Marc Thiessen Defends Waterboarding on CNN
Jan 21st, 2010 | 13 responses
UPDATED WITH PART 2 OF CNN INTERVIEW. Marc Thiessen was on CNN yesterday to promote his new book, which judging from the title – Courting Disaster: How the CIA Kept America Safe and How Barack Obama Is Inviting the Next Attack — and the buzz about it on the right, is a 376-page defense of torture. He and Philippe Sands, the British author of Torture Team: Rumsfeld’s Memo and the Betrayal of American Values, were interviewed by Christiane Amanpour, who was surprisingly tough in her questioning.
The crew over at Power Line think that Thiessen “made [Amanpour] look like she didn’t know what she’s talking about” — which is a pretty bold claim to make about someone who argues (seriously!) that waterboarding is legitimate because the CIA interrogators who waterboarded Abu Zubaydah 83 times to get 10 bits of intelligence told Thiessen that afterwards, Zubaydah
thanked his interrogators for waterboarding him and said to them, “You must do this for all the brothers,” and why did he do that? The reason he did it, he said, is because the jihadi philosophy is that Allah will prevail no matter what they do, so their moral responsibility is to resist as much as they can and then, once they have resisted, they are free to say whatever they want to do, they can spill their guts. Now if you know that, how do you design an interrogation plan? You design an interrogation program that is safe, that will not harm the detainees, but gives them something to resist, and that is what the CIA did. …
Christiane Amanpour would have to be unimaginably ignorant if she was so ignorant that she could still be said to not know what she was talking about compared to that.
Here is the video, from Power Line:
13 Responses to “Marc Thiessen Defends Waterboarding on CNN”
Even tho I think that Christiane Amanpour is an intelligent and honest reporter, I cannot be as positive about her as I am about Phillipe Sands. Mr. Sands book, “Torture Team” is a road map for any prosecutor who wants to indict members of the Bush II administration.
Marc Thiessen, who obviously wants to protect his own ass, has zero credibility when compared to Mr. Sands.
I thought Amanpour constantly interrupting Thiessen and using her guest to defend herself came off poorly for her.
While there is no way for me to verify the accuracy of the quotes being thrown around, Thiessen's point is a perfectly reasonable one. If the enemy must demonstrate resistance, but is theologically free to speak after being overwhelmed, then why not overwhelm him in a manner leaving no long term physical damage and extract potentially lifesaving information?
Once again the opponents of waterboarding act as if this is all being done to exact confessions, not intelligence. Nobody is advocating that enhanced interrogation should be used for confessions. The idea that the subjects will “say anything” is specious because actionable information can often be verified. If they say “bombs are being built at 100 West Saddam Drive” that place can be investigated. If they say, 'these are our contacts in France', ditto. Yet here is Amanpour waving around the same misleading argument.
Finally, I don't think what was in the interview was definitive, largely because Amanpour stopped the information Thiessen was trying to present. But it does sound like she deliberately gussied up the comparison. Just because water was involved in both cases does not make them the “same thing”.
I know you thought I would agree with you, but…
Even tho I think that Christiane Amanpour is an intelligent and honest reporter, I cannot be as positive about her as I am about Phillipe Sands.
Well duh, of course! Philippe Sands has written a book on torture in the Bush administration and is not only an expert on it but an advocate against its use. Christiane Amanpour is a mainstream journalist who in the past has not always been willing to challenge untruths vigorously when she hears them. I'm not comparing to Philippe Sands, I'm comparing her to herself at other times, and to mainstream reporters in general.
First of all, I don't think Amanpour interrupted Thiessen more than Thiessen interrupted her, or Philippe Sands. And second, I don't agree with your characterization of “using her guest to defend herself.” She was using her guest the way a guest in an interview is supposed to be used — for expert responses. This was supposed to be a point counterpoint between Sands and Thiessen with, of course, Amanpour challenging statements on either side if they were not true. Thiessen was the only one who said things that weren't true. Perhaps the second part of the interview, which I have posted now (I didn't notice the link to it at Power Line before) will make the whole thing more cohesive for you. It did for me.
The idea that the subjects will “say anything” is specious because actionable information can often be verified.
Yes, DaMav, and verifying everything a subject has said under torture takes time that could be better spent getting reliable information through traditional means, which have proved effective in interrogations when they were used.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by TMV and Veena, business. business said: Marc Thiessen Defends Waterboarding on CNN: Marc Thiessen was on CNN yesterday to promote his new book, whic… http://tinyurl.com/ybts5vl [...]
I don't think we should approve or disapprove of water-boarding based on its utility. If it works very well, if it greatly exceeds how well standard interrogation works, it doesn't follow that it's OK.
I just wrote a post on my blog that questions whether water-boarding should be considered torture or not, if anyone's interested: http://agentintellect.blogspot.com/2010/01/on-t…
I am skeptical of Mr. Thiessen's remarks because I recently heard him claim to a talk radio host that when we he working as a speech writer, he talked directly with the top CIA interrogators.
“Now if you know that, how do you design an interrogation plan? You design an interrogation program that is safe, that will not harm the detainees, but gives them something to resist, and that is what the CIA did.”
Hmm, if that is the case…why don't we cut off limbs? We can always reattach them. I think Allah would be really happy with them after they resisted losing an arm..finger…ear…whatever.
Simulated death is torture. Making people think they are going to drown to death is torture. When we waterboard, we lower ourselves to their level….maybe that is where some of us want to be?
The phrase “who argues” was not clear to me. I could not understand which person was “who.” And I have read Mr. Sands book.
Somewhat related, from liberal blogger Glenn Greenwald:
Obama to indefinitely imprison detainees without charges
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/
I'm going to intrude to add pertinent info regarding the above discussion about verifying information which is obtained in enhanced interrogation.
Theissen said, and I've heard him say it before, that enhanced interrogation is designed to verify when the interrogated person is willingly cooperating. During enhanced interrogation, interrogators know the answers to all questions being asked: no new information is discovered during enhanced interrogation. When the interrogated person willingly and consistently cooperates via giving correct answers, then enhanced interrogation stops, and FBI type of discussion interrogation begins.
Christiane Amanpour, the Chief international correspondent of Cable News Network grew up in Tehran where her father was a shill for the Shah's government. Since that the overthrow of the of the Shah, Christiane, a Roman Catholic, has been making up for her father's support of the Shah by supporting Islamic Terrorism every chance she has.
Christiane cut her teeth on her her one-sided coverage of the conflict in Bosnia. Since then she has continued to support the Islamofacist cause every chance she can; be it her admiration for Yassir Arafat (a terrorist and baby killer) right down the line to a support of Iranian President Ahmadinejad
Christiane Amanpour, the Chief international correspondent of Cable News Network grew up in Tehran where her father was a shill for the Shah's government. Since that the overthrow of the of the Shah, Christiane, a Roman Catholic, has been making up for her father's support of the Shah by supporting Islamic Terrorism every chance she has.
Christiane cut her teeth on her her one-sided coverage of the conflict in Bosnia. Since then she has continued to support the Islamofacist cause every chance she can; be it her admiration for Yassir Arafat (a terrorist and baby killer) right down the line to a support of Iranian President Ahmadinejad