On the Gina Haspel torture story: fake, but inaccurate
In still another example of the sad and sorry and downright dangerous state of journalism today, the tale of Gina Haspel’s (Trump’s new pick to head the CIA) involvement in overseeing the waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah in Afghanistan in 2002, published in February of 2017 by ProPublica, is now being retracted as false.
The Democrats’ response to Haspel’s nomination was to accuse her of being a torturer overseer on the basis of these stories.
Similar accusations also had been raised on a story in the NY Times in Feburary of 2017:
The New York Times reported that in 2002 Haspel oversaw the torture of terrorists Abu Zubaydah and Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and her name was on the cable ordering the destruction of the videotapes of their interrogations, although the CIA stated that it was Haspel’s boss at the time, Jose Rodriguez, who was the head of the CIA’s clandestine service, who ordered the tapes destroyed.
Here’s an excerpt from ProPublica’s retraction of its own 2017 story:
On Feb. 22, 2017, ProPublica published a story that inaccurately described Gina Haspel’s role in the treatment of Abu Zubaydah, a suspected al-Qaida leader who was imprisoned by the CIA at a secret “black site” in Thailand in 2002.
The story said that Haspel, a career CIA officer who President Trump has nominated to be the next director of central intelligence, oversaw the clandestine base where Zubaydah was subjected to waterboarding and other coercive interrogation methods that are widely seen as torture. The story also said she mocked the prisoner’s suffering in a private conversation. Neither of these assertions is correct and we retract them. It is now clear that Haspel did not take charge of the base until after the interrogation of Zubaydah ended.
Extraordinary. Or maybe the most extraordinary thing about it is that it was ultimately retracted, because such errors (if they are errors rather than deliberate falsifications) are not unusual. How did these intrepid journalists get it wrong? As they tell the story in their retraction article:
Our account of Haspel’s actions was drawn in part from declassified agency cables and CIA-reviewed books which referred to the official overseeing Zubaydah’s interrogation at a secret prison in Thailand as “chief of base.” The books and cables redacted the name of the official, as is routinely done in declassified documents referring to covert operations.
The Trump administration named Haspel to the CIA’s No. 2 job in early February 2017. Soon after, three former government officials told ProPublica that Haspel was chief of base in Thailand at the time of Zubaydah’s waterboarding.
We also found an online posting by John Kiriakou, a former CIA counter-terrorism officer, who wrote that “It was Haspel who oversaw the staff” at the Thai prison, including two psychologists who “designed the torture techniques and who actually carried out torture on the prisoners.”
So the original claim seems to have been based on the reports of some people who weren’t necessarily there and who remain unnamed and whose positions are unspecified. And fact-checking the most simple fact—when was Haspel posted to the Thai prison and did it coincide with the timeline of the waterboardings—seems to have been beyond the capacity of the Times or ProPublica.
That’s the way reporting goes these days; lots of mistakes. However, have you ever noticed that the errors seem to mostly go in one direction only, the direction that favors the left’s “narrative”? How can that be, since we all know reporters are oh-so-objective?
I don’t think most reporters outright lie knowing they are lying, although I have little doubt that some do. I think that stories like this one are mostly a case of the expression “too good to fact-check.” If you want something to be true it is easy to fail to doubt it sufficiently, and if you haven’t been rigorously trained in the idea that it is in that sort of situation that you must fact-check the most carefully of all, then you’ve set yourself up for errors like this one.
In addition, there are ordinarily no bad consequences for your mistake. Hey, you got a ton of clicks, didn’t you? The story is out there, isn’t it? And most people will believe it and therefore it does its ideological task rather well, even if later debunked. And you’ve covered yourself by printing the disclaimer. Win, win, win…
I’m not familiar with ProPublica, so I don’t know whether they generally do good work or not. But I found this description of their self-described goals on their “about” page:
ProPublica is an independent, nonprofit newsroom that produces investigative journalism with moral force. We dig deep into important issues, shining a light on abuses of power and betrayals of public trust ”” and we stick with those issues as long as it takes to hold power to account.
With a team of more than 75 dedicated journalists, ProPublica covers a range of topics including government and politics, business, criminal justice, the environment, education, health care, immigration, and technology. We focus on stories with the potential to spur real-world impact. Among other positive changes, our reporting has contributed to the passage of new laws; reversals of harmful policies and practices; and accountability for leaders at local, state and national levels.
So they are engaged in uncovering abuses of power with the goal of sparking change. Those are the first two paragraphs, and it’s clear that that is their main goal. If I were to guess, I would wager that the vast majority of them are to the left of center.
Only later, towards the end of paragraph three (and towards the end of the description) do they get around to saying, “We are committed to uncovering the truth, no matter how long it takes or how much it costs…” To me this indicates that “truth” is subordinate to the reformist agenda, and therein lies the problem.
In its retraction, ProPublica also wrote this concerning its original 2017 article and the research they did for it:
…[W]e approached the CIA’s press office with an extensive list of questions about the cables and Haspel’s role in running the Thai prison, particularly her dealings with Zubaydah.
An agency spokesman declined to answer any of those questions but released a statement that was quoted in the article, asserting that “nearly every piece of reporting that you are seeking comment on is incorrect in whole or in part.”
The CIA did not comment further on the story after its publication and we were not aware of any further questions about its accuracy until this week.
Wasn’t that response question enough to motivate the reporters to make absolutely sure they were fact-checking this story with great vigor? And if not, why not? In their defense, they did include that quote from the CIA spokesman in their original article (the article is reproduced in the story retracting it). But it didn’t seem to stop them from blazing ahead with those inaccuracies.
“In addition, there are ordinarily no bad consequences for your mistake. Hey, you got a ton of clicks, didn’t you? The story is out there, isn’t it? And most people will believe it and therefore it does its ideological task rather well, even if later debunked. And you’ve covered yourself by printing the disclaimer. Win, win, win…”
Gee, someone should write a book about that sort of thing—irresponsible actions that hurt people but where the perpetrator pays no cost. Oh, someone has?
https://www.amazon.com/Skin-Game-Hidden-Asymmetries-Daily/dp/042528462X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1521228105&sr=8-2&keywords=taleb
To be clear their story came out in February 2017 not last month, over a year ago(I know you were clear neo but one could see February and gloss over the year). Is it safe to say that if this woman wasn’t nominated for this job then this would have never been corrected.
I wonder how these admissions by ProPublica will affect Rand Paul, the senator from Kentucky who said that he would not vote to confirm Gina Haspel because of claims that now appear wrong. You don’t have to be a journalist to leap before looking.
If Gina Haspel was personally waterboarding jihadist that’s the type of person I want in charge. Some one with practical experience.
“In addition, there are ordinarily no bad consequences for your mistake. Hey, you got a ton of clicks, didn’t you? The story is out there, isn’t it? And most people will believe it and therefore it does its ideological task rather well, even if later debunked. And you’ve covered yourself by printing the disclaimer. Win, win, win…”
The Harry Reid Award for Journalism goes to….
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/harry-reid-lied-about-mitt-romneys-taxes-hes-still-not-sorry/?utm_term=.093bad732a9c
“Again, to be clear, Reid is just wrong. Romney didn’t release all 10 years of his tax returns but the returns he did release showed that he paid taxes. If a small part of an allegation is accurate but the main thrust of it isn’t, that doesn’t make the whole thing true.
Then there’s this from Reid via Terris:
Is there a line he wouldn’t cross when it comes to political warfare?
“I don’t know what that line would be,” [Reid] said.
That is the ultimate statement of political cynicism. What Reid is saying – if you consider the comments to Bash last year and those to Terris recently – is that the ends justify the means in all cases. It doesn’t really matter if what he said about Romney’s taxes is wrong. All that matters is that Romney lost. That Romney lost is justification enough for Reid to have made the false allegation.
I tend to not be a Pollyanna when it comes to politics. These are contests in which winning and losing are the only way success and failure are measured. Both parties like to claim the moral high road while often engaging in tactics that are decidedly low road.
Few politicians, though, are as willing as Reid to speak publicly about their disregard for the truth in pursuit of victory. His view on how to win in politics is both remarkable and remarkably depressing.”
The most depressing thing for me is that Reid and Romney are both Mormons. What a difference in attitudes they exemplify.
Griffin Says:
March 16th, 2018 at 3:41 pm
To be clear their story came out in February 2017 not last month, over a year ago(I know you were clear neo but one could see February and gloss over the year). Is it safe to say that if this woman wasn’t nominated for this job then this would have never been corrected.
* * *
Yes.
The Sarah Palin Prize for Journalism…..
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/15/the-bogus-claim-that-a-map-of-crosshairs-by-sarah-palins-pac-incited-rep-gabby-giffordss-shooting/?utm_term=.19b2e1b75d5e
“This quote is from a corrected version of a New York Times editorial that had falsely claimed that the gunman in the 2011 Giffords shooting was politically incited by Palin’s political action committee. Many readers asked about the uncorrected version, which initially claimed “the link to political incitement was clear” between the gunman’s actions and the map portraying crosshairs, including one over Giffords’s congressional district in Southern Arizona.
On Jan. 11, 2011 – three days after the shooting – The Fact Checker called this charge “bogus.” Alas, this debunked talking point still exists.
The Fact Checker is not a media critic, nor is it an opinion column that argues with other editorial opinions. We don’t play gotcha, and we appreciate when falsehoods are corrected. But this episode showed how pervasive this debunked talking point still is on the political left, and we wanted to set the record straight.
…
This quote is from a corrected version of a New York Times editorial that had falsely claimed that the gunman in the 2011 Giffords shooting was politically incited by Palin’s political action committee. Many readers asked about the uncorrected version, which initially claimed “the link to political incitement was clear” between the gunman’s actions and the map portraying crosshairs, including one over Giffords’s congressional district in Southern Arizona.
On Jan. 11, 2011 – three days after the shooting – The Fact Checker called this charge “bogus.” Alas, this debunked talking point still exists.
The Fact Checker is not a media critic, nor is it an opinion column that argues with other editorial opinions. We don’t play gotcha, and we appreciate when falsehoods are corrected. But this episode showed how pervasive this debunked talking point still is on the political left, and we wanted to set the record straight.
…
We’re glad to see this fixed in the editorial, but it’s not a good sign that the debunked talking point was included as fact in the editorial of a major media outlet. Any future references to this talking point by politicians or political groups will receive Four Pinocchios.”
She shouldn’t have lost her libel suit, but that’s how the judges roll these days.
I don’t know much about ProPublica either, but on its website’s home page it says it received the 2017 Pulitzer Prize for public service, the 2016 Pulitzer Prize for explanatory reporting, the 2011 Pulitzer Prize for national reporting and a 2010 Pulitzer Prize for investigative reporting. So it seems a pretty big player.
I still don’t understand what makes waterboarding bad, an interrogation method that is not going to leave any permanent on the receiving individual. We can unload clips of ammunition on them, bomb them into pieces, running them over with tanks, but somehow depleting them of oxygen for a few seconds (repeatedly though) is the most inhumane thing a person can do to another person.
overweight people with sleep apnea go through worse everynite are we going to prosecute McDonald for their inhumane treatment on obscene people? selling unhealthy food to them to make them so fat?
I don’t feel like a media outfit, right or left, that admits its mistakes so openly should be criticized too harshly. Compare Dan Rather.
“I don’t think most reporters outright lie knowing they are lying,”
Once upon a time. Now they do.
I would not have known the facts of where all the anti Haspel stories were coming from on Facebook and other liberal sources, if they had not printed the retraction. I found that on Facebook this morning. I had seen news of Feinstein, Rand Paul and others who seemed to be taking for fact that she was the one in charge. At least they gave us that much back.
I, like other innocent and dumb conservatives did not have much knowledge of the outfit but knew they were liberal. So, like everyone else I googled. Wiki says they are a left leaning group with many Pulitzers. Of course.
Ah, yes, Gina Haspel, the Rosa Klebb of the CIA. Evil woman. Chuckles while she water boards her hapless illegal combatants. Wears shoes with poisoned darts in the soles and is expert in covert assassinations using nerve agents. Sleeps on a bed of nails and takes ice cold showers twice a day. All true! I have anonymous sources in the CIA. 🙂
Ruth H Says:
March 16th, 2018 at 8:15 pm
I would not have known the facts of where all the anti Haspel stories were coming from on Facebook and other liberal sources, if they had not printed the retraction.
* * *
Once more proving the wisdom of not commenting on any breaking news story for at least 3 days, when the clarifications, retractions, and closer-to-actual-fact stories come in.
Rand Paul needs to get a grip on reality sometime soon, but (cut him some slack) he has been through rough times lately.
I still don’t understand what makes waterboarding bad,
Come to my place, sign a waiver, and you’ll find out quickly enough.
The CIA are not idiots. If waterboarding is their method of choice, then it will be because it is remarkably horrible.
Most people find the sensation of drowning fearfully awful. People literally panic if they can’t breathe for 5 seconds. To be drowned repeatedly, day after day for hours at a time, must be real torture.
Notice, it’s not painful — hard nuts can take pain (though I have met people who wouldn’t dream of having a tooth drilled without anesthetic be pro-torture, which I find somewhat baffling).
Hard to say who is winning in the competition for ultimate arch villain in the USA: FBI bureaucrats LEOs, journoLists, or the cult of science priests.
The CIA are not idiots. If waterboarding is their method of choice, then it will be because it is remarkably horrible.
Chinese interrogators already had it, it is called the water torture.
Water is good for interrogators because a person can be brought to the edge of death through drowning, and still revived without permanent crippling injuries that would prevent the cycle from being repeated.
This is very useful for various interrogation tactics.
Compared to burning, poison, and blood draws, all have peculiar strengths and weaknesses. The Vatican and Spanish Inquisition also had their preferred methods, with the Dominican priests that specialized in hunting down Christians like the Albigensians, particularly of special worth. The Vatican had to send a few Dominican torturers to Britain to arrest and interrogate the Knights Templar fugitives. That’s because like executioners, only psychopaths and sociopaths tend to last under the unique training of these agents and their jobs.
The Jesuits and the Dominicans are probably the most Satanic factions in the Vatican’s entire hierarchy. And this is from their self professed religious zeal.
(though I have met people who wouldn’t dream of having a tooth drilled without anesthetic be pro-torture, which I find somewhat baffling).
That’s because people who have low pain thresholds know exactly how long they can last under the regular routine of an interrogation pattern.
They also, suspect, that they won’t be able to just lie their way out of it, because some of them are smart enough to realize that interrogators can always ask them questions that the interrogators know that you should know the answers to… especially when the interrogators know what that answer is.
Getting caught in a few lies and losing an eye, a finger, or some other very essential to your mortal life on earth, tends not to be a popular thing with regular civilians that have low pain thresholds on top of that.
Rand Paul needs to get a grip on reality sometime soon, but (cut him some slack) he has been through rough times lately.
He’s a Libertarian, so how much slack do these libertines need?
Also, Aesop, you may know someone called Joseph Smith jr given your background. That person was in jail for something or other, for a few months. The conditions of that particular jail was well suited for mind cracking and mind washing techniques.
Also, waterboarding should not work on religious true believers. Which means I suspect that much of AQ’s higher ups and higher level Western educated agents are not true believers…
Crucifixion doesn’t even work on the true disciples, I seriously doubt a little waterboard every day for a few weeks will do it. One should certainly last a few more times than “3”, in order to pay respect to their god.
The anti Japanese agents in WW2, were sometimes captured and remained unbroken at times. Some of them didn’t even have religious zeal, just general human principles of duty and loyalty backing them up.
Later, more modern Korean/Vietnamese/Soviet methods began research on mind cracking or what is known as brainwashing. Instead of trying to break a person’s will through pain or duress, the long term period is utilized to crack that’s person’s belief system, turning them into a Jane Fonda or John Kerry. Then you don’t have to make them help you, they will happily betray their faction or country or whatever.
Destroy a person’s beliefs and turn it around, and they become your agent or puppet. Much more useful than discarding various prisoners after interrogation because they “broke”.
Aaahhhh… Poor, poor Islamist Butchers of the mass-murder of innocents variety!! Poor, old Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, designer of the mass-murder of 3,000 inncents on 9/11. He sang like a songbird after sufficient waterboarding. Go, Gina!!
Are the Lefty Thought Police against the waterboarding at the notorious Black Site SEAL School on Coronado Island, San Diego?!?!
Never mind. Rhetorical question.
I will not be long before technology renders physical torture irrelevant.
It will be at that point , when technicians are able to electronically yet painlessly compel someone to truthfully answer a question, or simply extract the data from their brain, – perhaps at a distance and without their even realizing it – that the political cover which a revulsion for physical pain provides to enemy sympathizers, will fade away.
And at that point, they will be reduced to parroting human dignity arguments, and 4th amendment style arguments on behalf of captured terrorists.
This will be an interesting development. And as the technology grows in power, and you are able to scan another from a distance and determine how obnoxious or beneficial that person has the capability of being if admitted into your life-circle, all hell is likely to break loose … as, after all, “No child wants to be left behind …”
I have a request for our new CIA Director designee:
Can Joy Behar & Woopie be guests at the Black Site of my choice?? No boarding necessary. However, they’ll be forced to read vast quantities of books & articles by Norman & John Podhoretz, Robert Conquest, Bernard Lewis, Robert Sowell, Victor Davis Hanson, Andrew McCarthy, Jean Kaufman, etc, etc.
Upside: They’ll be exposed to the unaccustomed horror of THOUGHT.
Further Upside: They’ll beg for mere Waterboarding.
“Also, waterboarding should not work on religious true believers. Which means I suspect that much of AQ’s higher ups and higher level Western educated agents are not true believers…”
I can’t say it’s true of 100% of captured jihadis, but a great number of the top level (bin-Laden, etc) have their hide-outs full of Islamic “contraband” (porn, usually, but also alcohol).
They believe in their own right to power, and will use Allah as an accomplice if necessary.
I can’t seem to post on this blog right now. It’s very very disturbing.
In the meantime I’m putting this message on all my newer posts to alert people that for now I’ll be posting at the new site. So follow this link for further updates.
I sincerely hope this problem will be fixed soon, but I have no idea whether it will be possible. At any rate, the new blog is still operating very well (for now), and I can always post there. So for now, consider that the place to go to read my work.
Pingback:Sorta Blogless Sunday Pinup » Pirate's Cove
I agree with vanderleun (3/16 @8:08pm). The evidence is vast. To think otherwise is to be touched by a dose of denial.
Noooooooooooooooooo. You don’t say. You DON’T say. You don’t SAY! (h/t, Spike Jones, “Chloe”.