The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPatrick Cockburn Archive
CIA 'Torture Report': Agency Conduct Was Driven by Pressure to Link Iraq to al-Qaeda Following 9/11
The White House wanted to justify the 2003 invasion
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The CIA tortured al-Qaeda suspects because it wanted evidence that Saddam Hussein was linked to 9/11 in order to justify the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The agency was under intense pressure from the White House and senior figures in the Bush administration to extract confessions confirming co-operation between the Iraqi leader and al-Qaeda, although no significant evidence was ever found.

The CIA has defended its actions by claiming that it was “unknowable” if torture had produced results, although the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Dianne Feinstein, maintains torture produced nothing of value.

A second line of defence put forward by defenders of the CIA is to say that the agency was swept up in the reaction to 9/11 in the US and needed to find out quickly if there were going to be further attacks.

Telling evidence about the motives of the CIA in instituting its torture programme comes in a report on detainee abuse issued by the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2009. It cited a former US Army psychiatrist, Major Charles Burney, who had been stationed at Guantanamo Bay, as saying interrogators were compelled to give priority to one line of questioning.

“A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq,” he said. When interrogators failed to do this “there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results”.

This explanation is confirmed by an unnamed former senior US intelligence officer familiar with the interrogations, who told the McClatchy news agency that there were two reasons “why these interrogations were so persistent and why extreme methods were used”. One was fear there might be a second attack by al-Qaeda. He added that “for most of 2002 and into 2003, [Vice-President Dick] Cheney and [Defence Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld were also demanding proof of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.”

On being told repeatedly by the CIA that there was no reliable intelligence about such links, Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld insisted harsher methods be used. The officer said: “There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney’s and Rumsfeld’s people to push harder.”

The most severe torture sessions took place in the run-up to the war in 2003, suggesting that rather than preventing further action by al-Qaeda, the US administration was intent on justifying the invasion of Iraq. One prisoner, Abu Zubaydah, who was wrongly thought to be an al-Qaeda leader by his interrogators, was waterboarded 83 times in August 2002, and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 183 times in March 2003. The first questions asked of the latter after he was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, were all about Iraq and not about forthcoming al-Qaeda attacks, according to The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan.


Senior members of the Bush administration went on pressing for the use of brutal methods amounting to torture against Iraqi prisoners taken after the invasion, trying to make them corroborate an al-Qaeda connection. Summers and Swan cite the CIA’s Charles Duelfer, in charge of interrogating Iraqi officials, as saying that senior officials in Washington, although not in the CIA, had suggested waterboarding an Iraqi official to get the evidence they wanted. Two other US intelligence officers said the proposal came from Mr Cheney’s office.

The CIA was in a poor position to resist pressure from the administration because of its failure to predict or prevent 9/11. But for security agencies, it was a moment of opportunity to gain bigger budgets, more personnel and wider authority in order to punish the perpetrators and prevent a second attack.

Rewards went to any person or institution showing activity in pursuing these ends, regardless of its effectiveness. One use of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” programme was to make the CIA a more important player when it came to bureaucratic rivalries in Washington.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Iraq War, Torture 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. lt all came from the Administration of George bush him and his minions should be jailed for war crimes as were the Nazis.the complete destruction of Iraq the murder of one million that posed no threat to anyone hanging a head of state under occupation stealing billions and on and on and on.

  2. Sean says:

    “Dianne Feinstein , maintains torture produced nothing of value,”

    Feinstein backed the attack on Iraq, although Scott Ritter says Feinstein told him in summer 2002 that the Bush administration had not provided any convincing intelligence to back up its claims about the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Feinstein must have been convinced of a different threat there, which could only be the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq.

    Feinstein and others who now claim to have been so naïve about what the Bush administration was telling them about Iraq must have realised that the ‘ proof’ of the links between al-Qaeda and Iraq was merely statements that been obtained by physical coercion that only ended when such ‘proof’ was supplied. Basically Feinstein and others, although they now claim to have been hoodwinked by a masterful deception, did not need a lot of persuading.

  3. Don G. says:

    Bush2 and his gang of thugs knew all along that Iraq had nothing to do with 911 but they used it as a convenient excuse to do Iraq again. Same reason for the first war against Iraq, establishing US control over Iraq in the quest to control the entire ME. Jail them, try them for murder, and hand the guilty perps.

  4. CIA _” predict or prevent 9/11″ Shame on the author for giving brownie points to CIA
    FYI: CIA MOSSAD were actually the vermin that pulled off the Sept 11 2001 bombing attacks and plane hijackings

  5. Any excuse would do. The real reason was to eliminate any competent nation which might be a threat to Israel. Always good to have a cover reason. Next: Iran.

  6. Fabrizio says:

    Kudos to the CIA. They found the Iraq-Al Queda connection, finally, 11 years later. It’s called ISIS, or ISIL, or IS, or Sons of Iraq. And that connection was not only proved, it was created by torture. This is true intelligence.

  7. Ivy says:

    The Iraq/WMD link fits into a Life-Imitates-Art set piece.

    Recall the brilliant English writer John LeCarre’s book The Tailor of Panama. That story chronicled the incompetence, fraud and deception involved in reliance on a single source that fomented an idiotic invasion.

    A variation of that single source/unvetted storyline played out later on in Iraq. The Curveball/WMD revelations that contributed to the utterly disastrous and all around wasteful and shameful Iraq fiasco killed, maimed or otherwise harmed countless people while enriching a few and supporting a few groups on the backs of others.

    Slightly OT bonus round for literary connection: Tom Clancy’s Debt of Honor laid out the use of a jet as a tool of revenge and symbolic destruction, an echo of which would be seen, heard and felt by so many on 9-11.

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr