THREE TIMES [Updated]
That's the whopping total number of times that waterboarding has been used on terror suspects apprehended by the United States of America. Three. That's it. On top of that, it hasn't even been used since 2003. I wrote about this earlier, but CIA director Michael Hayden just publicly confirmed it for the first time.
"The CIA has not used waterboarding for almost five years. We used it against these three high-valued detainees because of the circumstances of the time," Hayden said.
"Very critical of those circumstances was the belief that additional catastrophic attacks against the homeland were imminent. In addition to that, my agency and our community at large had limited knowledge about al Qaeda and its workings."
For the record, the "victims" were:
- Khalid Sheik Mohammed, a high-level Al-Qaeda operative and a planner in the 9/11 attacks.
- Abu Zubaydah, once the third-highest ranking member of Al-Qaeda, second only to Zawahiri and Bin Laden; implicated in many attacks
- Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri, the mastermind behind the 2000 attack on the USS Cole in Yemen.
- Abu Zubaydah, once the third-highest ranking member of Al-Qaeda, second only to Zawahiri and Bin Laden; implicated in many attacks
Incidentally, how does Andrew Sullivan spin this revelation?
The president is revealed as a liar by his own CIA director.Of course, it means no such thing, since Bush never denied that the CIA used waterboarding. He just claimed we do not torture, and Mr. Hayden didn't call the technique "torture", either. Sullivan is entitled to his opinions, but he shouldn't put words in the CIA director's mouth. But facts are trivial things - Sullivan now writes in a mind-castle of his own construction, a dream state from which he doesn't want to wake up.
UPDATE 10:44:00 PM:
This is a bit over the top, even for the nutty crowd at Daily Kos; in a hugely popular diary, MichiganGirl says:
I've read a lot of comments today concerning the news that our government now admits that we are officially a nation that not only sanctions the use of torture... but that we are a nation ACTUALLY tortures.It doesn't seem to occur to her that the actual serial killers here are Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah, and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri. Let her weep for them; I'm not going to.
I think we've all known this in our hearts for quite sometime, but I also think that having a feeling your country tortures people in your name and having your government officially admit it tortures people in your name are two entirely different things... It would be kind of like the difference between having a hunch your next door neighbor is a serial killer and having the next door neighbor actually ADMIT they're a serial killer.
Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my RSS Feed
1 comments:
People just like sensationalism and will use any opportunity for bluster and so called righteous anger defending those who were wronged by a larger power - in this case the US Government/CIA or any other alaphet soup organization there is.
It is interesting that they don't ask themselves what they would do differently if they were in the shoes of those that they criticice so vehemently. I have thought about it and talked with friends about the whole torture issue - omitting the whole exact definition of what torture exactly is here. In what situation is the life of others more worth than of the one questioned and how do you justify that decision?
I have to admit that one part of me can understand why such methods are used sometimes because there is no other way and because lifes have been saved. German has created this eery term "Rettungsfolter" for it which basically means "rescuetorture" to describe this.
Personally I believe that there are legal ways around most things.. and if you want someone tortured but can't do it yourself just ask someone outside to do it illegally and without authorization. That way everybody can claim that they do not torture institutionalized and can maintain their clean west. But I also think that steps like these are taken when other things fail and that most petty terrorists prefer to make some kind of deal, they are only human after all and if I was to make the decision between a deal to save my hide or staying the rest of my life in prison I know what I would chose.
Generally it is a good thing to question the ethics behind such actions and to have a public debate about which values are held in high regard and which aren't. It shouldn't escalate into useless prattling and pointing fingers though because there is no intellectual value in that at all.
But as I have found out most Americans I have met so far like their polarized world view and questioning them in any little way at all will only result in polemics. A civilized somewhat objective or at least trying to be objective as possible debate about delicate issues seems to be nearly impossible. You are either for it or my enemy.
Post a Comment