CIA Man Who Claimed Water Boarding Worked: I Wasn't Actually There

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Original poster
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,251
quae tangit perit Trump
According to Foreign Policy magazine, John Kiriakou, who discussed the water boarding of Abu Zubaydah with ABC journalist Brian Ross on a widely-discussed interview in 2007, now admits what he claimed was first-hand knowledge was actually garnered from reading reports.

From the article:

Well, it's official now: John Kiriakou, the former CIA operative who affirmed claims that waterboarding quickly unloosed the tongues of hard-core terrorists, says he didn't know what he was talking about.

Kiriakou, a 15-year veteran of the agency's intelligence analysis and operations directorates, electrified the hand-wringing national debate over torture in December 2007 when he told ABC's Brian Ross and Richard Esposito in a much ballyhooed, exclusive interview that senior al Qaeda commando Abu Zubaydah cracked after only one application of the face cloth and water....
...Now comes John Kiriakou, again, with a wholly different story. On the next-to-last page of a new memoir, The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the CIA's War on Terror (written with Michael Ruby), Kiriakou now rather off handedly admits that he basically made it all up.

"What I told Brian Ross in late 2007 was wrong on a couple counts," he writes. "I suggested that Abu Zubaydah had lasted only thirty or thirty-five seconds during his waterboarding before he begged his interrogators to stop; after that, I said he opened up and gave the agency actionable intelligence."

But never mind, he says now.

"I wasn't there when the interrogation took place; instead, I relied on what I'd heard and read inside the agency at the time."
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
According to Foreign Policy magazine, John Kiriakou, who discussed the water boarding of Abu Zubaydah with ABC journalist Brian Ross on a widely-discussed interview in 2007, now admits what he claimed was first-hand knowledge was actually garnered from reading reports.

From the article:
And this changes what? :confused:
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
So just because this liar wasn't there means alternative interrogation techniques don't work?
Uh, we already KNOW they don't work. Logic alone tells you that anyone will say anything, whether its true or not, to escape being tortured. Not to mention we have high ranking officials on record that have shown you tend to get a lot of info, but its wrong or just lies to stop the torture.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
Does re-branding torture make it's use easier to swallow?
We can call it what ever you want to. If you've read any of my previous posts on simliar topics you would know that I think that the US should not eliminate any techniques that could contribute to national security.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
We can call it what ever you want to. If you've read any of my previous posts on simliar topics you would know that I think that the US should not eliminate any techniques that could contribute to national security.
And when the fact that we use torture helps fuel hatred of the US is brought up......
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
Oh well. You can't please everyone. Show me one country that has never used a form of torture and I'll show you a liar.
What does that have to do with the fact that torture is worthless when it comes to obtaining information?
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
What does that have to do with the fact that torture is worthless when it comes to obtaining information?
So you're saying that torture in any form at anytime in history has never produced any actionable information?

Go read a book and get back me on that claim. :rolleyes:
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
So you're saying that torture in any form at anytime in history has never produced any actionable information?

Go read a book and get back me on that claim. :rolleyes:
So we are supposed to just go around torturing people hoping that the info they give aren't lies. How do we even know who has information, and what information?

There is a whole lot of fallacies in the whole process of torture, thats the problem (seeing as you people seem to not give a **** about the whole inhumane part of it....).
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
So we are supposed to just go around torturing people hoping that the info they give aren't lies. How do we even know who has information, and what information?

There is a whole lot of fallacies in the whole process of torture, thats the problem (seeing as you people seem to not give a **** about the whole inhumane part of it....).
If torturing someone produces nine fallacies and one truth, it is still worth it because you still get that one truth.
 

Counterfit

macrumors G3
Aug 20, 2003
8,202
0
sitting on your shoulder
But you have to act on all of them to find out which is which. That's a considerable waste of time.


Plus, I bet you don't have any proof or anything else in support of an approximate 10% success rate with torture.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
If torturing someone produces nine fallacies and one truth, it is still worth it because you still get that one truth.
Quite a hypothetical you've constructed here. Presumably one could do more torturing to find out which of the ten is "the truth". Perhaps the single "truth" uncovered by torture is that it's pathetically unproductive, an affront to human dignity and rights, and support for it is driven wholly by cowardice.
 

184550

Guest
May 8, 2008
1,978
2
But you have to act on all of them to find out which is which. That's a considerable waste of time.


Plus, I bet you don't have any proof or anything else in support of an approximate 10% success rate with torture.
Hence the 'If' at the start of that hypothetical.

Quite a hypothetical you've constructed here. Presumably one could do more torturing to find out which of the ten is "the truth". Perhaps the single "truth" uncovered by torture is that it's pathetically unproductive, an affront to human dignity and rights, and support for it is driven wholly by cowardice.
Then perhaps these people should not be participating in the types of activities that make torture productive.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
14,010
Then perhaps these people should not be participating in the types of activities that make torture productive.
What about the people we've imprisoned essentially for being Middle Eastern? We've locked up people who we KNOW weren't even soldiers, just scooped up off the streets. I know it this will fall on deaf ears simply because of how you speak of them.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
NathanMuir said:
Then perhaps these people should not be participating in the types of activities that make torture productive.
What "types of activities" are these hypothetical individuals participating in make torture more productive?
 

Iscariot

macrumors 68030
Aug 16, 2007
2,624
3
Toronteazy
Ah, you still didn't prove that torture isn't useful. :rolleyes:
You've made a claim, and thus the burden of proof is on you. Additionally, telling me to "read a book" does not suffice as evidence.
Then perhaps these people should not be participating in the types of activities that make torture productive.
For someone who claims to be well read, this is a pretty significant mis-step. There are plenty of examples of people being rendered and tortured without participating in any "activities" that would make torture productive, such as Maher Arar. Unless of course freedom of association only includes people who are white.