Lawyer Says Top Official Had Implicit Approval
Washington Post Staff Writers and Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, January 16, 2008; Page A01
In late 2005, the retiring CIA station chief in Bangkok sent a classified cable to his superiors in Langley asking if he could destroy videotapes recorded at a secret CIA prison in Thailand that in part portrayed intelligence officers using simulated drowning to extract information from suspected al-Qaeda members.
The tapes had been sitting in the station chief's safe, in the U.S. Embassy compound, for nearly three years. Although those involved in the interrogations had pushed for the tapes' destruction in those years and a secret debate about it had twice reached the White House, CIA officials had not acted on those requests. This time was different.
The CIA had a new director and an acting general counsel, neither of whom sought to block the destruction of the tapes, according to agency officials. The station chief was insistent because he was retiring and wanted to resolve the matter before he left, the officials said. And in November 2005, a published report that detailed a secret CIA prison system provoked an international outcry.
---
Recorded on the tapes was the coercive questioning of two senior al-Qaeda suspects: Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, known as Abu Zubaida, and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who were captured by U.S. forces in 2002. They show Zubaida undergoing waterboarding, which involved strapping him to a board and pouring water over his nose and mouth, creating the sensation of imminent drowning. Nashiri later also underwent the same treatment.
Some CIA officials say the agency's use of waterboarding helped extract information that led to the capture of other key al-Qaeda members and prevented attacks. But others, including former CIA, FBI and military officials, say the practice constitutes torture.
The Nation has the story here.
This is front page news of the Washington Post, which means it is a huge story in the US.
What interests me about this story is who signed off on the secret prisons? Thaksin or the military. Did the Palace sign off on this? I know from reading many documents during the Cold War relating to US-Thai relations and Vietnam, the Palace was informed of major decisions, especially regarding clandestine affairs.
Also, is there any relationship between using Thailand as a base for US torture of Al Qaeda and the America's nod and wink policy of approval for the coup? In other words, in return for keeping quiet about secret prisons, the US allowed the Thai military carte blanche approval for the coup.
During the Cold War, every time Congress or the press investigated and publicized these secret agreements between the US and Thailand, Foriegn Secretary Thanat Koman would throw a temper tantrum.
I wonder what the Thai government's reaction will be to this. Probably not happy in the least bit.
Good thing the Thai government doesn't have to worry about the the media, which, as usual, won't do any solid reporting and dream up a million conspiracy theories to fill the pages.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, I am sure somebody over at The Nation will figure out how to pin this on Thaksin and finally come up with a justification for supporting the coup.
4 comments:
Also, is there any relationship between using Thailand as a base for US torture of Al Qaeda and the America's nod and wink policy of approval for the coup? In other words, in return for keeping quiet about secret prisons, the US allowed the Thai military carte blanche approval for the coup.
I am not so sure there was carte blanche approval for the coup. From what I hear, far from it. Given it was Thaksin
If anything it was Thaksin's friendly relations with Washington
Speaking of conspiracy theories, I am sure somebody over at The Nation will figure out how to pin this on Thaksin and finally come up with a justification for supporting the coup.
But the military would have to be known/signed off on it as it was at an airbase. Who was Army C-in-C at the time? None other than Gen. Surayud. Get rid of Thaksin so we
BP-
1. From my understanding of studying US diplomacy, and I have read many primary government documents and memos from principals, is that the US approved the coup or was neutral. However, I don't mean supported the coup, as in they were happy about about the military ousting a democratic government.
Here is my reasoning:
1. The US really didn't condemn the coup. It was a rather weak condemnation in diplomatic terms. And the Thai media picked up on this, which is why they didn't attack the US like they attacked the Europeans. Remember all of the op-ed pieces about how the US understands us and the Europeans don't?
2. The US only cut off the nominal military aid because that is the law. It had no choice. But military to military relations continued after the coup.
3. What is surprising to me is that despite the fact that Thaksin was a pro-US Prime Minister, and was ousted while in the US, the US government gave him no moral or political support.
4. Many of the Thai generals who are in power now actually fought in Vietnam and their ties to the US military are strong.
As you probably know already, many of the Thai generals studied at Army staff colleges in the US.
As governments come and go, these types of relations continue.
When there were elections in Thailand during the Cold War, the US funneled millions of dollars to the generals and their proxies, so that they could win the elections.
5. Same at the intelligence level.
At an intelligence level, there has always been a high level of cooperation between Thai and US intelligence. Of course, you know of Prasong, Mr. CIA. He got that name for a reason. And the CIA trains a lot of the Thai intelligence officers, or at least they did at one time.
I think one of the reasons why there is no criticism from the US government about the problems in the South is because of close relations between the US military/intelligence and the Thai military/intelligence.
2. As for the comment about blaming Thaksin, I was being sarcastic.
From my perspective, I don't think this is a big story, because the US probably has had rendition prisons in Thailand for decades.
It is a big story in the US because Americans have short memories and naively think that the US government doesn't torture people.
It is like the Cold War or a pre-911 world never happened!
Maybe there's another letter between Thaksin & Bush :)
Fonzi: I think they were neutral which is unexpected in a realpolitik sense. They were very tentative at the beginning, but once the coup was done it was done.
Post a Comment