The title of the NYTimes story was sickening, and compelling. It was difficult to click on the link.
It said that “The New York Times reported in 2007 that Mr. Mohammed had been barraged more than 100 times with harsh interrogation methods, causing C.I.A. officers to worry that they might have crossed legal limits and to halt his questioning. But the precise number and the exact nature of the interrogation method was not previously known … The Senate Intelligence Committee has begun a yearlong, closed-door investigation of the C.I.A. interrogation program, in part to assess claims of Bush administration officials that brutal treatment, including slamming prisoners into walls, shackling them in standing positions for days and confining them in small boxes, was necessary to get information. The fact that waterboarding was repeated so many times may raise questions about its effectiveness, as well as about assertions by Bush administration officials that their methods were used under strict guidelines. A footnote to another 2005 Justice Department memo released Thursday said waterboarding was used both more frequently and with a greater volume of water than the C.I.A. rules permitted”.
And, the NYTimes story said that “The sentences in the memo containing that information appear to have been redacted from some copies but are visible in others. Initial news reports about the memos in The New York Times and other publications did not include the numbers. Michael V. Hayden, director of the C.I.A. for the last two years of the Bush administration, would not comment when asked on the program “Fox News Sunday” if Mr. Mohammed had been waterboarded 183 times. He said he believed that that information was still classified … Mr. Hayden said he had opposed the release of the memos, even though President Obama has said the techniques will never be used again, because they would tell Al Qaeda ‘the outer limits that any American would ever go in terms of interrogating an Al Qaeda terrorist’. He also disputed an article in The New York Times on Saturday that said Abu Zubaydah had revealed nothing new after being waterboarded, saying that he believed that after unspecified ‘techniques’ were used, Abu Zubaydah revealed information that led to the capture of another terrorist suspect, Ramzi Binalshibh. The Times article, based on information from former intelligence officers who spoke on condition of anonymity, said Abu Zubaydah had revealed a great deal of information before harsh methods were used and after his captors stripped him of clothes, kept him in a cold cell and kept him awake at night. The article said interrogators at the secret prison in Thailand believed he had given up all the information he had, but officials at headquarters ordered them to use waterboarding. He revealed no new information after being waterboarded, the article said, a conclusion that appears to be supported by a footnote to a 2005 Justice Department memo saying the use of the harshest methods appeared to have been ‘unnecessary’ in his case”. The NYTimes story can be read in full here
The story cited information discovered by blogger Marcy Wheeler (“emptywheeler”) on Firedoglake.
Here are excerpts from her post: “According to the May 30, 2005 [Steven G.] Bradbury [Principle Deputy Assistant Attorney General] memo here, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in March 2003 and Abu Zubaydah was waterboarded [at least] 83 times in August 2002″.
The Bradbury memo states, in its conclusions, that “the CIA interrogation techniques, with their careful screening procedures and medical monitoring, do not ‘shock the conscience'”. It is not clear whose conscience he might be referring to. It is against medical ethics for medical personnel to participate in torture… The Bradbury memo continues: “however, we cannot predict with confidence that a court would agree with our conclusions”… And, earlier in the text of the memo, it does note that “Each year, in the State Department’s Country reports on Human Rights Practices, the United States condemns coercive interrogation techniques and other practices employed by other countries”…
The “emptywheeler” post continues: “The same OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] memo passage explains how the CIA might manage to waterboard these men so many times in one month each (though even with these chilling numbers, the CIA’s math doesn’t add up).
” ‘…where authorized, it may be used for two ‘sessions’ per day of up to two hours. During a session, water may be applied up to six times for ten seconds or longer (but never more than 40 seconds). In a 24-hour period, a detainee may be subjected to up to twelve minutes of water appliaction. See id. at 42. Additionally, the waterboard may be used on as many as five days during a 30-day approval period’.
“So: two two-hour sessions a day, with six applications of the waterboard each = 12 applications in a day. Though to get up to the permitted 12 minutes of waterboarding in a day (with each use of the waterboard limited to 40 seconds), you’d need 18 applications in a day. Assuming you use the larger 18 applications in one 24-hour period, and do 18 applications on five days within a month, you’ve waterboarded 90 times–still just half of what they did to KSM. “The CIA wants you to believe waterboarding is effective. Yet somehow, it took them 183 applications of the waterboard in a one month period to get what they claimed was cooperation out of KSM. That doesn’t sound very effective to me …. “Here’s one reason to demand a special prosecutor to investigate these actions. In addition to revealing the sheer number of times KSM and Abu Zubaydah were waterboarded, the memos reveal that the interrogators who waterboarded these men went far beyond even the expansive guidelines for torture described in the Bybee Memo, notably by dumping water onto their nose and mouth, rather than dribbing it on. The IG Report noted that in some cases the waterboard was used with far greater frequency than initially indicated , see IG Report at 5, 44, 46, 103-04, and also that it was used in a different manner … The difference was the manner in which the detainee’s breathing was obstructed. At the SERE school and in the DoJ opinion, the subject’s airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency Interrogator … applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee’s mouth and nose. One of the psychologists/interrogators acknowledged that the Agency’s use of the technique is different from that used in SERE training because it is “for real–and is more poignant and convincing.”) [my emphasis]
from comments on the “emptywheeler” post:
earlofhuntingdon April 18th, 2009 at 12:28 pm – this much waterboarding, with its inherent prolonged deprivation of oxygen, could easily have led to loss of brain cells and permanent loss of brain function. Let’s not forget the hormonal overload from the related panic and stress from being drowned and brought back six times a day for a month.
Nerve cells are, of course, the first to die owing to lack of oxygen. Waterboarding involves holding your breath as long as possible, while water is poured over or into your face, mouth and nostrils. When you can no longer resist the impulse to breath, you inhale – water – which extends the time the body is without oxygen.
And let’s repeat the number Marcy made plain. This man was drowned, and brought back, six times a day for a month. How likely is that to induce psychotic behavior? What would the mind do in order to escape the pain and panic? How likely is that to meet the torture definition of enduring physical or mental pain or suffering?
This man had earlier given up whatever he knew. The repeated torture was an experiment, like the Nazis in their death camps; or it was punishment; it was fun; or the interrogators were more afraid of their political masters than the ultimate reach of the law.
bmaz April 18th, 2009 at 12:34 pm – not only do their numbers not add up, as you suggest, but there is not a lot of basis for believing they restricted their activity to even that which was disclosed in the tapes (before they were destroyed) and/or the activity logs. Remember how abu Gharaib was just a few bad acts by a couple of rotten apples
WilliamOckham April 18th, 2009 at 2:02 pm – According to KSM, he was waterboarded on five separate occasions. From the ICRC report (emphasis added):
‘In addition I was also subjected to ‘water-boarding’ on five occasions, all of which occurred during that first month. I would be strapped to a special bed, which could be rotated into a vertical position. A cloth would be placed over my face. Cold water from a bottle that had been kept in a fridge was then poured onto the cloth by one of the guards so that I could not breathe. This obviously could only be done for one or two minutes at a time. The cloth was then removed and the bed was put into a vertical position. The whole process was then repeated during about one hour. Injuries to my ankles and wrists also occurred during the water-boarding as I struggled in the panic of not being able to breathe. Female interrogators were also present during this form of ill-treatment and a doctor was always present, standing out of sight behind the head of bed, but I saw him when he came to fix a clip to my finger which was connected to a machine. I think it was to measure my pulse and oxygen content in my blood. So they could take me to breaking point‘.
I take this to mean that they were repeatedly waterboarding him at the rate of between 35-40 times in each 2 hour session. KSM is probably overestimating how long each waterboarding lasted and underestimating the total length of the sessions. Being drowned repeatedly will mess with your perception of time passing. I suspect that every 3 or 4 minutes, they waterboarded him for 30 or 40 seconds. Just imagine this scene. The featureless, clinical setting. The doctor calmly standing by, monitoring the situation so that they can take just up to the point of death or permanent damage. Calling it barbaric would be unfair to the uncivilized. This is a uniquely modern, ‘civilized’, scientific approach to cruelty.
This posts and its comments can be read in full here