Abu Zubaydah and Waterboarding

Waterboarding’s been back in the news this week because the CIA revealed that it videotaped some of its “extreme” interrogation techniques then destroyed the videotapes two years later. Leave it to ABC to come forward with a former CIA officer who confirms that they did waterboard (essentially convincing suspects they will drown until they mentally break down), but that it also produced useful information. I went to watch the video then noticed that the name of the suspect was Zubaydah, one of at least three different men who were killed or captured and identified as Al Qaeda’s number three in command. The CIA officer, Kiriakou, insists that Zubaydah, once tortured, gave up critical information.

Ron Suskind’s book, The One Percent Doctrine, strongly suggests otherwise. Suskind portrays Abu Zubaydah role with Al Qaeda as more logistical than strategic. He also claimed that Zubaydah suffered from a combination of head injuries and mental illness. The President has insisted that Zubaydah was a major capture who helped lead American intellegence to Khalid Sheikh Mohammad, the chief planner of 9/11.

I strongly recommend a look at Suskind’s book or at least the wikipedia article on the controversy. Why’s it matter? The CIA might not have destroyed the tape to hide the fact that they waterboarded Zubaydah, that’s something that no one really debates. The tapes might have been destroyed because they would tell the real story of the agency torturing a mentally ill man who possibly gave up information of only limited value and significance. In that light this “non-revelation” through ABC is especially interesting. If you watch it closely, it’s really being used to support the argument that torture can be an effective interrogation technique.

My question is simple. Now that the tapes have been destroyed, isn’t it interesting that we can’t make any kind of judgment about that now?

youtube link


chancelucky