Whoops! Lindsey Graham Cites Retracted Report As Proof Torture Worked
Hmm, not a great moment. While directing hostile questioning at a witness during the Senate torture hearing, GOP Senator Lindsey Graham cited an infamous ABC News report from 2007 that said a terror suspect broke under minimal waterboarding, and suggested it undercut the claim that torture didn’t work.
But Graham didn’t appear to be aware that the report has since been debunked, and that ABC itself has since corrected the record.
Graham referenced this ABC News story, which aired former CIA officer John Kiriakou’s unverified and second-hand claims that suspected terrorist Abu Zubaydah broke after being waterboarded for under a minute. Graham said the suspect had been broken “within 35 seconds.”
Unfortunately for Graham, that ABC story is the same one that got lots of attention last month, including a front-page piece in The New York Times, because it was contradicted by the revelation in the torture memos that Abu Zubaydah had been waterboarded over 80 times.
After that Times piece ran, ABC itself did another story conceding that its earlier one had been wrong.
Graham didn’t seem to be aware of this during the hearing, however. When the witness pointed out that the story had been debunked, he stared into the distance without saying anything and moved right on to a new round of questioning.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Greg
.
Right now there should be a mad dash to track down the CIA person who left in protest before Soufan. I didn’t catch the name during the hearing but that person can probably bring his story more credibility while also giving their own take on things which would put the nail in the coffin when it comes to whether we tortured Zubaydah or not at least.
That hearing was so painful to watch. These hearings always are. They’re such a joke. Particularly when Lindsey Graham was directing hostility to Luban about why Luban didn’t tell him about the Ireland case in the ECHR. Luban had no idea how to respond. Not because Graham was making a substantive or important point, but because Graham’s attempted analogy was so absurd as to be comical. How do you respond to such absurdity? I think the most telling thing came from the Texas professor who said the claims about torture are lies, when he conceded that if we decide that we tortured, those who authorized, planned, and executed the torture MUST be prosecuted under international law.
Otherwise, so painful to watch.
SG:
His name wasn’t given. Soufan said it was the chief CIA forensic psychologist.
did they explicitly say he’d left to protest the use of EITs?
Greg
.
I don’t know about explicit because I was trying to type and listen at the same time but the definite impression was that the person left because of the torture. And that was Soufan talking about it.
Yes, Soufan said he left because he objected to the methods. Or at the very least, it was very strongly implied, because Soufan said that “he left even before I did,” and Soufan made clear that he (Soufan) left because of his disagreement over torture. And let’s stop calling them EITs, huh?
Was an interesting hearing.
.
Wish they would get Mathew Alexander on the stand in person. That guy has the cred to put a serious dent in the torture works debate.
.
Also, I was surprised Gramm came out and stated we made mistakes and that torture was one that came back to bite us. He’s apparently not part of the pro-torture crowd.
dmb
.
Did you notice the lawyer Ludan explicitly referred to it as torture over and over again? So did all of the Dem Senators.
mike
.
Don’t forget that Graham is military. He seemed the reluctant warrior today. They probably told him he had to press Republican talking points but you could tell he wasn’t all that comfortable with it.
.
And can somebody find out where they got that wingnut idiot lawyer Addicot from? Not even Graham nor Turner agreed with that clown. He sounded like a blogger from freeper.
It seem to me that everyone questioning the pro-torture crowd misses a big point.
When they deny it is torture why aren’t they asked “then this would be okay to do to our troops too?”
Lindsay has the same smug smile as Bush, and a male throw-back drawl, and a slim intellect. Scary. Just when you think they retired the model.
Gene, your question “….why aren’t they asked “then this would be okay to do to our troops too?” The answer is that is exactly (but it’s not) what we do to our troops in SERE training. Every Republican talking head brings up the waterboarding of the troops in training. The question is: “During SERE training is it okay to waterboard the troops more than 80 times and not stop when they say they’ve had enough?”
“Every Republican talking head brings up the waterboarding of the troops in training.”
And it INFURIATES me that the Democratic talking heads never slap that back. NOBODY is involuntarily waterboarded in training! They undergo it because SERE is a requirement for the more high pressure and high prestige specialities and if they didn’t complete SERE they’d have more tedious and low prestige assignments. But NO ONE in our military is waterboarded against their will!
Saying that waterboarding isn’t torture because our troops are waterboarded in SERE is exactly analogous to saying that rape isn’t criminal because some other women voluntarily have ***.
Good grief! What a ridiculously finicky censor program! Those asterisks spelled out s.e.x.
JoyceH – That analogy is right on the money. Can you get yourself into an interview with Liz Cheney?
The term “enhanced interrogation techniques” was coined by the Gestapo in 1937.
All you need to know about the term.
JoyceH got it exactly correct. Having been in the US Army, Commissioned 2LT in 1981 and separting August 1992, it is beyond me why someone has said exactly that as yet. No military is invluntarily held in solitary confinement for an indefinite period knowing that he is in fact considered any enemy of some kind. SERE is voluntary, for a definite period of time, and the service member knows that even though the discomfort is real and extremely challenging it will be over, it is controlled and they can disenroll anytime they want.
The point about rape is on point as well. I would take it one step further though. What if we determined that dishonoring a female member of the “captives” family would break him, let’s say we had evidence from one of our outsourcing torture entreprenures, would the efficacy of extracting valuable information from the captive make the rape of his female family member any less criminal. And remember rape would in fact meet the stringent requirements to the so called torture memo’s. That is, rape does not endanger life nor does it cause pain tantamount to organ failure or death.
I wish the debate would quit being held by the media, on false or straw-man arguments.
* Everyone forgets that after 9-11, we ALL wanted EVERYTHING done to protect us. WRONG ARGUMENT!
~ True: I wanted the criminals responsible held account for their actions . . . BUT, I remember thinking as I watched on TV; “Oh no, bush is going to do really bad things, instead of treating it as a criminal investigation.”
* It was required to torture, to protect against the “ticking time bomb.” WRONG!
~ Experienced professionals: a) note the times they are facing “time bombs”, is almost non-existent. b) Even assuming the false premise of a “time bomb”, using torture offers LESS chance of an answer of use. Other methods offer better chances, with less numbers of false leads.
*It worked, and we are more at risk without torture. WRONG!
~ When the FBI walks away, after gaining good intelligence w/O torture, and then the same folk were tortured for answers of Iraq etc. . . . GIVE ME A BREAK!
* You can’t prosecute “Policy differences”, or else each administration will be held liable for their acts. YES!
~ No problem! If administration people break laws, especially ones as serious as torture and murder, go for it! (These are the same people who spent years, and millions of $$, to setup a purger trap for Clinton’s poor choice in *** partners!)
I could go on, but the bottom line, we need to fight this attempt by the guilty and their minions, to obscure the real issue. People WERE tortured! People died! They perverted the law, seeking answers that often were not there.
SERE training is voluntary, time-limited, and they have “safe words” they can use at any point. Those who’ve gone through the training report that they’re supposed to be able to give up when it’s too stressful, and that those who go as far as getting waterboarded are the ones who were not smart enough to give up sooner. Most are not waterboarded, only the hold-outs.
SERE can be nothing like being a true captive, treated like dirt, held without any judicial recourse whatsoever, with no end in sight and all of it, not just waterboarding, being cruelty, torture, and degradation.
JoyceH and Aswad make great comments. The only persons I’ve heard counter the absurd argument that SERE subjects experienced torture are Eugene Robinson and Jesse Ventura. When Robinson countered this absurdity to Liz Cheney she had no response so she jumped to another point.
I’m tired of these sycophantic reporters and commentators who don’t challenge these conservative jackasses like the Cheneys when they make logically absurd arguments.
Confounded facts!
The question isn’t whether we do it to our own troops during SERE training.
The question is, if our troops are captured by the Iranians (as they have in the past) is it okay if the Iranians waterboard our troops to make sure they aren’t spies.
Please tell me, please! That the debate is not going to degenerate into whether torture WORKS or not. That is SO not the issue. We are talking legality and morality NOT results of the process…I HOPE our legislatures are not that ignorant.
Here is an example of that mentality. Murdering your spouse quiets arguments. It works every time.
why is it cheney reminds me of blago with less hair. both are attempting to defend themselves and their actions while also attempting to affect the “jury pool.”
whether it worked or not, is not the question, only the pea in the shell game con. there is no quid pro quo – we tortured and we have not been attacked again; and further, we are now less safe because we no longer torture.
when people like cheney and lindsey graham defend this country’s use of torture, it brings shame and dishonor to the millions of americans who have given their lives to protect this country’s history, values and constitution.
What really irked me was the limited time for this hearing. An hour and a half? Not nearly long enough and I hope Senator Whitehouse has a chat with his staff and gets his agenda in cue with hearings where he isn’t flying out of the room to catch a plane.
It was a stupid move and gave Graham the floor all to himself to blab on and on.
Well duh, you can’t exactly expect a Republican to be able to read a newspaper, can you?
Lindsey Graham: I was against torture before I was for it.
It’s just a shame that Lindsey Graham has lost all integrity. I used to respect him. In between when he called for Clinton’s impeachment and about 7 months ago.
He’s simply an opportunist who is polite.
Lindsey, come toward the light of truth away from the darkness of
the Party of Torture.
From now on, when someone cites the “ticking time bomb” defense of torture, I want to hear a reporter ask “well, ok. If it’s ok to torture people because they might have information that might prevent an imminent attack, is anything off limits? I mean, can we torture their children in front of them to make them talk?”
And when the torture-defender tries to squirm out of the question, which they would inevitably do, said reporter should ask “hey, once you open the door, and say it’s ok to torture people to save American lives, what’s the different between torturing them to death–something we’ve already done to completely innocent people, by the way, just in case you had forgotten, Mr. Cheney–and torturing their families in front of them to make them talk? You want to save American lives, right? You’d do anything to save American lives, right? You’re willing to torture someone who may *or may not* have the information you seek, who may be guilty or innocent, to save American lives, why not waterboard his daughter right in front of him? If she dies, well, we’re trying to save american lives here, right?”
These torture-defenders, like Cheney and Graham, are beneath contempt, when they’re not actively scary. Cheney is just trying to paper over his crimes…his comments and those of his defenders, make very little sense when subjected to rational scrutiny. I suspect he knows that, which is why he makes those comments to friendly audiences only.
He’s a scum-bag and a coward and a moral degenerate of the worst kind. Never should have allowed anywhere near the levers of power.
Now you see what happens when a state like S.C. doesn’t invest in education . We get Lindsay Graham .
Hmm, that vapid staring off into the distance…a new signal of the repug intelligentia’s approach to anything? Or was he just distracted by a ’shiney’ thing?
I was burning mad, watching Huckleberry attempt to justify torture by virtue of the fact that it’s been used for so long….what an embarrassment.
why doesn’t the stench of your hypocrisy sicken you?
We are a group of volunteers and starting a new initiative in a community. Your blog provided us valuable information to work on.You have done a marvellous job!