What Is Probably in the Missing Tapes

Naomi says it all..almost. She leaves out one crucial point, however--those "confessions" are also central to the government story on 9/11. She does hint about it, though (see boldface type below). Naomi, why the reticence on 9/11? Why keep playing that game? Don't write for Alexander Cockburn, Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky, Justin Raimondo, or whomever. Just tell the truth. The official story of 9/11 is not based on evidence and this story is yet another proof of that fact. Alvin

Naomi Wolf
December 13, 2007

To judge from firsthand documents obtained by the ACLU through a FOIA lawsuit, we can guess what is probably on the missing CIA interrogation tapes -- as well as understand why those implicated are spinning so hard to pretend the tapes do not document a series of evident crimes.

...What we are likely to see if the tapes documenting the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and Abd Al-Rahim Al-Nashiri are ever recovered is that the "confessions" of the prisoners upon which the White House has built its entire case for subverting the Constitution and suspending civil liberties in this country was obtained through methods such as electrocution, beating to the point of organ failure, hanging prisoners from the wrists from a ceiling, suffocation, and threats against family members ("I am going to find your mother and I am going to fuck her" is one direct quote from a US interrogator). On the missing tapes, we would likely see responses from the prisoners that would be obvious to us as confessions to anything at all in order to end the violence. In other words, if we could witness the drama of manufacturing by torture the many violently coerced "confessions" upon which the whole house of cards of this White House and its hyped "war on terror" rests, it would likely cause us to reopen every investigation, including the most serious ones (remember, even the 9/11 committee did not receive copies of the tapes); shut down the corrupt, Stalinesque Military Commissions System; turn over prisoners, the guilty and the innocent, into a working, accountable justice system operating in accordance with American values; and direct our legal scrutiny to the torturers themselves -- right up to the office of the Vice President and the President if that is where the investigations would lead.


Link to original

I can't see a link to the original. Could you point it out or post it?


She says it well enough, I think

When she says "the 'confessions' of the prisoners upon which the White House has built its entire case for subverting the Constitution and suspending civil liberties in this country." I read her to be referring to 9/11 as the premise and justification for all that has happened since.

Robert Scheer also says it clearly, here:

"When the CIA destroyed those prisoner interrogation videotapes, was it also destroying the truth about 9/11? After all, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, the basic narrative of what happened on that day--and the definition of the enemy in this war on terror that George W. Bush launched in response to the tragedy--comes from the CIA's account of what those prisoners told their torturers. The commission was never allowed to interview the prisoners, or speak with those who did, and was instead forced to rely on what the CIA was willing to relay."


and republished here, at sites that have not been sympathetic to questioning 9/11 :





and "buzzed" here: