – Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, Abu Zubaydah, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed – while holding them in secret custody in 2002 and 2003. Waterboarding, a torture technique in which a prisoner is made to believe he is drowning, violates both the federal anti-torture statute and the War Crimes Act.

"General Hayden’s acknowledgment that the CIA subjected three detainees to waterboarding is an explicit admission of criminal activity," said Joanne Mariner, terrorism and counterterrorism director at Human Rights Watch. "Those who authorized these crimes have to be held accountable."

Waterboarding has been prosecuted by US courts as torture since the Spanish-American War. After World War II, US military commissions prosecuted and severely punished enemy soldiers for subjecting American prisoners to waterboarding.

"General Hayden’s testimony gives the lie to all of the administration’s past protestions that the CIA has not employed torture," Mariner said. "Waterboarding is torture, and torture is a crime."

In January, the Department of Justice launched a formal investigation into the CIA’s destruction of tapes showing the interrogations of Abu Zabuydah and Nashiri – two of the detainees who were subject to waterboarding. But as Attorney General Michael Mukasey told the Senate Judiciary committee on January 31st, the investigation is not currently focused on the legality of the interrogations themselves. "Either the scope of the current investigation should be expanded, or a new investigation launched," Mariner said. "Those who engaged in and approved waterboarding should no longer be given a free pass."

Salem-News.com Top Stories

No One Owns the Future

The Ugly Origins of Trump's America First Policy

A One-State Solution Could Transform the World

rewilding LA: Matilija Dam History and Ecosystems

One Killed and Two Injured in Shooting Near South Salem High School

Comments Leave a comment on this story.

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

Jefferson February 8, 2008 10:46 am (Pacific time)

In reference to the below post (Feb. 7 @9:17 am ): the New York Times opined that returning Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans were involved in capital crimes at a significant rate, promulgating the INTENTIONAL "false" impression that their military training and war exposure caused their high crime rate, also false. Here are some facts as per the U.S. Justice Department: the "civilian" 18-34 male cohort commits murder at the rate of approx. 40 per 100,000. The returning war veteran in this same age cohort is at around 7 per 100,000, or approximately "1/6th" of their civilian-aged peer. Furthermore the NY Times cherry-picked (the far left does that!) 121 capital crimes that these veterans had been associated with (not all convicted nor even said to be related to war service, PTSD stress, etc., nor broken down by relevant demographics) and "PUFFED" their war veteran mischaracterization on this misleading statistic. If you take this 121 capital crimes stat and break it down over the period we have been at war ,as per a rate per 100,000, then the capital crime rate by war veterans would be "1.34" per 100,000. As I am sure you objective clear-thinkers can see, the New York Times willfully misled their readers and so did the dozens of the nations newspapers (and broadcasters) who went with this story without fact-checking the data. Please note that the Times and other papers routinely run stories where they state U.S. Department of Justice stats, so it's not something out of the ordinary to fact check this type of data. In fact this is a process that even Junior High School students are generally taught to do. So why have these newspapers and broadcasters intentionally misled their readers? (Same thing happened to Vietnam veterans going back 40 years ago). This is setting up an unfair and inaccurate stereotype that has grave consequences for our veterans (using Vietnam veterans as a model), e.g. , employers afraid to hire a war vet, relationships negatively impacted, depression, suicide, etc. . THE REAL STORY: WHEN OUR MEN/WOMEN GO THROUGH BASIC/BOOT CAMP, GET WEAPON'S TRAINING, GO OFF TO WAR, THEY IN EFFECT COMMIT LESS CRIME THAN THEIR CIVILIAN PEERS, AND AT A STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT LOWER RATE! I am sure there will be those who will defend the lying Times (and that is so sad), well bring it on! I am sure a lot of veterans (and family and friends of veterans) would like to read what they have to write! Note: Years ago various organizations and uninformed individuals associated VietNam PTSD rates with high crime rates, when the data shook out and got "peer-reviewed" it was just the opposite. The same thing will happen for this generation of war veterans in the fullness of time. Veterans diagnosed with PTSD (there are different rating levels) simply do not commit higher levels of crime than their civilian cohorts, but there will be those who simply do not get it! Remember there are lies, damn lies, statistics, and then the New York Times (coupled with agenda-driven reporters[not journalists!]).

Jefferson February 7, 2008 9:17 am (Pacific time)

People last January the NY Times with the assistance of nine of their reporters wrote a front page article/series (over 6,000 words) that purported that returning Iraqi/Afghanistan veterans were more likely to be involved in capital crimes over and beyond their civilian-aged peers because of their war service(none of the reporters fact checked the available data [or did they!?] ). Totally false and misleading story, in fact just the opposite is true, and even some junior high school kid could find the data in just a few minutes at the FBI's Bureau of Justice Statistic (BJS). To put this story in some context please see some info re: the egregious culture of the NY Times below (note: I will follow up with the data later, new grandchild about to be born). Also please be aware that the media did the same thing to Vietnam veterans beginning over 40 years ago with maliciously false stories and that this misinformation creates a bogus stereotype that has caused unneeded suffering, even many deaths! Many of you have been taught information during your educational process that has been entirely false, and by people who were fully aware that they were misleading you. "It is irresponsible of the New York Times to write an extensive post in effect indicting all veterans, while refusing to even attempt to provide context for their story, and while unfairly including every possible connection of veterans to homicides in such a cavalier manner — even those deaths that were justified, unrelated, unsupported, or had more proximate causes than being a war veteran. But the bizarre emphasis of the New York Times upon veteran violence without the provision of context can be understood by remembering that Arthur “Pinch” Sulzberger Jr., publisher of the Times, once said during the Vietnam War that if a North Vietnamese soldier ran into an American soldier, he’d rather see "THE AMERICAN SOLDIER SHOT." He may yet achieve his goal — only using the pen instead of the sword. His son is now the publisher of this rag, genetics!"

Jefferson February 6, 2008 3:22 pm (Pacific time)

Yes it was me, I forgot to put my "real" name on my below post. Please note that one poster did not acknowledge that water-boarding here in the states has not been ruled illegal (shockaroo! and who gives a rip about the UN opinion or some other alien loon court system!) and that no previous presidential administration (and that includes "democrats") has moved to make it illegal. Why not? Why has this poster not addressed FDR's below stated obscene behaviors? Anyway am pressed for time, but will provide story source on why the New York Times has willfully hurt our active military and veterans with malicious misleading stories. This is real simple to do , so hang on? P.S. Hey Joe Ramos, I saw that Ted Kennedy and John Kerry-Kohn endorsed Obama, so how did he do in Tuesday's election in Massachusettes? LOL So what's your favorite flavor of Kool Aid? Leather? Mine's 25+ single-malt and it's not KA...cheers and please don't take it personally for I am really glad the state of Massachusettes has Kennedy and Kerry-Kohn...they are priceless!

Henry Ruark February 6, 2008 2:42 pm (Pacific time)

To all: "Irrefutable proof" now offered ? OK -trot it out, with full documentation. YOU offered --NOW "put up or shut up !" might seem to be in order. Re "waterboarding" as torture, hard to deny courts, international authorities, UN Commission, et al, et al, et al on basis of single non-ID popped-up pundit with not guts enough to sign own stuff... Wanna bet "irrefutable proof" will suddenly turn out to be irresponsible offer, and with some unaccounable reason for non-dosclosure... Alla same allegations re press units named; for each and every one, major national authoritative sources offers "irrefutable proof" of their continuing international acceptance...again, vs "popped up pundit" carefully maintaining anonymity in face of repeated and repeated direct challenge. That should tell-us-all something very essential to any continued impacts from all such "anon"-protected pop-up punditry.

Henry Ruark February 6, 2008 2:08 pm (Pacific time)

To all: 10:52 post has very familiar style and approach, and in reread I understand now why it is "anon", rather than under usual synonymn. It challenges request for documentation on several points re NY Times et al: SO let this stand for direct response to challenge to cite the sources for each statement and prove them up --or withdraw them publicly, here. Of course I stand in same light, ready to act same way for any one or all of mine here. When "anon", not really so "covered" here, feels up to it I again offer ID-to-Editor, direct contact, and Op Eds to run relating confrontation with full details confirming every statement in question. Confidently await that open situation, but am not holding breath until it occurs, either, since offered before, and combined with more than 20 invitations for Op Ed any time, simply offer to Editor, setting up open, honest, full response from all concerned.

Henry Ruark February 6, 2008 11:54 am (Pacific time)

To all: IF you do not believe the CIA et al are capable of setting up shills to put out precisely that kind of propaganda, accusing reputable press outlets of what amounts to treason, come direct to me for discussion to nail down those situations. Happens I have some direct experience in this matter, and am perfectly willing to share it --with whomever will provide proper ID.

Henry Ruark February 6, 2008 12:55 pm (Pacific time)

Anon et al: Takes a special kind of self-love to speak of stripping common sense, while still hiding ID to so-write. "Common sense" being a kind of evaluation, impossible without reference to from whence it cometh...that's solid truth understood by all, as is refusal to stand responsible and accountable by ID-ing self in any honest conversation, which is what dialog on open channel is all about. That's what those involved in historic attacks on society elsewhere, all down through history, have always done... so stand up, allow yourself the privilege of ID and the responsibility of speaking honestly, openly, to all here. Without that you remain open to possibility of shilliness as pointed out before.

Jefferson February 6, 2008 11:39 am (Pacific time)

Laura Bush an elected offical? Did she leave the scene of an accident, go talk to her lawyers, wait around and sober up till she contacted the police. I could go on, but I think you get the idea, unless the kool aid has totally stripped you of common sense?!

Henry Ruark February 6, 2008 11:34 am (Pacific time)

"Anon" et al: Easy to talk when you hide your ID. IF you afraid to sign your stuff, is it perhaps because of something besides retaliation ? Some of what you say may well be meaningful --but when anonymously propagated, any thoughtful person wants to know immediately where from, why, and what makes it needed for you to "go anon"... If you prefer direct, friendly, honest, reasonable and rational rebuttal, ID self to Editor so we can meet face to face via email, and let's get at it. I'll start by line-for-line analysis of yours, and invite you to prepare same for mine.

Joe Ramos February 6, 2008 11:28 am (Pacific time)

So all the good Ted Kennedy has done over the years and all of the ongoing support means nothing? Laura Bush killed a fellow high school student with her car and while she was not prosecuted, she was at fault. So I guess if there is any weight to your point about Kennedy, we are dealing with an administration that dwarfs his single error.

Jefferson February 6, 2008 10:52 am (Pacific time)

Who is Ted Kennedy (or any lefty) to criticize CIA interrogation methods when he knows full well that [more people] have drowned at Chappaquiddick than from water-boarding? Why didn't FDR make this illegal? Was he too busy putting Americans in concentration camps, and stealing their property so his cronies could enrich themselves, to care? Staffing his administration with communist sympathizers who provided the Soviet Union with our atomic bomb secrets (FDR is burning in hell for eternity!) to care? Note: I know one regular poster who will not respond to the latter question, avoidance syndrome? Or ordering fire-bombing of children and babies that killed hundreds of thousands to notice? How come President's Kennedy, LB Johnson, Carter, Clinton not provide an executive order to stop our military from having our [elite] soldiers water-boarded as part of their training? Fact people! Which begs the question, how many of our soldiers died under this training? How many are getting VA disability benefits for psych/physical problems having been water-boarded during this training? I believe the answer to the last couple of questions is "ZERO!!" How many American soldiers/contractors have died when being interrogated by terrorists? Pretty much ALL OF THEM! How many terrorists have died from panties put on their heads? Note: I believe this was wrong and punishment should have been minimal for enlisted personnel, and more harsh for officers. Please note this above article found in the MSM is not news people! It has already been in the press that the CIA has stopped attacks against us when this method (coupled with others) was used. This is simply election-cycle propaganda aimed at the uninformed, which is the real propaganda [torture] technique used by organizations like the New York Times, who have a long history of writing false articles about our military...they are an absolutely egregious publication that cannot be defended by people who embrace qualities such as honesty, ethics and integrity. Proof available upon request. Irrefutable proof! I know at least one poster who will not ask for this proof, avoidance syndrome, or some other trait(s)?

Sue February 6, 2008 10:20 am (Pacific time)

I am so ashamed of our govt.

Henry Ruark February 6, 2008 6:48 am (Pacific time)

To all: SO comes the inalienable truth re waterboarding: "Waterboarding has been prosecuted by US courts as torture since the Spanish-American War. After World War II, US military commissions prosecuted and severely punished enemy soldiers for subjecting American prisoners to waterboarding." That makes its close connection as a sure test of character-reflecting behavior unmistakable and unavoidable. For any participating, it is surely then a crime; and to do so, even under orders within the military, or as an experiment in learning to use it, reflects inevitably and without escape on anyone doing so. Sometimes, even within the military, the time comes to deny, defy, and defeat what is known to be morally wrong. "Light touch" mitigation by suggesting it is so ineffable a sensation-creator as to make it something to try simply for that illusion is also that much more of a revelation of true character --for anyone so admitting to the practice. To suggest it as a"try it" for members of the press is a malignity not to be overlooked by anyone, especially here. "Nuff said ? Surely should hope so. "Command and control" has its place, inevitably, in any defense of this or any nation. But it should stop there, without any slop-over into civilian relationships during dialog intended to share and help each other learn about the now heavily-increasing demands on all of us as we try to be democratic citizens in a republic surely now under heavy attack-from-within. Definition: "republic (as in "democracy") n. : a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them." As in: "Government OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people." Long known as impossible without a truly free press to keep citizens fully informed and to suggest sources and information applying to all democratic issues and problems. To subvert, for political gain, those channels is as much an attack on democracy itself as it is a technique to "kill off completely" any others in political disagreement.

[Return to Top]