Waterboarding and both it’s effectiveness and legality have been argued and debated about since former President George W. Bush allowed it to be used in the War on Terror. Now, MSN News has reported that cables exist showing that in 2002, “CIA interrogators at a secret prison in Thailand” informed an Al Queida suspect that he had to “suffer the consequences of his deception.”
Terror suspect Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri had water splashed onto his chest as he claimed that he was trying his very best to recall the information being asked of him. NSA archived cables show that “water treatment was applied” to help him in his stated quest. The ancient torture tactic was used which a Freedom of Information Act request confirms.
There are two ways to look at her complacency on the matter. On one hand, during that time, the U.S. was very concerned about something else happening to kill innocents after 9/11. While some practices which people consider to be torture is not to be condoned, neither is brutal killers aiming to slaughter people and hiding information that may stop it.
On the other hand, torture has often been found to lead to false information since the person undergoing the “enhanced interrogation” may be willing to say anything to make it end, as Ron Paul has confirmed.
Also, Nashiri was no saint being abused for mere amusement. The “Saudi [was] accused of masterminding the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole off the coast of Yemen,” something he admitted to when he was being interrogated. The trouble is that he may have been put through further punishment for no reason since he did not allegedly have knowledge of other planned attacks.
Still, he was shaved, locked inside of a box, and even “slammed against a wall.” Some people will suggest that mistreating prisoners (even terrorists and not nationally recognized armies/fighters) only makes them feel permitted to mistreat those who they capture. This argument hardly holds up since most terrorists abuse who they capture terribly no matter how the other side is conducting themselves, however.
Rather, the question in this instance pertains to whether or not this was just something that Haspel condoned at the time that it was done or something that she would do now. Beyond that, it could be asked if the current CIA director halted the practice when instructed to (or when it didn’t work) and if she still thinks that such tactics are permissible in 2018.
If she does, some may ask under what circumstances.
Richard Kammen, Nashiri’s attorney, said, “Ultimately, the public will be horrified by the level of brutality employed by the C.I.A,” as he talked about a looming court date. The CIA is hardly a friend of liberty in many cases, but then again, if his client was not seemingly out trying to blow up destroyers, he would not have been captured to start with.
Nashi is even so soft that he complained about being called a “little girl,” a rich Saudi “sissy.” In addition, he claims that he was threatened to be “turned over” to those who would kill him. While the latter threat is worthy of concern for a man who supports those who call non-Muslims everything from “pigs” to “infidels,” he should not worry so much about a war of words and name calling too much.
At the end of the day, apart from the bloodshed and needless deaths, one of the worst things about radical Islam is that its members appear to be taking their flawed view of God and the world and use it as a shield that protects them from being treated in the same way that they treat others. Just as can be seen in the most recent example, they apparently think that they can hide terror, spread terror, and conduct terror as they wish and that they should not face misery for it.
That being true, the U.S. does not want to get a reputation for torturing people. The CIA director is sure to know this and her views on this currently can be said to matter greatly.
At the same time, it doesn’t seem that vital that everyone aim to condemn her for her actions during a very trying time in 2002 shortly after the fall of the Twin Towers.