Uh oh: Kiriakou, who is on SFRC investigative team, is mixed up in torture controversy

[beachmom]

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/27/sfrc_investigations_new_iran_report_and_the_past_statements_on_torture_of_an_sfrc_i

When I went over to TPM today, there was an item about a former CIA guy, named John Kiriakou who went on ABC in 2007 to say that torture had worked when the CIA had interrogated Abu Zubaydah. Now that we know he was waterboarded 83 times, ah, his story doesn't exactly add up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/business/media/28abc.html?_r=1&ref=fp6

In late 2007, there was the first crack of daylight into the government’s use of waterboarding during interrogations of Al Qaeda detainees. On Dec. 10, John Kiriakou, a former C.I.A. officer who had participated in the capture of the suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in 2002, appeared on ABC News to say that while he considered waterboarding a form of torture, the technique worked and yielded results very quickly.

Mr. Zubaydah started to cooperate after being waterboarded for “probably 30, 35 seconds,” Mr. Kiriakou told the ABC reporter Brian Ross. “From that day on he answered every question.”

His claims — unverified at the time, but repeated by dozens of broadcasts, blogs and newspapers — have been sharply contradicted by a newly declassified Justice Department memo that said waterboarding had been used on Mr. Zubaydah “at least 83 times.”

Some critics say that the now-discredited information shared by Mr. Kiriakou and other sources heightened the public perception of waterboarding as an effective interrogation technique. “I think it was sanitized by the way it was described” in press accounts, said John Sifton, a former lawyer for Human Rights Watch, an advocacy group.

...

“It works, is the bottom line,” Rush Limbaugh exclaimed on his radio show the next day. “Thirty to 35 seconds, and it works.”

Mr. Kiriakou subsequently granted interviews to The Washington Post, The New York Times, National Public Radio, CBS, CNN, MSNBC and other media organizations. A CNN anchor called him “the man of the hour.”

Eight months after the interview, Mr. Kiriakou was hired as a paid consultant for ABC News. He resigned last month and now works for the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.

Not sure if a propagandist for "TORTURE WORKS!!" is someone the good Senator should be associated with. JMO.

Also, the link at the top is not just about this story but about the Iran report being worked on. I am half and half on it. It is addressing how Iran's nuclear program is financed, which I think will be interesting. However, I don't like these associations with the report:

The report's release coincides with the influential annual policy conference (.pdf) of the pro-Israel group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which opens this weekend in Washington. Sources had earlier told The Cable that AIPAC officials had met with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) shortly after he became chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee to recommend that the committee's investigative energies could be usefully directed into looking into the Iran sanctions-busting issue.

The report's release also roughly coincides with the completion of the Obama administration's Iran policy review. It also emerges as legislation is being introduced on the Hill pushing for tougher sanctions on Iran.

Hill sources note that Sens. Evan Bayh (D-IN), Jon Kyl (R-AZ), and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) are introducing an Iran sanctions resolution this week that would aim to target those entities that are involved with Iran's import of refined oil products. The Senate bill, which already has 20 cosponsors, follows a resolution introduced last week in the House of Representatives by Rep. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA).

"Nearly all of Iran's imported gasoline is provided by five European companies -- the Swiss firm Vitol, the Swiss/Dutch firm Trafigura, the French firm Total, the Swiss firm Glencore, and British Petroleum -- and the Indian firm Reliance," Kirk and Sherman said in a news release announcing their resolution. "The majority of tankers carrying gasoline to Iran are insured by Lloyds of London."

Hmmm. Doing AIPAC's bidding while lending a helping hand to Lieberman, Kyl, and Bayh? Um, yuck. And isn't it interesting that none of the Bush Inc. associations are coming up here? Instead, it is simply America's competition. I'll wait for the report to judge, but this is really not the point of Democrats taking over Congress.

[Mass]

1. Two points.

1/ Many people have said "torture works" and "we should not use it". I do not know that this person said something like that, lacking the full context of the interview, but we have here somebody who repeats an incorrect information he has heard (as he explained later). Now, I would have preferred that this guy said nothing even close to that, but it is hard to judge somebody based on incomplete information.

2/ Concerning the AIPAC report, I have read the same thing you did (and asked myself the same question), but it is very difficult to figure out what part of this post is fact and what part is guessing. Given the situation, it seems appropriate to have correct information to decide what needs to be done or not with Iran (remember that Kerry is one of the big promoters of talking with Iran, so I somehow doubt he wants to attack Iran or prevent talks, which is what Kyl and Lieberman wants). Is the AIPAC connection something real or something that was made up? Note that once again, we have anonymous sources. I'd like to have more information in order to make sense of this. As far as we know, there are two facts in this article: the Lieberman and co bill (to which I do not think Kerry is a co-sponsor) and the fact that a report has been sponsored by the SFRC (not exactly surprising, and once again, it would be better to have correct information in order to counter the spin coming from the RW. We can only hope that this is in this spirit this report was started).

[karynnj]

2. I think that Kiriakou needs to be carefully looked at and possibly fired

But, 2 things, Kerry does not get to hire all the foreign relations staff. Before he was chair, he had staffers related to the SFRC. So, it is very possible that this guy was not hired by Kerry. The other thing - trying to find the relationship, I googled both their names - and here is something that does say he did not view the waterboarding, but was repeating what he was told. Given that this was from 2007, when he said that it worked and is a RW source, this is not revisionist history or making excuses. http://michellemalkin.com/2007/12/11/abu-zubaydahs-come-to-allah-moment/ I do absolutely think that SFRC should investigate whtehr to retain him.

As to Iran, Kerry mentioned in the USAtoday interview that that was something that they had investigated and written a report, he said it would be released soon. Just because AIPAC also wanted a report on Iran does not mean he is "doing AIPAC's bidding". Pakistan, Iran and North Korea are likely three of the most volatile issues facing the country. Were you surprised that he initiated an investigation?

As to Bayh's resolution, where does it saying that Kerry is supporting it or even will vote for it. I would guess that if the Chair of the SFRC was a co-sponsor his name would have been included as he is a major person on these issues. It is simply happening at the same time.

That Kerry's report is coming out AFTER the Obama policy review is actually bad timing, though I would imagine that if Kerry and others had learned significant things or had advice, they would have given them to someone on the Obama team.

[beachmom]

3. The guy was spreading misinformation on behalf of the CIA. Spreading heresy, basically.

Now that I think of it, unless somebody knows what they are talking about, they should really not say anything. It makes one question half of what we see on TV.

I got the impression that Kerry did hire these investigators (I remember it being announced and being a big deal), but I suppose someone could ask him. At this point, I do not see this angle of the story going far. It is more something that concerns me, because I am very against torture and a Kerry supporter.

As to Iran/AIPAC, I don't know. On one hand, one should be skeptical. OTOH, we shouldn't dismiss articles and say they are misleading just because the content displease us.

We'll have to wait and see the report.

[karynnj]

5. I remember the announcement of the LA times reporter

and some others. I googled SFRC staff and just saw a couple of articles on that - but they don't mention the CIA or that guy. But, I agree, he should be questioned by Kerry or his boss if he doesn't report to Kerry. In one article it included the fact that Lugar's guy was taking the position of minority chief of staff. So, the entire staff is not Kerry's.

But, here, he was reporting what he saw. What he saw was a person who had not talked, talked. He also reported the description of 38 seconds of waterboarding - which I of course think is 38 seconds too many - that was described to him. No one could ever give a full story on much of anything if they had to personally view every second. It would be valid if Kerry asked him if that was what he was told and whether he had any reason to question it. Here, I completely agree with your concern - because at best he is a "torture is bad, but it works" guy. I do think it fair if someone asks Kerry why this guy works for the committee.

But, on AIPAC and the bill - You take what might be 3 independent events and connect them, where the article connects only two - and does that essentially by waving their hands. You connected all three - even though the Hill would realize that Kerry would be a big "catch" on this type of bill - both because he has been a leader in opposing these three Senators in the past and because he is the Chair of the SFRC.

1) AIPAC told Kerry they want a report on Iran
2) Kerry did a report on Iran
3) Bayh, Kyl, and Lieberman - all of whom rarely have been on the same side as Kerry on Iraq, Iran etc have a bill with 20 co-sponsors.


I was NOT dismissing the article as to AIPAC. When the bill is introduced, we will see if Kerry is a sponsor and he will likely make a statement. At that point, if the bill is bad, I will post that the bill is bad and call my Congressmen - whether or not Kerry supports it or votes for it - and yes, I will think less of Kerry's judgment. I will also read the report when it comes out and listen to the likely hearing that will happen to try to understand it.

[beachmom]

9. Karynnj -- have you read about the FBI agent Ali Soufan?

I should have provided context at the outset. Ali was THERE. I believe him over the CIA guys, either those who were there or those who claimed to have knowledge about it. Ali is someone I have admired since reading about him in 2006.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/opinion/23soufan.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact_wright

He blows these CIA guys out of the water.

[karynnj]

10. I had read the NYT article and I believe him more as well

As I said I agree with you on Kiriakou - and that this is something Kerry (or someone else on the SFRC) should be asked about. But, even in 2007, he was not claiming to have first hand knowledge. What does bother me was that he did help those who argue that toture works and by inference backed the idea that it can sometime by justified when the value is high enough. The latter is unacceptable to me - but it is similar to the hypothetical response Hillary Clinton gave to the NY Daily News.

If he believed in good faith that it was 38 seconds and that it produced good information - the first of which was a lie and the second open to question - then what he did is not that far from what HRC said to the NYDN and, unfortunately, a pretty mainstream opinion. If there is any question that of his truthfulness or good faith here, then it is much worse.

[ProSense]

4. Not sure why this story is being rehashed with such gaping holes

This was reported on in March.

Ex-CIA Official Joins Senate Foreign Relations Committee Staff:

In late 2007, Kiriakou became the first CIA official to publicly acknowledge the treatment of Abu Zubaydah. Abu Zubaydah was a member of al-Qaeda — whom author Ron Suskind claims is mentally challenged — whom the CIA captured in Pakistan in 2002. Kiriakou was a member of the team that captured Abu Zubaydah, whose interrogation became abusive after Kiriakou no longer handled him. CIA officials waterboarded Abu Zubaydah, and while Kiriakou told ABC News and The Washington Post that he was not present for that abusive technique — he had left the Abu Zubaydah interrogation by that time, and declined to be certified in the CIA’s interrogation techniques — he has said he considers the waterboarding to be both necessary but immoral.

<...>

Update: This post was initially filled with factual errors. Kiriakou was a CIA counterterrorism official from 1998 to 2004, but only served in Pakistan in 2002. He was never certified in the CIA’s interrogation program. While he shared office space with McLarty Associates, he was not an employee. The last sentence of this post has been changed for lack of clarity as well. I apologize for the errors.

Still, he probably can provide a lot of useful information.

[beachmom]

6. Thanks. I never saw that story, so for me this is not a re-hash.

In fact, Prosense, the reason why this has come up again is because we now know Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times, and Kiriakou was full of it (as are his sources).

This is the money quote:

he has said he considers the waterboarding to be both necessary but immoral.

Why was this guy hired? The guy is not far from Dick Cheney's position on the issue.

[TayTay]

7. The CIA did threaten to sue this man

after the NYTimes interview in late 2007. They said he should not have said anything about CIA programs, nevermind reveal that they used torture.

Interesting development. Obviously, if you are going to do investigations, you need someone who knows what is going on at CIA and so forth and understands how this works internationally. We shall see.

[wisteria]

8. Keith Oberman did a segment on this guy tonight. n/t

[karynnj]

11. Bayh's amendment is in Thomas now - the sponsors (not Kerry) are interesting

in that they are a varied mix - including Feingold, Boxer, Wyden and Menendez, who are quite liberal and Inhofe, Bunning, Kit Bond and McCain, who are quite conservative.

Here's the info from Thomas -

S.908
Title: A bill to amend the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 to enhance United States diplomatic efforts with respect to Iran by expanding economic sanctions against Iran.
Sponsor: Sen Bayh, Evan (introduced 4/28/2009) Cosponsors (29)
Latest Major Action: 4/28/2009 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs. COSPONSORS(29), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Bond, Christopher S. - 4/28/2009
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 4/28/2009
Sen Brownback, Sam - 4/28/2009
Sen Bunning, Jim - 4/29/2009
Sen Burr, Richard - 4/28/2009
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. - 4/28/2009
Sen Coburn, Tom - 4/28/2009
Sen Collins, Susan M. - 4/28/2009
Sen Ensign, John - 4/29/2009
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 4/28/2009
Sen Gillibrand, Kirsten E. - 4/29/2009
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 4/28/2009
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 4/28/2009
Sen Johanns, Mike - 4/28/2009
Sen Klobuchar, Amy - 4/28/2009
Sen Kyl, Jon - 4/28/2009
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 4/28/2009
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 4/28/2009
Sen Martinez, Mel - 4/29/2009
Sen McCain, John - 4/29/2009
Sen Menendez, Robert - 4/28/2009
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 4/28/2009
Sen Murray, Patty - 4/28/2009
Sen Risch, James E. - 4/28/2009
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 4/28/2009
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 4/28/2009
Sen Thune, John - 4/28/2009
Sen Vitter, David - 4/28/2009
Sen Wyden, Ron - 4/28/2009

This is going to be tough to fight as the support seems widespread.

[Inuca]

12. Some clear non-hawks in that list n/t

[karynnj]

13. true -

Bill Nelson is now a sponsor too, which means there are 31 Senate sponsors. It is also interesting that of the SFRC,neither Kerry (or Dodd the next highest Democrat) or Lugar are on board. It was referred to the banking committee, not the SFRC, even though it would clearly be a foreign policy tool. The chair,Dodd, and Ranking Member of Banking are not sponsors either - nor the next 2 senior Democrats, Johnson and Reed or the next Republican, Bennett.

There are a lot of the Democrats on the SFRC here - Feingold, Boxer, Menendez, Cardin, and Gillibrand - and one junior Republican, Risch (Id). It is interesting that this bill has so many sponsors and does not have the support of the leadership in SFRC or Banking, the two most related committees. (But Kyl/Lieberman was not sponsored by any of the committee leadership either.)

Out of curiosity, I checked who sponsored Kyl/Lieberman - and found that it did not have the broad sponsorship this does. It's sponsors were:
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 9/20/2007
Sen Coleman, Norm - 9/20/2007
Sen Alexander, Lamar - 9/24/2007
Sen Ensign, John - 9/25/2007
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 9/25/2007
Sen Corker, Bob - 9/26/2007
Sen Thune, John - 9/26/2007
Sen McCain, John - 9/26/2007

But, there was a bill, that went nowhere, that had broad based support (including Obama and Kerry)

S.970
Title: A bill to impose sanctions on Iran and on other countries for assisting Iran in developing a nuclear program, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Smith, Gordon H. (introduced 3/22/2007) Cosponsors (72)
Related Bills: H.R.3390, S.3227
Latest Major Action: 4/8/2008 Senate committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Committee on Finance. Hearings held. COSPONSORS(72), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Akaka, Daniel K. - 6/6/2007
Sen Alexander, Lamar - 6/3/2008
Sen Allard, Wayne - 4/24/2007
Sen Barrasso, John - 1/22/2008
Sen Baucus, Max - 1/22/2008
Sen Bayh, Evan - 3/22/2007
Sen Bennett, Robert F. - 4/18/2007
Sen Boxer, Barbara - 5/24/2007
Sen Brown, Sherrod - 4/26/2007
Sen Brownback, Sam - 3/22/2007
Sen Bunning, Jim - 4/25/2007
Sen Burr, Richard - 5/10/2007
Sen Cantwell, Maria - 4/18/2007
Sen Cardin, Benjamin L. - 4/12/2007
Sen Carper, Thomas R. - 9/6/2007
Sen Casey, Robert P., Jr. - 5/8/2007
Sen Chambliss, Saxby - 6/27/2007
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 4/26/2007
Sen Coleman, Norm - 3/22/2007
Sen Collins, Susan M. - 4/17/2007
Sen Conrad, Kent - 4/11/2007
Sen Corker, Bob - 6/4/2007
Sen Cornyn, John - 5/7/2007
Sen Craig, Larry E. - 4/10/2007
Sen Crapo, Mike - 4/11/2007
Sen DeMint, Jim - 6/18/2007
Sen Dodd, Christopher J. - 3/28/2007
Sen Dole, Elizabeth - 4/11/2007
Sen Dorgan, Byron L. - 5/22/2007
Sen Durbin, Richard - 3/22/2007
Sen Ensign, John - 5/7/2007
Sen Graham, Lindsey - 5/1/2007
Sen Hutchison, Kay Bailey - 6/4/2007
Sen Inhofe, James M. - 5/23/2007
Sen Inouye, Daniel K. - 4/20/2007
Sen Isakson, Johnny - 5/10/2007
Sen Johnson, Tim - 6/11/2007
Sen Kennedy, Edward M. - 8/3/2007
Sen Kerry, John F. - 5/15/2007
Sen Klobuchar, Amy - 4/17/2007
Sen Kohl, Herb - 5/24/2007
Sen Kyl, Jon - 3/22/2007
Sen Landrieu, Mary L. - 4/18/2007
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 3/22/2007
Sen Lieberman, Joseph I. - 3/22/2007
Sen Lincoln, Blanche L. - 7/11/2007
Sen Lott, Trent - 3/23/2007
Sen Martinez, Mel - 6/26/2007
Sen McCain, John - 4/24/2007
Sen McConnell, Mitch - 6/20/2007
Sen Menendez, Robert - 3/22/2007
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 3/22/2007
Sen Murkowski, Lisa - 6/13/2007
Sen Murray, Patty - 6/28/2007
Sen Nelson, Bill - 6/4/2007
Sen Nelson, E. Benjamin - 5/15/2007
Sen Obama, Barack - 4/24/2007
Sen Pryor, Mark L. - 7/12/2007
Sen Roberts, Pat - 4/11/2007
Sen Salazar, Ken - 4/25/2007
Sen Schumer, Charles E. - 6/27/2007
Sen Sessions, Jeff - 4/17/2007
Sen Snowe, Olympia J. - 5/22/2007
Sen Stabenow, Debbie - 5/24/2007
Sen Stevens, Ted - 5/22/2007
Sen Sununu, John E. - 5/23/2007
Sen Tester, Jon - 5/7/2007
Sen Thune, John - 3/22/2007
Sen Vitter, David - 4/10/2007
Sen Voinovich, George V. - 6/26/2007
Sen Whitehouse, Sheldon - 8/2/2007
Sen Wicker, Roger F. - 4/15/2008

The text of Bayh's bill is not yet available - though I assume it has to exist or 30 Senators wouldn't have signed on. So, it is impossible to know precisely what it says, but this list of sponsors includes many who were sponsors of the other Iran sanctions bill, but who voted against Kyl/Lieberman.

[Inuca]

14. So until we can know more about the actual content

it's pure speculation. But the incongruities that you pointed out (who's in and who's not, not yet at least) are really interesting. You do not often see Boxer/Feingold/Cardin and the likes of Inhofe/Kyl/Vitter cosponsoring something that is not in the apple pie category.

[TayTay]

15. Why would Sen. Kerry fight this?

Isn't he a proponent of sanctions as opposed to military action?

Iran is still a sponsor of terrorism in other nations. A lot of the materials used to make IEDs that killed American troops came from Iran.

I am glad that we have an opening to talk with Iran, but that doesn't mean that I trust them. I think President Obama needs to keep sanctions in his negotiators toolbox when dealing with this country and others in the Middle East.

I have no problem with a bill that promotes sanctions. It depends on how that particular diplomatic weapon is wielded.

[beachmom]

16. What Brezinski said on Morning Joe yesterday is that this bill is setting up

diplomacy with Iran to fail. There is window dressing diplomacy and there is real diplomacy. If you go in and start demanding things, threatening things from the get go, the talks will not last long. He said there are "forces" who want the talks to go forward just so that they can fail, and a tougher stance ensue. When asked who these "forces" are, he mentioned this bill. That is why Kerry is not supporting it. But what is Feingold's and Boxer's deal? Of course, Kerry supports sanctions on Iran, but not right at the beginning of a highly sensitive process of organizing formal talks with Iran.

Anyone know what the White House thinks of this bill?

[karynnj]

17. Thanks for this - it really gives context that we haven't had

Your comments (and Brezinski's) make sense. Tying this to your earlier link, I wonder if the fact that this is an AIPAC is lobbying hard for it is the reason so many are supporting it.

[beachmom]

18. Per the hearing today, we know for sure that Kiriakou retracted his story.

I thought I heard KO say this, but never saw it, so here it is:

http://washingtonindependent.com/42810/soufan-vs-lindsay-graham

“Do you know a guy named… K-I-R-I-A-K-O-U,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) asks Ali Soufan, referring to a former CIA official who alleged that — at an interrogation he never portrayed himself as attending — Abu Zubaydah broke after his initial waterboarding.

“Last week he retracted that,” Ali Soufan responded.

Graham: “Can you say there was no good information” resulting from torture?

Emphasizing he’s speaking from his first-person experience, “I would like you to evaluate what we got before” torturing Abu Zubaydah, Soufan replies. Graham: “One of the reason these interrogation techniques have survived for 500 years is because they work.”

Soufan: “There are a lot of people who find it easier and aren’t smart enough” to interrogate someone without torture. Graham finishes by saying Soufan isn’t the “only repository” of information on interrogation.

[Inuca]

21. Nice Lindsay-slap

he looked uncomfortable (but not so uncomfortable as when he was staring at the guy's name and was not able to pronounce it :-))

[beachmom]

19. Okay, here are his words in a new ABC report:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7471217&page=3

(4/30/09)

Former CIA Officer John Kiriakou Says Waterboarding is Torture

That contradicts what former CIA officer John Kiriakou, who led the Zubaydah capture team, told ABC News in 2007 when he first revealed publicly that waterboarding had been used.


He said then, based on top secret reports he had access to, that Zubaydah had only been water boarded once and then freely talked.

Kiriakou now says he too was stunned to learn how often Zubaydah was waterboarded, in what Kiriakou says was clearly torture.


"When I spoke to ABC News in December 2007 I was aware of Abu Zubaydah being waterboarded on one occasion," said Kiriakou. "It was after this one occasion that he revealed information related to a planned terrorist attack. As I said in the original interview, my information was second-hand. I never participated in the use of enhanced techniques on Abu Zubaydah or on any other prisoner, nor did I witness the use of such techniques."

[karynnj]

20. It is good that he clarified it - and good that in the original comments

he had said - and they reported - that his information was not first hand. He may not have shifted at all - although I think international law is clear that waterboarding - even once - is torture, what he says now is that what happened to Zubaydah, hundreds of waterboardings in a month, was clearly torture. But, the fact that he did not participate and didn't even learn the techniques makes him look better than many of his peers - and it may take ex-CIA people to get to some information needed.