3 ms·

Then I do not get the purpose of that sentence in your post since it reads like "Yes we did shitty stuff to him but remember they thought he was a bad guy at th

Then I do not get the purpose of that sentence in your post since it reads like "Yes we did shitty stuff to him but remember they thought he was a bad guy at the time."

tptacek 12y ago
I'll assume that's because you're unfamiliar with the Kiriakou case, in which Zubaydah plays an important role. You could sum that case up by saying that Kiriakou is accused of two major harms to the USG: first, outing a 20-year undercover operative, and second, potentially compromising the Zubaydah case. It would be an easy message board rebuttal to say, "well, it turns out Zubaydah was a pawn with virtually no value to the USG or Al Qaeda, so compromising him was not a big deal". But, at the time when Kiriakou was alleged to have leaked secrets to promote his book, nobody believed that about Zubaydah. He was instead believed to have a key operational role in Al Qaeda, and compromising him to promote a book would have been a grave matter. It is hard to explain the nuance of this case without sounding like I'm taking a side in it. CIA is also accused throughout the Senate report of leaking secrets to polish its own reputation. The only issue I'd have a problem with is the idea that Kiriakou's actions were heroic. By his own stipulations that appears not to be the case. I'll say this again: I'm may be more ambivalent than most of HN when it comes to surveillance and law enforcement and regulation, but I am not ambivalent about torture or, for that matter, the CIA, or criminal liability for the CIA. I should have to make that disclaimer, but obviously I do.
- rurounijones 12y ago
  I am not in disagreement with your assesment of Kiraikou and I don't see how any of that ties into your original statement "However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network." which seems totally unrelated to anything you have posted above, which was what make it stand out in the first place. I cannot see any other way of interpreting it than the way I mentioned in my previous post, could you clarify what you meant by this since I am obviously not getting your meaning?
  - tptacek 12y ago
    No.
    - rurounijones 12y ago
      Ok then, end of thread.

Then I do not get the purpose of that sentence in your post since it reads like "Yes we did shitty stuff to him but remember they thought he was a bad guy at the time."

tptacek 12y ago

I'll assume that's because you're unfamiliar with the Kiriakou case, in which Zubaydah plays an important role. You could sum that case up by saying that Kiriakou is accused of two major harms to the USG: first, outing a 20-year undercover operative, and second, potentially compromising the Zubaydah case. It would be an easy message board rebuttal to say, "well, it turns out Zubaydah was a pawn with virtually no value to the USG or Al Qaeda, so compromising him was not a big deal". But, at the time when Kiriakou was alleged to have leaked secrets to promote his book, nobody believed that about Zubaydah. He was instead believed to have a key operational role in Al Qaeda, and compromising him to promote a book would have been a grave matter. It is hard to explain the nuance of this case without sounding like I'm taking a side in it. CIA is also accused throughout the Senate report of leaking secrets to polish its own reputation. The only issue I'd have a problem with is the idea that Kiriakou's actions were heroic. By his own stipulations that appears not to be the case. I'll say this again: I'm may be more ambivalent than most of HN when it comes to surveillance and law enforcement and regulation, but I am not ambivalent about torture or, for that matter, the CIA, or criminal liability for the CIA. I should have to make that disclaimer, but obviously I do.

rurounijones 12y ago
I am not in disagreement with your assesment of Kiraikou and I don't see how any of that ties into your original statement "However terribly Zubaydah was treated by the CIA, we should probably remain clear on the fact that he was believed by everyone involved, including Kiriakou, to have been an integral part of the Al Qaeda network." which seems totally unrelated to anything you have posted above, which was what make it stand out in the first place. I cannot see any other way of interpreting it than the way I mentioned in my previous post, could you clarify what you meant by this since I am obviously not getting your meaning?
- tptacek 12y ago
  No.
  - rurounijones 12y ago
    Ok then, end of thread.