THE DAILY BLADE: Are US Interrogation Techniques Abusive Or Are They Effective?
Abu Zubaydah, the first of Osama bin Laden’s lieutenants captured in Pakistan by the U.S. after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, was spirited to a secret safe house in Thailand by the CIA for interrogation. The New York Times notes that "President Bush pointedly cited the capture and interrogation of Mr. Zubaydah in his speech last Wednesday announcing the transfer of Mr. Zubaydah and 13 others to the American detention center in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. And he used it to call for ratification of the tough techniques employed in the questioning."
Based on interviews with several "anonymice" at the CIA and FBI who refused to comment on the record, the Times constructs a timeline of Zubaydah’s interrogation, and the inter-agency squabbling that flared up over whether the CIA’s tough methods were more effective than the FBI’s softer approach:
By all accounts, Mr. Zubaydah’s condition was rapidly deteriorating when he arrived in Thailand [several bullet fragments had ripped through his abdomen and groin during the gun battle in which he had been captured]. Soon after his capture, Mr. Zubaydah nearly died of his infected wounds. …
According to accounts from five former and current government officials who were briefed on the case, F.B.I. agents — accompanied by intelligence officers — initially questioned him using standard interview techniques. They bathed Mr. Zubaydah, changed his bandages, gave him water, urged improved medical care, and spoke with him in Arabic and English, languages in which he is fluent. …
In Thailand, the new C.I.A. team concluded that under standard questioning Mr. Zubaydah was revealing only a small fraction of what he knew, and decided that more aggressive techniques were warranted.
At times, Mr. Zubaydah, still weak from his wounds, was stripped and placed in a cell without a bunk or blankets. He stood or lay on the bare floor, sometimes with air-conditioning adjusted so that, one official said, Mr. Zubaydah seemed to turn blue. At other times, the interrogators piped in deafening blasts of music by groups like the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Sometimes, the interrogator would use simpler techniques, entering his cell to ask him to confess. …
Mr. Bush on Wednesday acknowledged the use of aggressive interview techniques, but only in the most general terms. "We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking," Mr. Bush said. He said the C.I.A. had used "an alternative set of procedures’’ after it became clear that Mr. Zubaydah "had received training on how to resist interrogation. …
Crucial aspects of what happened during Mr. Zubaydah’s interrogation are sharply disputed. Some former and current government officials briefed on the case, who were more closely allied with law enforcement, said Mr. Zubaydah cooperated with F.B.I. interviewers until the C.I.A. interrogation team arrived. They said that Mr. Zubaydah’s resistance began after the agency interrogators began using more stringent tactics.
Other officials, more closely tied to intelligence agencies, dismissed that account, saying that the C.I.A. had supervised all interviews with Mr. Zubaydah, including those in which F.B.I. agents asked questions. …
"As the president has made clear, the fact of the matter is that Abu Zubaydah was defiant and evasive until the approved procedures were used," one government official said. "He soon began to provide information on key Al Qaeda operators to help us find and capture those responsible for the 9/11 attacks."
This official added, "When you are concerned that a hard-core terrorist has information about an imminent threat that could put innocent lives at risk, rapport-building and stroking aren’t the top things on your agenda."
The Stiletto agrees that given the stakes, the "good cop, bad cop" routine isn’t going to cut it. And let’s face it, the "toughest" interrogation techniques we may have used – including "waterboarding" and sensory deprivation – are spa treatments compared to what the Iraqis are doing to the prisoners at Abu Ghraib now that they have control of the prison:
The notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad is at the centre of fresh abuse allegations just a week after it was handed over to Iraqi authorities, with claims that inmates are being tortured by their new captors. …
An independent witness who went into Abu Ghraib this week told The Sunday Telegraph that screams were coming from the cell blocks housing the terrorist suspects. Prisoners released from the jail this week spoke of routine torture of terrorism suspects and on Wednesday, 27 prisoners were hanged in the first mass execution since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein's regime.
Conditions in the rest of the jail were grim, with an overwhelming stench of excrement, prisoners crammed into cells for all but 20 minutes a day, food rations cut to just rice and water and no air conditioning.
Some of the small number of prisoners who remained in the jail after the Americans left said they had pleaded to go with their departing captors, rather than be left in the hands of Iraqi guards.
"The Americans were better than the Iraqis. They treated us better," said Khalid Alaani, who was held on suspicion of involvement in Sunni terrorism.
There you have it: Even the prisoners incarcerated at Abu Ghraib say they weren’t terribly mistreated by the Americans using interrogation techniques that Amnesty International, the ACLU and a panoply of lefty groups and Dems have termed "inhumane."
MSM Doesn’t Tell The Whole Story On Illegal Immigration
Conor Friedersdorf, who manages the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin (Ontario, CA), blog on immigration issues, reads roughly two dozen newspaper articles on the topic each day – more than 8,000 of them over the past year. Most are breaking news stories that report details of legislation, protests, raids and census data. The next largest group are feature stories that lead off with "an anecdote about a particular illegal immigrant."
Although Friedersdorf believes "It is appropriate for newspapers to offer readers insights into the lives of immigrants" and such stories are "perfectly defensible pieces of journalism" - and he acknowledges that "many here illegally have sympathetic stories" – he nonetheless takes issue with the one-sidedness of these vignettes:
[I]t is problematic when nearly every single anecdotal lead and news feature about illegal immigrants focuses on the deportee who works three jobs and once saved a man from drowning -- while almost always ignoring the deportee who collects welfare under an assumed identity and has two drunken driving arrests.
Illegal immigrants have loafers and scoundrels in their midst as does every other subgroup in society. Insofar as immigration coverage systematically ignores that fact, its effect is to mislead readers. …
[I]mmigration stories often highlight those hurt by a crackdown on illegal immigration. We've all read stories about married couples separated or parents and children torn apart.
But immigration stories typically don't afford the same individualized portrayals of workers who lose their jobs to illegal immigrants, or see their wages fall, or endure longer commutes on more crowded freeways. …
[R]eaders are owed more balanced coverage that reports more often on things such as illegal immigrant gang members and children whose education suffers because their teachers are less efficient in classrooms where half the pupils speak one language and the remainder another.
People are hurt by illegal immigration, and we need to hear their stories, too.
Here, the opening paragraphs from an article in The Washington Post that perfectly illustrates Friedersdorf’s complaint:
Moments before stepping out of a shadowy illegal economy into the light of a more lawful existence, Edy Diaz practiced what he would say.
"Cambiar is ‘to change,’ right?" he asked, pausing outside his white delivery van. Then he walked into a Wachovia bank and showed his new Social Security card to the branch manager. Slowly and carefully, he explained: "The number you have is wrong."
For more than a decade, Diaz, who was born in Guatemala, had been using a bogus Social Security number … He had carried a hand-me-down cellphone, still in the original owner's name. He had "bought" a home in Beltsville by having a cousin put his name on the loan. …
The article then details at some length all the subterfuges – some felonious – Diaz engaged in "that allowed him to live in suburban Washington and work illegally for a decade":
† Diaz got a fake green card and a fake Social Security card for about $80.
† A notario who had worked at the IRS helped Diaz get an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), which the agency issues to foreign nationals and others ineligible for Social Security numbers. Using his ITIN, Diaz has filed a 1040 form since 1998. Although his phony Social Security number appeared on the attached W-2 form, every year he got a tax refund of a few thousand dollars.
† Diaz also used the ITIN to open bank accounts. For employer-sponsored health insurance, he used the fake Social Security number – and no one raised a red flag. In 2000, when he applied for a loan to buy an Acura Integra, the dealer ran a credit check and found out that the Social Security number belonged to someone who was dead. The dealer went ahead and processed the loan anyway.
What is notable about this trail of deception is that every step of the way, American companies who wanted to sell Diaz something colluded in perpetuating the fraud: The bank in which he deposited his paychecks, the health insurance provider and car dealer all accepted the phony Social Security number and looked the other way, even when there was proof that Diaz was breaking the law.
Meanwhile our own federal government’s ineptitude exacerbates matters: The IRS gives Diaz an ID number for tax purposes – knowing that the Social Security number on his W-2 form is not his. On top of that, the IRS gives him a hefty tax refund every year – in effect, rewarding his illegal labor – instead of confiscating the sum as a deterrent to him and other illegal aliens working her with forged documents and phony IDs.
Is it any wonder that local municipalities around the country, like Hazelton, PA, are taking matters into their own hands to stop businesses from hiring illegal aliens and landlords for renting to them? Someone’s got to draw the line somewhere, and it looks like small town America is going take on illegal immigration through local ordinances because the feds are unwilling or unable to enforce the laws we already have on the books, much less to fortify the borders against the massive intrusion that occurs on a daily basis (video of border control agents in Yuma, AZ is preceded by a commercial).
Why am I not hearing this?
Everyone has been sounding off concerning the illegal issue, much to the chagrin of Congress. Senators from both parties wanted to slip the immigration bill through in the dark of night, but thanks to talk radio and the internet, it has dawned on both republicans and democrats that our interests aren’t being served, and people are mad. Me among them. It reminds me that term limits would be a good thing.
But what has not been discussed is the root cause of illegal immigration. Why are Mexicans risking money, life, and limb to come here? Why aren’t there enough jobs and a good enough economy in Mexico to attract these people so they can make a better life for themselves there? Why can’t the 12 – 18 million illegals here be upwardly mobile in Mexico? Why do they feel the need to leave their homes and travel hundreds of miles to work for less than minimum wage, even suffering abuse from employers and having no recourse, because they are illegal?
It’s exasperating. Take tourism, for example. If worked out properly by the people in charge, Mexico could easily compete head on with Hawaii! Suppose a large area was declared by the Mexican government to now be a huge tourist haven developed to have: filtered drinking water; clean, safe streets; absolutely no bribery, drugs, or porn; and honest, well-paid police.
Further, suppose this tourist mecca had: safe on-site personally-inspected food served in clean, excellent restaurants; tons of family attractions such as movie theatres, games and rides; cheap, yet excellent, hotels; and a crew that came through nightly and kept the whole huge campus spotless?
This tourist playground, and others scattered across Mexico, could employ many of those who would otherwise come to America.
So why hasn’t this happened? Why haven’t rivals to Busch Gardens, Six Flags, Universal Studios, Marine World, and Disneyland sprung up in Mexico?
And more importantly, why isn’t this a topic of discussion here? Shouldn’t we have been asking Bill Clinton and now George Bush to go south and strongly encourage Mexico to engage enthusiastically in the entrepreneurial spirit, rule of law, and put an end to bribery and law enforcement corruption? Obviously, the result would be an explosion in business start-ups not just in amusement parks, of course, but in all kinds of enterprises, this then resulting in a reasonable standard of living for its citizens.
Not only that, Mexico has oil. Some experts estimate reserves as large as Saudi Arabia (unproven, but possible).
In light of the foregoing, do you agree with me that it’s absurd that 12 – 18 million people should have to travel north to find a better life, when, if the thinking and attitude were adjusted, they could fulfill that dream in their own country?
Grimgold
Reply to this