An interview with Stephen Grey of FRONTLINE/World’s “Extraordinary Rendition” to be broadcast November 6 on PBS stations, and online for free following the broadcast on FRONTLINE/World’s web site.
[As always, please stay on topic -- any off topic discussions should be taken to the prior thread. Also, this is understandably a difficult topic, but please keep the discussion polite and free of invective. With that, please welcome Stephen Grey to FDL. -- CHS]
The fact that journalist Stephen Grey learned of the systematic program of the US to use extraordinary renditions from the man who would later become the fleeting head of the CIA, Porter Goss, is one of the many twists and turns of this story. And it is a story that needs no embellishment (from the prologue of Stephen’s book, Ghost Plane):
The Grave received its name because the cells are little larger than coffins. Pay close attention, because this is a key destination in the War on Terror. Admittedly, it is not where President George W. Bush would take visitors on a showpiece tour, and yet here in this dungeon, on this day, 17 December 2002, are at least seven prisoners who claim to have arrived courtesy of the United States.
In charge of the centre is a man named George Salloum, an officer of Syrian military intelligence, dressed smartly in trousers, a golf shirt and a pair of leather shoes. He might seem an unlikely ally for the United States. By profession he is the head of interrogation of suspected terrorists at the Palestine Branch. In short, a torturer….
In cell no. 2 is Maher Arar, a Canadian wireless technician who was deported to Syria from New York in a private American jet. As a teenage schoolboy he once had a part-time job folding towels at that Sheraton Hotel. But he left the country at the age of seventeen and never returned – till now. He will later be found innocent of all charges. Every day, Maher is brought out of his cell to face Salloum and his team of interrogators. Among their worst methods is one known as the as the “German chair”, so-called because it was said to have been taught to them by the Stasi, the East German secret service. It has an empty metal frame with no backrest or seat and is used to stretch the prisoner’s spine to near breaking point….
The details go on and on and, in the case of Arar and many, many others, there were no charges filed because there was no connection to terrorism ever found. We picked up an innocent man — several, in fact – and tortured them because we were more interested in retribution at any cost than producing justice. That, for me, is the bottom line.
FRONTLINE/World and Stephen Grey have put together a harrowing and powerful look at the practice of “extraordinary rendition.” This is the practice of our government picking up a suspect and taking them to another nation for interrogation — a nation which we know uses torture techniques. A practice that is controversial for a number of reasons, not the least of which because people who are tortured will say anything, do anything, to make it stop — meaning that getting actionable, substantiated information from those being tortured is not exactly reliable. We have also simply been “disappearing” suspects, sometimes for years at a time, with no public accountability for the practice until journalists like Stephen and Dana Priest and Jane Mayer began to unravel the black sites and logistical twists and turns involved.
This began because the innocents who had been held in the name of the US began to be released from the darkness. And journalists began to search for them, to unravel the facts, and to bring their treatment out into the sunlight.
…In waterboarding, suspects are restrained on a platform with a cloth or cellophane placed over their heads; water is then poured over the cloth, creating the sensation of drowning. Military and intelligence historians say the practice dates to the Spanish Inquisition. After World War II, the United States prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding American prisoners….
As Jane Mayer has amply shown, as has Marty Lederman, the United Nations Convention Against Torture and U.S. law both prevent the outsourcing of torture. But, as Marty has also pointed out, the Bush Administration has been exploiting a loophole in the law to end-run its intent and claim that it doesn’t know to a certainty that what they are doing is outsourcing torture (Obsidian Wings has more.). Never mind that torture techniques have been shown to provide wholly unreliable information (PDF)– and to close out the ability to gain useful, actionable information via more humane methods. Or that this conduct makes both American military personnel (PDF) as well as civilians travelling abroad substantially less safe.
Depends on what your definition of “torture” is. Dick Cheney and I differ substantially on that point, I suppose. And, as Dan Froomkin demonstrates at Neiman, the Bush Administration’s credibility on this subject is very thin.
For many of our readers, this is not new information — many of you have been following this issue closely for quite a while. But for a lot of America, their exposure to this issue may come in this Frontline documentary. Or from the current motion picture “Rendition,” starring Reese Witherspoon, Jake Gyllenhaal and Meryl Streep. (Which I have not yet seen.) As you can see from the video above, Stephen Grey delves into the material in a straightforward and forthright manner. It is a difficult and painful subject to discuss, but one that we must talk about — and that we must come to grips with — because this has been done in all of our names.
And with that, I welcome Stephen Grey and open the floor to your questions.
Related posts:
- Air Force Doctor Gets Medal for Serving on Rendition Torture Flights
- Rendition, Coffins, Torture, Guantanamo – The Too Familiar Case of Mohammed Madni
- Obama’s First Rendition Looks Very Questionable
- Arar Decision Cripples Torture Rendition Suits
- Obama’s Extraordinary Health Care Townhall — And ABC’s Offensive Commercial Exploitation





Spotlight







Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About Firedoglake
Advanced search

Welcome Stephen — so glad that you could join us today for this important discussion.
as I understand it, this entire program is taken from Soviet techniques designed to extract confessions (not the truth) from “enemies of the state.”
It doesn’t work in getting real information, but our leadership is so twisted that they think we are all on a weekly TV series.
Good Morning, Mr. Grey. Welcome to FDL.
This is a grisly subject, and it must shock your conscious to be so close to the project. Have you shown any of this material to elected officials, and, if so, what were their reactions?
Do you believe that knowledge of the rendition program was meant to be out there as a means of intimidation. We can take you anywhere, any time, and you can do nothing, no one can help you and you will be tortured.
Do you believe that the use of torture is not information, but intimidation of others?
If that is the case they WANT “the enemy” to know that we torture.
What specific international crimes have been committed? Are George Bush and Dick Cheney likely to face charges in some court at a future date?
Can we find out who participated in ER? Do we know how they are recruited and trained?
Hi everyone – a few technical hitches here – but am now online …
Morning Christy. Hello Stephen. I’m sure you’re making quite a few people nervous with your Frontline documentary. Better in the shadows, you know?
Glitches happen. Welcome aboard. Thanks for your work. Frontline is one of the few worthwhile things on the tube. Imagine if it was mostly Frontline quality and content.
Good morning – do you know how many of these renditions were carried out?
peterboy @ 2
It’s an interesting point. Certainly the case that there is more behind torture than simply getting good intelligence – most people I’ve spoken too in teh business say it’s generally pretty bad.
I spoke to one higher up official ex CIA who told me the main purpose of rendition, to his mind, was effectively to scare terrorist networks. For that reason, it wasn’t entirely contrary to the interests of the agency, he thought, for all this talk of torture to be out there.
Anyone know anything about the theory that rendition flights may have been used to ferry drugs as well?
Welcome, Stephen, and bless you for taking up this difficult task. That my country has come to this breaks my heart, and the only path back to where we should be requires sunlight.
Here’s my opinion – the Bush regime isn’t stupid: they know as well as we do torture rarely leads to actionable results.
I believe there are two purposes:
1. Will ordinary Americans let this stand? If we do, this is just “…the beginning of sorrows.”
2. Intimidation, and I’m guessing, Stephen, you received some. Bush wants to bully citizens into submission. So far, he has, along with our pathetic Congress. Would that congressional Democrats (when they were in the minority) had thrown up the roadblocks Republicans (now in the minority) are so adept at.
I have faith that, when Americans come to understand the information you are providing, will demand a housecleaning.
Again, good on you for taking up this burden.
Welcome, Stephen. I was wondering if you saw the op-ed in the WaPo by Daniel Benjamin of the Brookings Institute which seems to give the Clinton administration a pass on extraordinary rendition.
Do you think this is a fair reflection of the situation?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/…..00835.html
SG @`12 exactly what I have been saying for years. It’s all about intimidation.
Case closed on that. None of the information is used in a trial and none would be used to thwart an operation. Too unreliable and they know it.
newtonusr @ 3
Well, I havent’ done any lobbying; I’m just a reporter! But the book is out there; along with plenty of other reporting by others.
It’s interesting to see how this issue is being taken up v cautiously in the Congress. I think legislators find it easier to deal with when there is a definite case of someone ‘innocent’ being rendered – someone like Canada’s Maher Arar.
But of course that misses the point – whether such actions like rendition are justified even for those where there is solid evidence that they are involved in terrorism? There is not too much debate of that in Congress… so far.
Jane Linkie please… I’d like to read that gordian knot.
Stephen — I thought one of the more fascinating aspects of this, as you detail in the clip above, was how you were told not to believe anything any of the released prisoners were telling you. But how the more you dug into their facts, the more you found corroborating evidence. And I’m curious to know the reaction of the initial sources when and if you confronted them with the unfolding mound of corroborating evidence? Any stories on that you can share.
As a former prosecutor, those sorts of face crumbling moments with contradictory evidence were priceless in investigative work, and I’m thinking you have some similar stories if you got the opportunity to do so…
Do you consider that Padilla was a victim of quasi extroadinary rendition?
There also seems to be a political necessity to claim scalps, if you will, Stephen. Look at what happened with KSM, especially on the confession of Daniel Pearl’s murder. Something about that revelation seemed desperately political and timed to benefit people who hadn’t cracked the case.
This seems impossible to conceive being done on behalf of America – not the America I grew up knowing. I am ashamed. Echoing a question from above: to what extent can the torturers (and their higher-ups) be held responsible, and under what forum of justice?
-MS
Taylor! Good to see you, as always. Early for you — hope you have your coffee at the ready…
Stephen Grey @ 12
That is just plain twisted. The interests of the agency prevail to the detriment of the stature of the nation as a whole.
Jane Hamsher @ 15
Hi Jane – I saw that OpEd piece too.
The interesting thing about the Clinton adminstration was that they combined a program of rendition to justice (the traditional way of bringing people home to the US by snatching them abroad; invented and legal since the 1880s) with extraordinary rendition – sending people to third countries.
But it’s worth noting that from the get-go, (with a rendition from Croatia to Egypt in 1995) there was evidence emerging that the people they rendered were being tortured. Two of those rendered in 1998 from Albania were hanged without trial.
Danny Pearl probably was about to reveal damaging things about Israel, he may have been given up as a false flag and to get the people riled up.
They did the beheading show for a while to whip up the hatred didn’t they? You think dropping a bomb on a wedding party is better than chopping someone’s head off? I don’t.
Early wake up call today, Christy. I’m on my second round of coffee… or is it my third? Thanks for having this chat. Very important to talk about.
…
and it was interesting speaking to those involved, like the US ambassador to Egypt at the time.
He was quite clear that – whatever might be said in public and the ‘assurances’ that were given of none torture – everyone involved knew that those rendered would be tortured.
With so much evidence early on, that’s why i think it’s quite hard to see how anyone since can really make the case these people were going to be well treated.
rendering to justice was done to Eichman. No problem with that. He had a real trial.
Hello Stephen;
Clearly, whilst denying publicly that such things even go on, many governments presumably endorse these ‘methods’. Have you any views on the ‘positions’ of the United Nations or the World Court, both ‘officially’ and ‘in practice’ regarding the use of these covert
‘policies’?
Well treated in prison? Isn’t that an oxymoron?
We have some rather inhuman prisons here in the good old USA. Max
Stephen at 28 — Marty Lederman, in one of the pieces that I link above, goes into great detail on the exploitation of that “plausible deniability” sort of *wink, wink, not confirming we’ll torture him, nudge, nudge* sort of loophole in US law. It is one that has been widened considerably by OJC opinions since 9/11.
Marty Meehan has a bill begun that would have closed the loophole, but it went nowhere in the last Congress.
Sir,
Thank you for being here. My husband was an American Vietnam vet and POW, who was tortured by the North Vietnamese. He suffered from his injuries for over thirty years, until his fatal heart attack two years ago.
Thank you putting the spotlight on torture. Thank you for standing up against torture.
I’m Canadian, so thank you for standing up for my countryman against the US law, policy and practice of torture and extraordinary rendition.
My question is: How do we spur all of the citizens of the United States to stand up and say:
NOT IN MY NAME!
NEVER IN MY NAME!
and keep saying it until the torture stops?
With gratitude,
For Dan,
Heather
Just a reminder to folks to take off-topic discussions to the prior thread. Thanks!
Slothrop @ 6
Well, no idea if such a court case would ever take place or succeed.
But it’s interesting that there some clear laws (like the US torture statute) in place that make pretty plain that i) it is illegal to send someone to a place where it’s more likely than not he will face torture ii) that anyone who conspires with others to get someone torture is also committing a federal offence.
The problems that any potential victims of torture face is that an investigation of such a crime has to be launched by the Government itself… so essentially, it’s difficult to imagine this administration launching a criminal probe on these matters.
All attempts to challenge the torture issue in the civil courts (like Khaled el Masri’s law suit) are being shot down on the grounds of ’state secrets’. And it looks like the Supreme Court doesn’t want to intervene.
Stephen Grey @ 17
I suppose it’s human nature not to want to deal with bad news. But, it is particularly egregious ignorance when such head-in-the-sand behavior is practiced by those who were elected, specifically, to deal with such matters.
I’m not sure I can watch this movie. The previews were really quite terrifying. Does anybody remember the film Closetland? Another good film about torture and political repression.
Meanwhile in lalaland:
“I want the people in Southern California to know that Americans all across this land care deeply about them”
- shrub. Awwwww.. I feel so loved.
I’ve often wondered if Pearl was killed by our guys. If I remember correctly the people who killed him were all in black with their faces covered. When I was reading some of the ACLU documents there was a description of some of the interrogators working for us dressed in exactly the same way.
Stephen Grey @ 27 – Was wondering if you believe or know that there has been a definite shift in how redition is used and the purposes of it since Bush and especially after 9/11? Some things I’ve read point to a definite shift in motives. From that same “5 Myths About Rendition”:
Stephen Grey @ 25
Thanks, Stephen. That oped felt politically motivated and didn’t seem like the whole story.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 19
Yes – this was something I found that really made a few people open up.
When I first started i got some clear warnings from a couple people close to the CIA that this story would not pan out – that I was following the wrong track and this was a fairly minor thing.
But I got some real evidence – when the accounts of prisoners were backed up precisely by, for instance, the flight logs of the CIA’s fleet of planes, then some of these same sources started to help me … some were as shocked as i was and they started asking questions.
Patty Morlan @ 36
I hate to say it, because I’m the absolute last person in the world to believe a conspiracy, but watching these people we call a government in action, I’m really at the point where I believe they’re capable of anything brutish, thuggish and amateurish. This latest escalation in Iran is just plain Orwellian — create an event (classifying Iran as a something bad in the absence of any exigent provocation, then responding to your own action by imposing sanctions. Who knows what’s real anymore?
Sorry, I forgot to welcome Mr. Grey.
Welcome!
I look forward to seeing the Frontline piece. And thank you for sticking with this story. It’s an important one and unfortunately not a lot of people are willing to do it. Kudos to you.
Stephen Grey @ 33
Is there a better chance at getting court action with the Arar case given that Condi owned up for the inappropriate rendition and seemed to acknowledge that he was tortured.
If so could this drive a more public look at the program.
Taylor Marsh @ 21
I thought the key question with KSM’s interrogation was not whether the ‘enhanced methods’ worked, as the administration has stated. But rather whether the information could have been gotten in a more reliable and decent way.
It was a little strange to hear about some of the things that allegedly came from the special methods. It implied he was a tough nut to crack- even though a year before his arrest he had spoken freely to Al Jazeera’s Yosri Fouda all about his involvement in 9/11…
Mr. Grey,
Is there a paper trail on rendition that leads up the chain in the W.H. like there is with the authorization of torture?
Stephen at 41 — One of the things that I have learned first hand in digging into these issues the last few years is how truly stovepiped information within the CIA and other intelligence agencies can be. I saw it with FBI and DEA agents with whom I worked on occasion when I was practicing law, but it was generally on an operational basis where you had someone doing undercover work that needed to stay secret. (The sort of issues that were brought up, for example, in Valerie Plame Wilson’s outing, but for different operational objectives, obviously.)
That sort of closely held information can be done for a very good reason. But, as we saw over and over in testimony during the Libby trial, it can also be done for CYA purposes when bad actors are taking advantage of what they know to be common practice to keep bad acts from becoming known. I can only imagine some of the shock that you might have gotten from people who were not involved who then found out that this was being done — in their names as well. Those would be some stories worth hearing, I would bet.
Mr. Grey, to date the Bush administration has argued that it can’t be sued by the victims of rendition because to allow these people to have their day in court would allegedly compromise US national security. So far, the courts have bought this argument.. which seems to me to be basically tantamount to judicial sanction for impunity. Did you probe this twist at all? What’s your take?
unconventional conventionist @ 11
I detail a list of nearly 100 renditions in Ghost Plane. CIA sources speak of the ‘low hundreds’.
Gen. Hayden recently talked of around 100 who were in ‘black sites’ and mid-two figures renditions IN ADDITION. Most people who were questioned in the ‘black sites’ seem to have been rendered off afterwards, if they weren’t sent to Guantanamo.
I also think his figure is big under-estimate – this may because he is not counting the renditions the agency has ‘arranged’, as opposed to the ones where their planes actually are doing the flying of these suspects from one place to another.
The Pakistanis for instance say they’ve handed over around 500 prisoners to the US, and not of those left the country through any kind of legal extradition.
One person involved in renditions told me that they sometimes went to EGypt to pick up an Egyptian official to be on the plane so that — officially — he could make the ‘arrest’ when they turned in Pakistan, or wherever; that way it could be put down as an Egyptian operation, not an American one.
The truth is we know the final location and fate of about 1/5 of people arrsted around the world since 9/11. This information has been kept closely guarded.
General Hayden Director of the CIA was on Charlie Rose a couple of days ago and he made the argument that the rate of renditions was higher during the Clinton years. But as Mary pointed out later in a comment, this was probably him lumping renditions (with a legal process) and extraordinary renditions (extra-judicial kidnappings) together. It sounds like a typical Hayden obfuscation.
Hayden also said that torture was only what shocks the conscience and used this definition to maintain that we do not render to countries that torture.
Any thoughts?
Secrecy is very dangerous in a democracy.
Are you talking preventing crimes or prosecuting a case?
Doesn’t secrecy require an open explanation or justification.
Who benefits from the secrecy. Show me.
p.s am typing like mad; sorry if i’m not getting to everything right away …
To say that this practice is horrifying and wrong wrong wrong is the mildest observation I can make.
Americans have become inurred to horror by films, fiction, and self serving explanations by Bushies in the ‘war against terror’. But I don’t think any of us really understand the depths of our inhumanity to fellow beings of whatever stripe is being done in our name.
Criminal acts should be aired by civil courts, and punishment, if found guilty, should be levied according to law.
I agree with other comments that intimidation is the goal, but Bush et al have taken that a step further by using the inevitable ‘confessions’ as actionable intelligence as their ticket to wage war.
I thank you for your investigation of this unspeakable activity; I hope I have the courage to watch the program in November.
btw, if you have not yet read Stephen’s book, Ghost Plane, it is truly a work of some exceptional journalism. There are stories of something like 80 plus different people who were detained under extraordinary rendition — including documentation on several who are still being held (or hidden, depending on whether they are alive or not at this point), with no real accountability for any of the actions taken in a lot of cases against wholy innocent people picked up by mistake.
Stephen — You are doing great. It’s tough to keep up with all the questions, but we really appreciate you taking the time to do this.
Hayden also said that “advanced interrogation techniques”, i.e. torture works. He alluded to 9,000 intelligence reports as a result of them. He did not, however, mention even one specific case where such a report prevented a single terrorist attack. I found this especially telling given Bush’s recent usual bogus claims about this.
Blub @ 48
Well – I should say (a little disclaimer) that all my comments here are mine personally not of Frontline/PBS etc.
The problem with keeping secret these matters is that it arguably makes torture a self-fulling prophecy.
I find it striking that, in all but the el Masri case, the Govt has actually not confirmed officially any particular case of rendition.
If they did actually reveal where everyone has been sent then it might be possible to ensure they were well treated. While someone has been completely disappeared then the torturer in say Syria can act with impunity – because there is no organisation that can knock on the door and demand to know what’s happened to this person.
I suspect the real reason for making this state secret case so strongly is that as soon as they concede responsibility for any one rendition operation, it’s going to open the floodgates to litigation; and that would also reveal much of the internal concern there has been at agencies like the CIA to these policies. We have a interview on the program with a very high-up ex CIA official who is prety categoric that rendition led to people being tortured.
Hugh at 56 — Froomkin documents several of those bogus claims in his Neiman piece that I link above. To say that the Bush Administration’s credibility via their inflated and unsubstantiated claims on this issue is very, very slim is to be kind, to say the least.
Stephen at 57 — I think you may be referring to Tyler Drumheller, who was the former station chief for Europe, if I remember correctly, wasn’t he?
Mahra Arrar is a pretty open case. The gov blocked him from testifying before the senate.
The CIA knows they are guilty as sin and the doing kabuki to slip out of the grasp of any court.
Hopefully they all will be tried, even the ones who know and said nothing. How many might that be?
I keep saying there has been a lot of concern inside the CIA and other agencies.
But no-one, to my knowledge, has thought of mounting a rescue attempt – like in the Rendition movie.
To digress, one thing i thought the film got wrong was it showed a CIA officer in the room actually in the room watching waterboarding etc.
This really misses the point. We are talking about an out-sourcing here where the CIA can deliberately keeps eyes shut and maintain deniability about what’s happening in these foreign jails.
So actually you can allow much worse things to occur if you’re not actually in the room watching it all.
(Being in the room as part of a torture session with something like electric shock treatment would also be a v clear federal offence for a US citizen; if the victim died it would be a capital offence).
Christy Hardin Smith @ 59
That’s right – head of operations in Europe from 2001 to 2005; he had mixed feelings about rendition but i think gives a v honest take on it.
Notice how they all open their mouths AFTER they leave service. Why don’t they show some ethics when they are IN service.
What do you think of Michael Sheuer. He seems to be proud of the program he was associated with.
Stephen at 61 — That’s interesting about the film “Rendition.” I haven’t seen it as yet, but one of our commenters via an e-mail to me was saying yesterday that it was very intriguing and raises a lot of questions that people ask themselves as they are leaving. Getting people to begin to ask questions is a big part of exposing this to more sunshine inside the DC establishment — something that has been tough to get going the last few years.
For anyone who is interested, a Frontline special on “The Torture Question” is now online and you can view the whole program. It talks about Abu Ghraib, but also the case of Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi, the guy who helped bring Colin Powell down, and take us to war.
Hugh @ 56
Well, like you I would like to see real evidence of that; a lot of evidence i’ve seen relate to plots that were disrupted/ never happened. It’s difficult to say if they ever would have happened.
And like i say, the issue is less whether a particular detainee has useful information to give, it’s whether it REQUIRED enhanced interrogation to get him to talk, or whether it could have been done differently. I’ve spent a lot of time interviewing people who have done successful interviews with people in Al Qaeda – those like Jack Cloonan, ex FBI AL Qaeda task force. Cloonan, and others I’ve met, are convinced from experience you can get people to talk even after reading them their rights.
SG @ 61… this is the kind of kabuki which so morally repugnant and unacceptable.
Here.. take the prisoner in there and make sure the door is closed so I don’t see the torture. That’s ok, My boss said if we don’t see it with our own eyes we’re safe. I’ll just sit over there and read Newsweek.
This is another of the great fakes that the CIA claims, including ms plame… we can’t reveal our successes.
Why not?
I’m curious to know how much additional information has come to you since your book was published? I’d imagine once an article is out — or an entire expose in book form — more information trickles in to you. I’d be interested to know whether any new information since the book has made it into the documentary — and how useful any of it was in leading you to new investigative work onthis subject?
Good question Christy @ 69
You see she was a prosecutor.. she knows how to think
Stephen great work.
At what level would these extraordinary renditions be authorized in the government, whether under Clinton or Bush (and is there a difference between those two)?
Interesting point you make about the goal under Clinton to be disrupting active efforts and under Bush to be interrogation.
I would tend to agree that intimidation of critics is the goal. It fits nicely with the “gloves are off” statements post-911, but also with Bush activities pre-911 such as observation flight in South China sea that was shot down. Remember that whole China as enemy thing way back before he decided Axis of Evil would play would be better patsies, er, would better in Peoria.
And the Republicans STILL call it a ‘Christian’ nation. I guess they are a little mixed up on who, exactly, was on that cross. You see, Repubs, THAT was Jesus! And he was being tortured….to death. So when you spout off about a ‘Godly’ county, you are not talking about the United States of America any longer. We are East Germany now. Oh, ya.
SanderO @ 63
Michael Scheuer tells it very straight. I wouldn’t comment about his views. But he is pretty clear on the facts: that he and the rest of the agency knew people would be tortured. ANd that so-called assurances were hardly serious.
I second Taylor’s recommendation at 65. The Frontline piece on the Torture Question was searing — and the Cheney involvement in pushing the policies forward is pretty clear from the get go.
One of these days, I would love to hear the stories on the behind-the-scenes string pulling at the DOJ — including the end-run of Comey and others being deliberately left out of the loop on things that Goldsmith alluded to in his recent congressional testimony. That would be a story worth piecing together if you could get folks to be thoroughly honest about it. I would imagine that Addington and Libby, among others, had a lot of backroom meetings going on in the days after 9/11 and beyond.
Christy Hardin Smith @ 68
What I set out to do in the documentary is try to report only things that were new since the book came out. So hopefully it will all seem fresh.
BTW – the promo site on http://www.pbs.org/frontlinewo…..dition701/
(forgive the plug) has a bit of information and more clips; we’re going to have a much bigger website too to go with the program.
The first thing I did was go and see Abu Omar. He is the one who was snatched in Milan for which 25 alleged CIA operatives are due to put on trial for kidnapping in Italy. When I wrote the book he was still locked up, but he was released in January this year and I went in a a tourist to meet him. He reveals in graphic detail what happened to him – and how he ‘disappeared from history’ when was vanished from teh street of Milan. He was taking a big risk speaking, but you get the feeling he was bursting to tell his story. He showed me the marks of his torture and he lost hearing in one ear. I won’t go into all the torture – but he says they tried to rape him among other things. Really quit shocking – but he also had fresh information about the whole picture in teh EGyptian jails; telling me details of how so many other prisoners rendered by teh US to Egypt (the govermnet itself confirms at least 60) are still jail, wearing white unifomrs marked ‘interrogation’ and with no imminent prospect of being brought to any trial…
… there is also new infomration that’s emerged in the shape of a whole new round of renditions in the Horn of Africa involving women and children (including wives of some wanted terrorists, rather than the terrorist themselves). I went to Kenya and Ethiopia to track that one down.
Plus more evidence that emerged on teh black sites in Europe; I looked at some flight evidence that showed fake flight plans being filed to a base in Poland where one of the black sites is said to have been.
And then there is an interview with a Brit resident named Bisher al Rawi – a compelling character who has just been released from Guantanamo. He’s the first person i’ve come across who was actually inside (as a victim) on the CIA’s Gulfstream V ghost plane; and also the first person to talk about the CIA’s Dark Prison in AFghanistan – a prison so dark, he said, you couldn’t see the end of your nose and where he was bombarded with music.. there are few people out there who’ve actually been released after being there; so it was really important for me to get his testimony.
Sorry to go on so long on that …
Torture is the embodiment of Dick Cheney’s No Rules government, the flip side of no oversight and full immunity. He doesn’t expect it to produce valuable intelligence. He expects it to instill fear in all his enemies, foreign and domestic.
What it does is multiply his foes like a computer virus. What it requires is constant warfare – first Afghanistan, then Iraq, now almost certainly Iran – so that he can pretend to a gullible public and purposely blind Congress that torture is “an essential tool of ‘democracy’”. His straining for immunity from prosecution is not merely self-protective, although it is that. It is to show what he can do with impunity.
Frontline is a leader in the fight against Dick Cheney induced blindness.
Stephen — I believe that Frontline has a clip of the Omar interview up on the website, if folks are interested in a preview of some of his story. The question of what has gone on with family members — in some cases very young children — is especially critical, I think, and one that merits a LOT more public exposure and accountability.
Stephen Grey @ 74
As long as you can go, Stephen. Fascinating.
Stephen Grey @ 74
No…go on more. These details are illuminating.
Right on Ear @75
On the differences between rendition under Clinton and Bush:
Broadly speaking there were several dozen renditions pre 9/11, several hundred after 9/11. I like to know how Gen. Hayden is doing his sums on this because it doesn’t square with the sheer number of people who’ve been moved around without any legal process from country-to-country since 9/11. (I think point ignored is that the US military have also carried out renditions too, they call them ‘repatriations’; so it’s not just the CIA; the 800 people sent to Guantanamo were rendered there – there was no extradition involved at all)>
Before 9/11, my understanding all rendition operations were approved by the White House specifically – and by NSC laywers, laywers at DoJ and within the CIA.
After 9/11, Bush provided greater devolved authorites for the CIA to go ahead and carry out renditions without requiring prior authorisation. (But that didn’t stop the agency from making sure they told the White House about each and every case; just in case things went wrong …)
Stephen Grey @ 81
Imagine the panic from White House lawyers when those reports hit the Executive Branch.
my bold
btw, in case folks missed this the other day, Mary had a detailed comment on the issue of extraordinary rendition and some background and history. Thought folks might be interested — there are several comments that follow that are equally illuminating and worth a read down the thread for them.
Got to go right now — sorry i only got to a fraction of the questions.
You can find more info on some of what i’ve done on my website http://www.stephengrey.com and the http://www.ghostplane.net site; in addition to the frontline one.
Thanks so much for having me!
I will try to pop back later …
What can go wrong in a rendition which is never acknowledged?
Seems like a silly question, but if someone dies… they don’t care… do they?
Stephen — thank you so much for stopping by today to talk about the documentary. We very much appreciate your time — and your thorough answers.
shays is a piece of work.
Grey is a great american
Sander at 87 — Actually, he’s a Brit… *g*
Thank you again Stephen for the visit.
Thank you Stephen for shedding light on one of the darkest aspects of our time.
That explains it…
he’s a great humanitarian.
Amnesty International is a brit organization.
Maybe they get human rights there a bit better.
Remember what they were saying after 911… Today we’re all american…. that sentiment didn’t last long. Thank you GWB and Darth.
Jane has a fresh thread up and running for everyone…
Steven didn’t Khalid confess to a bunch of things that he couldn’t have done? Do I misremember this?
Stephen’s likely gone but if he checks back I have a couple of questions.
First, doesn’t the practice of extraordinary rendition essentially deny the US of ever getting any accurate intelligence from these individuals in the first place. You are submitting these individuals not only to the absolutely coercive interrogation practices of these regimes…but there is another problem.
The information/confessions, etc. are then controlled as a “product” by those same intelligence services.The Saudis for years covered up the Al Qaida involvement in the 1996 attacks on the Khobar Towers. For years they tried to lead the CIA and FBI into believing that the suspects captured were IRANIAN. Pakistans SIS has also been involved in some great misdirections. In some cases they try to pin threats on people that they desire to be marginalized, while in others they cover up the involvement of those affiliated with the government or who might embarass them. Sometimes they extract confessions and broker that information to third parties.
How can that information be trusted in the least from despotic states?
My second query relates to completely shifting the interrogation process away from coercive methods entirely. I recall that the interrogators of the Nazis before the Nuremburg Trials simply used long, quiet interactions (like playing chess) to open up the sources to talking about their actions. It apparently generated large amounts of accurate information.
My understanding is that there are now promising techniques using CAT-scans and PET-scans that could be used, with intelligent interrogation to detect when a “source” is being deliberately evasive or when they are being forthright and open. The method actually requires that the individual not be placed in any sort of physical pain when they give their responses. Ironically, instead of putting our resources into researching such non-coercive interrogations. The subject can’t be beaten, they can’t be drugged. They have to be well-fed and treated.
The interrogator asks a series of questions that eventually indicates inaccurate responses in the geniculate cortex and other centers requiring rational inhibition of normal processing pathways. If they do this the investigator can focus on why the individual is actively avoiding “honest” responses.
But if the individual is forthright, they will process answers without proceeding through inhibition areas, which likely would result in many individuals who are not guilty being exonerated (and without carrying the tales of abuse with them). In either case, actionable intelligence can be obtained.
Yet there seems to be no interest in developing these neurophysiological methods of evaluation. Instead we must be spending hundreds of millions of dollars in extraordinary renditions and mind-destroying brainwashing experiments in Guantanamo. But if we really wanted to obtain accurate information from terrorist suspects THIS would be the way to go.
You know, many on the right believe that this simulated drowning thing is done in discrete instances.
They believe that a relatively healthy and sane captive is taken to the waterboarding site, the procedure is performed with a doctor present, and that the interrorgators just shout questions at the captive while he feels like he is drowning, and disoriented, and thus has trouble lying. Then they are taken back to their comfy cell.
The right does NOT believe that this is combined with isolation and physical discomfort effects like extreme cold and lack of sleep. The right does not believe that this happens with any frequency or repetition, that the captive is told exactly when it will stop, and so forth. They believe that the people being waterboarded are just being disoriented for a bit like if you were spun until dizzy.
I’ve read this on blogs, argued with them that it isn’t so. I’ve told them that if what they believe is true, then it would not even be effective at what it claims to. I’m ‘crazy’ and ‘unrealistic’ and have no idea what is going on, to them.