How Marc Learned to Stop Thinking and Love Waterboarding.
We all recall that on January 22nd, in the Washington Post Marc A. Thiessen had published an op-ed column in which he urged that the new President to keep, unchanged, all the tools which the Bush Administration had available for interrogations.
What he simply meant was - please Obama let's keep waterboarding - and if you don't, and then if there is any attack then that means we were right and you were wrong and we'll hang that around your neck like an Albatross.
Still no matter the twisted "I hope Obama let's us keep playing Spanish Inquisition or else I hope he fails" tenor of Thiessen's 1/22 piece it was one thing to see the venom in writing, quite another to hear the words spill forth from Thiessen's lips in a recent BBC World Service interview.
What makes the interview particularly interesting, besides it's content, is it's timing. For the six and a half minute interrogative occurred late in the day that the WashPo op-ed was published, on the same day that Obama issued the memos and Executive Orders prohibiting interrogations of the type Marc Thiessen so clearly loves.
Perhaps it was due to the timing, perhaps it was because of the rapid repudiation by the new Administration of all that Thiessen praised - but, regardless his hyperbole muscle is in high dudgeon.
No transcript was available that I could find for the interview, which is available at this URL:
BBC Media Player Streaming Audio of Marc Thiessen interview.
(Warning, this will re-size your window, so you may want to launch into an entirely new browser session).
Absent the transcript I offer one below which I have made after wading through 386 seconds of grand delusion, Thiessen style.
To place things in some perspective I have interspersed some more rational interpretations of events and laid fire and truth on some of the more obvious strawmen and hyperbolic distortions offered up by Marc. I'll leave it our dear readers to address any corrections and omissions in the comments.
NOTE: I didn't catch the interviewer's name, so if regular listeners recognize the same from the streaming audio, please let me know.
The audio clip begins after the in-studio interviewer asks what Thiessen thinks of the decision to constrain interrogation practices to those permitted in the respective portions of the Army Field Manual.
Marc Thiessen: I think it's probably the most dangerous decision an American President has ever made within 48 hours of taking the oath of office.
This CIA program is quite literally the one single thing that has stopped another September 11th attack from happening.
Yes, dear reader, our first excursion from the land of Thiessen's fevered visions to reality comes quite early in the interview. The lack of any attack on US soil by foreign agents since 9/11 isn't due to factors like:
- Actually listening to Intelligence Briefings (in other words doing what you should have done to prevent 9/11), or
- Greater scrutiny of visa applicants, or
- Some improvement of screening at Ports of Entry, or
- The whole TSA, take of your shoes, no box cutters & let's emulate the Israeli's Airport Screenings.
No, our "safety since 9/11" according to Marc is entirely due to turning our trained CIA interrogators into bit players in a re-enactment of the Spanish Inquisition. So, there, proof, see, QED. The fact that it was ignoring information culled through standard means of acquisition, interrogation and analysis which directly led to 9/11 has no place in this discussion according to Thiessen.
Marc continues ...
Thiessen: When the CIA program was started, it began right after September 11th when a terrorist called Abu Zubaida was captured. He was a high ranking terrorist who was very close to Osama Bin Laden and Sheik Mohammed.
He was brought into CIA custody and he was questioned according to the Army Field manual and normal interrogation techniques and resisted, and had obviously received interrogation resistance training. How to resist interrogation. And it was only then that they performed these enhanced interrogation techniques and he began talking.
OK - first things first, you can't have "began right after September 11th" and the capture of Abu Zubaida in the same sentence, at least not without invoking some distinct problems with time, space and relativity. Secondly, the capture itself is instructive - it came on March 28th 2002, as a result of cell phone intercepts overseas, cooperation with Foreign agencies and similar footwork. In other words, more of that boring, non-torturing CIA / FBI / NSA-style tradecraft.
As for the implication that he talked soon after the application of these techniques that is not supported by all who might know. The swift breaking of the dam is the version initially reported by John Kiriakou, about whom more later. However, not all agree that he broke so quickly - and this important to note, for such 36 second miracle reports are essentially a crutch for those who wish to continue to use such methods. See, it worked so fast, it's as if we never even used waterboarding. Except, we did, and not all agree that it rapidly broke Zubaida, nor that what he said was in fact valuable information.
To quote Daniel Coleman (a retired FBI agent involved in his interrogation) on the value of Zubaida's disclosures.
"I don't have confidence in anything he says, because once you go down that road, everything you say is tainted," Coleman said, referring to the harsh measures. "He was talking before they did that to him, but they didn't believe him. The problem is they didn't realize he didn't know all that much."
and from the same WashPo article - 35 seconds to full "truth" not so much:
But other former and current officials disagreed that Abu Zubaida's cooperation came quickly under harsh interrogation or that it was the result of a single waterboarding session. Instead, these officials said, harsh tactics used on him at a secret detention facility in Thailand went on for weeks or, depending on the account, even months.
The videotaping of Abu Zubaida in 2002 went on day and night throughout his interrogation, including waterboarding, and while he was sleeping in his cell, intelligence officials said. "Several hundred hours" of videotapes were destroyed in November 2005, a senior intelligence officer said.
Now back to twisted Escher fabric that is Marc's world, what ensues is one of the more ridiculous portions of the interview:
Thiessen: And his, er his interrogation led to the capture of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, mastermind of 9/11 and then the use of these techniques on Khalid Sheik Mohammed and several other detainees stopped a series of terrorist attacks, against the United States and the United Kingdom.
If it was not for the CIA program and the waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques, terrorists would have attacked the US consulate in Karachi, they would have attacked the marine camp in Djibouti, they would have flown a plane into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, and they would have flown planes into Heathrow Airport and into Canary Wharf in London.
Interviewer 1 – You can assert all those things and say that attacks have been prevented, as a result of the actions taken by the Bush Administration in this area, but you can't prove a negative.
Marc Thiessen: Well certainly you can can , you, can er we, the ah information gained from these techniques led to the capture of other terrorists and the breaking up of cells that were planning these attacks.
<notably – he fails to mention that the link he asserts is less certain and more tenuous – see "success story">
So the question for the listeners is: Ah, you can be, you can be against these techniques, but if you are then you have to take the risk that you would have a ground zero at the Canary Wharf in London, equivalent to the ground zero in Manhattan (today?)
(On the Library Tower in LA – it should be noted these truths are self-evident to all except the loony Thiessen and his ilk).
Which aspects of this plot could Khalid Shaikh Mohammed's waterboarding have revealed?
* We learned about Al Qaeda's interest in flying planes into buildings on September 11, 2001.
* We knew about Al Qaeda's use of shoe bombs from Richard Reid, captured in December 22, 2001.
* We knew about Jemaah Islamiyah at least since the Bali Bomb attack on October 12, 2002.
* The "key al Qaeda operative" and pilot for the plot, Zaini Zakari, was arrested by Malaysian authorities in December 2002.
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan on March 1, 2003 — after the plot was discovered, after the plot was "derailed", after the pilot of the plane was captured. Khaled Sheikh Mohammed could not have "provided valuable information and saved lives" when all aspects of the plot were well-known and the attack had been foiled prior to his capture.
But, letting truth get in the way of the rambling man that Thiessen was becoming in this interview is simply unfair - so back to Marc and his view of the Universe:
Interviewer 1 – What about the argument that in going for these unofficial renderings of these people from one place to another the treatment of these people at CIA detention centers around the world, ah, the US gave up the moral high ground, and also potentially indulged in activities that acted as a recruitment, as a recruiting sergeant for those who would follow the Al Qaeda way?
Marc Thiessen: I don't believe the US has given up the moral high ground, in any way shape or form. What the United States has done is use a limited number of techniques, against a limited number of individuals who are very senior high-ranking people. Remember who are the people these techniques are being used against, Khalid Sheik Mohammed a man who's responsible for the death of 3,000 American citizens and had other attacks pla .., other attacks underway, that were broken up because of the use of these techniques.
I don't believe we surrendered the moral high ground. I don't believe, at the least the fact is these techniques are effective and were effective and are the singular – er our intelligence community asserts that if it weren't for these techniques and this program the Al Qaeda would have succeeded in launching another attack on the scale of 9/11.
And so the critics of this program can criticize it all they want, they can say we lost our moral high ground, but they have to accept that the alternative would be the death of thousands of people.
In other words I'm going to stamp my feet and say something is so in the face of any and all contradictory evidence.
Interviewer 1 : Yes, but again you can't assert that as a positive. And say for (inaudible)
Thiessen : I can!, I can absolutely do it. Our intelligence community has said it. And, President Bush on September 6th 2006 gave a speech in which he detailed specifically in great detail how the techniques were, er, who the techniques were used against and what information was gained from them and which cells were broken up as a result
Interviewer 1 : How do you think those in the CIA and the intelligence gathering community in the US will be feeling right now?
Thiessen: I think they feel under attack. For the last eight years they've felt that the Commander in Chief has had their back, that he believes they are good people who are protecting the country and doing everything that's necessary – and they now have a Commander in Chief that's called them torturers.
This is a lie made up out of whole cloth, a canard, a strawman.
Neither Obama nor incoming CIA chief Panetta did any such thing
and Adm. Dennis Blair has studiously avoided calling waterboarding torture. (Note - I may disagree with Blair's lack of clarity on that issue, but it does completely undercut Thiessen's frothing lies.)
In addition, there were likely not that many who did engage on such methods. Further, there are many who wanted the rules returned to their original basis, the High Moral Ground Thiessen believes was not lost, not least amongst which is one John Kiriakou - you remember the source of the 35-second miracle broken man.
(From the Washington Independent)
"It’s a great leap forward in terms of respect for human rights," said John Kiriakou, the retired CIA official who supervised the early interrogation of Al Qaeda detainee Abu Zubaydah in 2002. "From the very beginning, the CIA should not have been in the business of enhanced interrogation techniques and detentions." CIA interrogators waterboarded Abu Zubaydah, but not while Kiriakou supervised the interrogation.
Finally, even had Obama explicitly called the methods torture, and also the interrogators who indulged in such methods torturers – as did Ms Susan Crawford most recently – he was calling those individuals exactly what they had become.
But back down Thiessen's rabbit-hole:
Thiessen: ... which is false and unfair, these are not torturers, these are patriotic Americans, they are heroes. They saved thousands of lives by doing what they did. And, they deserve our praise, not the attack they have gotten from this Administration.
Interviewer 1: When you say they were not torturers but the Bush Administration's legal official did, just last week did conclude that the treatment of some of those at Guantanomo Bay certainly, cumulatively, umm amounted to something that would meet the standard for torture.
Thiessen: I simply disagree with that assessment, I just don't agree with that assessment.
Gee Marc, If you say it isn't three times does torture go away – if you say it twice backwards does the Candyman appear?
Thiessen: I'll give you an example of why waterboarding is not torture ...
You just know this is going to be really good ...
Ah, a famous British Writer Christopher Hitchens underwent waterboarding to see what it feels like and to prove it was torture – and by doing so he proved it was not torture.
See – I told you this would be really screwy good stuff - Wonder if Hitchens agreed with that conclusion? Well, it should be sufficient to quote the title to that linked Vanity Fair article:
Believe Me, It’s Torture
Thiessen: A common-sense definition of torture is that if you are willing to try it to see what it feels like it is not torture.
No Marc, that is not a common-sense definition. This is as defined by the UN:
any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him, or a third person, information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in, or incidental to, lawful sanctions
Besides which it is clear that Marc does not realize Hitchens is a seriously troubled individual in his own right, so maybe he was hoping to enjoy it, or at minimum show he was as strong and macho as the 150 second man of myth, Khalid Sheik Mohammed.
Oh look, he sort of was:
This is because I had read that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, invariably referred to as the "mastermind" of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, had impressed his interrogators by holding out for upwards of two minutes before cracking. (By the way, this story is not confirmed. My North Carolina friends jeered at it. "Hell," said one, "from what I heard they only washed his damn face before he babbled.") But, hell, I thought in my turn, no Hitchens is going to do worse than that. Well, O.K., I admit I didn’t outdo him.
Once more into the stinking maw that is Thiessen's mind. Having set up that strawman about Hitchens and torture he walks with it off the cliff:
Thiessen: If I asked Christopher Hitchens if he would let me apply electrodes to his body and have a few thousand volts put through him, he would probably say no.
If I asked him if he would like to have his fingernails taken off, he would probably say no.
Unless of course Hitchens wears false fingernails, but, well never mind – Marc's on a roll
Thiessen: Waterboarding is not torture, waterboarding is unpleasant, but it's not torture.
Interviewer 1: How do you believe President Bush, his leadership on this issue, of, er, the so-called War On Terror - a phrase which he coined – how do you think history will view that? In say 10, 15 years, as as opposed to now in the white heat of transition?
Thiessen: I don't understand why you say a phrase that he coined, or the so called War on Terror, we're at war. Al Qaeda terrorist network sent people into our country, and flew planes into buildings and killed 3,000 people. It was an act of war and we've gone on the offensive against them for eight years and now we've got a Commander in Chief who said in his inaugural address – he said to the terrorists – we will defeat you. And, within 48 hours of giving that address his Administration has taken steps that send the exact opposite message.
Clue, Marc, just because Obama's tactics aren't those of the troglodytes exited stage left 1/20/09 doesn't make those tactics wrong. In fact, they are likely more subtle, better and certainly compliant with both our constitution, the Geneva Convention, common conscience and common sense.
Thiessen: It's very, very dangerous what he is doing, if I could use a Star Trek analogy, what he is doing is to lower the Deflector Shields.
Why Marc you Trekkie – who knew!! Anyway, back to Thiessen's personal temporal displacement issues.>
Thiessen: He is, he is removing the defenses that President Bush put in place to protect the country.
Yeah, Marc, because once we've eliminated freedoms, suspended significant portions of the Constitution, Habeas Corpus and all that liberal crap, then it's a perfect time to go shopping and pursue happiness before it swiftly goes down the drain to the sewer. Hell, it isn't as if this country is special because it was built on an idea, one that actions like waterboarding thrust face down into the mud and slop created by such neo-conservative fascist masturbation effluvia.
Thiessen: And what that means is, the terrorists are trying to attack us again, he's getting his first intelligence briefings in the Oval Office this week and two things are apparent to him.
Eh, should be apparent to him ...
One – is that Al Qaeda is trying to attack us again, the intelligence shows that and
Two – the institutions we've put in place to stop them for 7 years for 2668 days as of Tuesday and he is now responsible for keeping that streak going and he has now taken steps that have removed the single most important defense that the United States has put in place to protect our country – and quite frankly your country (UK) ehh, from terrorist attack.
And so if something happens on his watch he is responsible, he owns it.
The presumption and arrogance of that last section is only superceded by it's implicit hope that Obama in fact fail on this false metric. False because by any rational count Bush failed that test - because he ignored intelligence collected and analyzed through traditional means - after a mere 235 days in office.
But, it is Marc Thiessen of which I speak, so one might reasonably conclude that expecting the rational is overly optimistic.