The Daily - Gina Haspel and the Shadow of Torture

Episode Date: May 8, 2018

The Central Intelligence Agency is waging an unusual campaign to make Gina Haspel its next leader, despite her polarizing past. Why do officers see her most controversial quality as her greatest asset? Guests: Adam Goldman, a reporter who covers the intelligence community for The Times; John Bennett, a former chief of the C.I.A.’s clandestine service who retired in 2013. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, the CIA is waging an unusual campaign to make Gina Haspel its next leader, despite her polarizing past. Why agents there see her most controversial quality as her greatest asset. It's Tuesday, May 8th.

John, thanks for being here. It's an honor to have you. Well, it's a pleasure to be here. I realize it's not often that you sit down with the New York Times. No, it's not one of my preferred activities. Adam Goldman, who is John Bennett? John Bennett was one of America's top spies. He also was in charge of the National Clandestine Service, the spy arm of the CIA, when President Obama ordered the raid on the Osama bin Laden compound in Pakistan in 2011.

So how unusual is it that someone of Bennett's status, especially in such a clandestine world, sits down and talks with you on the record in front of a microphone? It's something he has rarely done since he left the agency in 2013. In fact, I've tried to contact John, and he has not responded. So then why is he talking to you now? Like any good spy, John has a mission. He wants to get the word out about Gina Haspel, who's been nominated to be the director of the CIA.

And what do we need to know about Gina Haspel? I think it's important to know about Gina Haspel? I think it's important to know about Gina Haspel that she is a highly respected case officer who joined the CIA in 1985. And the CIA has been running an aggressive campaign to get the word out about her. They've been relying on Twitter, news releases, giving information reporters who have written lengthy stories about her. And part of this public relations campaign is getting former agency employees, people like John Bennett, to talk to reporters. And why would they have to do that or want to do that? Why do they need to get out the good word on this CIA official? Because there's really only one story that's been told about Gina Haspel's history in the CIA.

And that story is about her role running a CIA black site where an al-Qaeda suspect was tortured and her role in helping destroy tapes of these torture sessions. Haspel was seen as a very competent case officer. Prior to 9-11, she was the deputy station chief in Ankara, Turkey. But after 9-11, she began working in the CIA's counterterrorism center. It was a little sleepy prior to 9-11, but after 9-11, it was infused with the agency's best talent and billions of dollars. And the Counterterrorism Center was, in fact, in charge of waging war against al-Qaeda and interrogating, detaining suspects in secret prisons around the world. What do you know, Adam, about Haspel's specific role in the counterterrorism center after 9-11?

I know when she joined, she was put in charge of surveillance teams. While doing that job, the CIA asked her to go to Thailand to be what is known as a base chief. She was actually put in charge of this secret prison in Thailand, which is about two hours outside of Bangkok. It was an infamous site. There were two individuals brought there, one an al-Qaeda suspect named Abu Zubaydah, and another al-Qaeda suspect named Abda al-Rahim al-Nashiri. Zubaydah was waterboarded 83 times. At this site? At this site.

The first al-Qaeda prisoner to be waterboarded was Abu Zubaydah. These enhanced interrogation techniques were designed to break the prisoners, and Abu Zubaydah was to be the guinea pig. Abu Zubaydah, repeatedly waterboarded, became completely unresponsive, with bubbles rising through his open, full mouth. He actually had to be resuscitated. He actually died on the waterboard. Wow.

But was revived. But was revived, correct. And after he was waterboarded and exposed to these harsh interrogation techniques, it's my understanding that Haspel arrived. And she was there for about six weeks. And while she was running this secret prison, Nishiri was waterboard three times and also exposed to some of these very harsh techniques. I don't know anybody who joined CIA to run an

interrogation center. It's not a job we were trained for. It's not a job we had the experience for. But it was a job we were asked to do in the moments of greatest uncertainty and anxiety in the aftermath of 9-11. So Gina and others did their duty as it was defined for them at the time. I think Bennett, like many people in the CIA, realized that they needed to take action, and it had to be robust, and they needed to take the fight to al-Qaeda. That was the thinking then. They could be possibly facing another devastating terrorism attack and they didn't want that to happen. You know, I thought that they were certainly unprecedented in extreme measures, but it was an extreme situation. And Franklin Delano Roosevelt interned thousands of loyal Japanese Americans. Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. John Adams signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. American presidents, when they've been faced with an extreme threat, have taken extreme actions, which oftentimes in retrospect were seen as incompatible with our core values. So I think this probably falls in that category.

It was an extreme reaction to an extreme event. On a personal level, is this something you would have taken part of? Is this something you would have done? I would have carried out my duties as they were defined at the time. What about waterboarding our confinement box? Waterboarding, I think that's where you get over the line. And why is waterboarding the line that for Bennett, and maybe for others, cannot or should not be crossed? What is it about waterboarding? Well, waterboarding itself simulates drowning. So you're actually creating the sensation of drowning, of death. And that itself, under international law, is prohibited.

and that itself under international law is prohibited. So what Bennett is saying is that he's conflicted about some of these tactics, at least when it comes to waterboarding. Do we know whether Haspel is similarly conflicted about what she is doing during this post 9-11 period? One of the mysteries of Haspel is what she thought at the time and what she thinks now. Haspel has never spoken publicly about her time in this black site, about her time overseeing waterboarding.

We don't know from Haspel herself whether she thinks this is, in fact, wrong. But Bennett and I talked about that. And I would say the fact that they sent Gina Haspel, given her sound judgment and her balance, emotional balance, I think if you're going to have that type of facility, that's exactly the type of officer you want there, not somebody who is a zealot or somebody who has lost their perspective on what it is that we're there for. I think it's unfair to assume that Gina is somebody who's an advocate for waterboarding. I mean, that was one of the tools that was legally available at that site, but it's not a tool that she invented or advocated.

So he's saying that Haspel was brought there because she's not somebody who's viewed as embracing the harshest possible tactics after 9-11 to deal with suspected terrorists. I think she's brought there because she wasn't going to let things get out of control. Remember, that individual who was waterboarded under her time was only waterboarded three times. Now, for him, each one is an eternity. But the previous individual, Abu Zubaydah, was waterboarded 83 times. That didn't happen under her watch there. Somebody described her job there as cleanup and close up, which they did in December of 2002.

After Thailand, she returns to the Counterterrorism Center in Langley, Virginia, and she takes up a job as deputy to the chief of operations. Jose Rodriguez, who is running the Counterterrorism Center at that time, thinks highly of her. And what does he do? He plucks Haspel to be his chief of staff while he's running the clandestine service, which is a big job. And it's a signal to the rest of the building that Haspel is highly respected, and she's going places. She's going to move up the ladder after this. So she is promoted after this work in Thailand, it sounds like. Correct. And what does Haspel do as chief of staff to Rodriguez?

Well, the most notable thing that Haspel did is draft a memo that Jose Rodriguez sent to the CIA station in Bangkok, ordering the destruction of these tapes of people being waterboarded. So to be clear, the memo orders the destruction of tapes of people being waterboarded, including at the black site that Haspel herself oversaw. Correct. But there was a problem with that order. Jose Rodriguez was specifically told by the White House counsel, Harriet Myers, and by John Rizzo, the acting general counsel of the CIA, do not destroy those tapes.

Do not destroy those tapes. And yet? And yet, Jose felt he had all the legal authority he needed and pushed the button on that cable, and those tapes were destroyed. The tapes are no more. Jose Rodriguez destroyed them. They would have been devastating had they ever become public, but he remains unrepentant.

I am proud of the decisions that I took, including the destruction of the tapes to protect the people who work for me. I have no regrets. You had no qualms. We made some al-Qaeda terrorists with American blood on their hands uncomfortable for a few days. But we did the right thing for the right reason. And the right reason was to protect the homeland and to protect American lives. So, yes, I had no qualms. I can tell you that I fully supported Jose's decision

because I thought it was necessary to protect our officers in the future. There was no doubt in my mind that at some point in time, this material would get into the public domain. Aggressive reporters like Adam Goldman would never have, couldn't have resisted the opportunity. That's true. You're right on that count. And, you know, we wanted to protect our officers, not just from Al Qaeda, but from the public perception of what they had been asked to do. It's my understanding that Gina was supportive of this. You know, she drafted the cable. Yes, she was. She drafted the cable, but let's be clear of what her role was. Gina was the chief of staff. She wasn't the commander.

Gina had no authority to order the destruction of the tapes, nor did she have any authority to countermand Jose's decision any more than the chief of station who received that cable was in a position to ignore it. So I think Jose's been very clear on every occasion that he and he alone made the decision to destroy those tapes. I think to most people, this order sounds like the CIA trying to cover up something that they knew, perhaps in their heart of hearts, was wrong. they knew, perhaps in their heart of hearts, was wrong. I mean, destroying tapes as a student of American politics and history almost always feels like the definition of hiding something. When the New York Times revealed that, in fact, these tapes had been destroyed,

it was a huge scandal. What was on these tapes, and were they destroyed, and if so, by whom? The tapes were destroyed, and after the destruction, one of the big issues is that Congress was not notified. Many members of Congress, mostly Democrats, on Friday were calling for an attorney general investigation. What happened? What do you think was on these tapes and why do you think they were destroyed? Well, the suspicion, of course, is that the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques are depicted on those tapes. And so that's very significant, both because of what it means about the legality of the underlying conduct that's depicted on the tapes, and also the reliability of the information

that came as the result of those interrogations. And there were real questions about whether laws had been broken. And in fact, under President Obama, federal prosecutors looked at whether a crime had been committed. And I'm certain that federal prosecutors interviewed Haspel about her role in this and her actions. We'll be right back. What effect, Adam, did Haspel's role in this episode have on her career at the CIA? Once the torture program became public, it certainly seemed from the outside like this was a blight on the agency. Was it considered a black mark on Haspel's record inside the CIA? No. In fact, her career really took off.

And Bennett and I talked about that. The people who took on the hardest jobs at the most critical moments were widely respected. They weren't seen as tainted. And not just Gina Haspel. I mean, people's careers were certainly not damaged by having taken part in our most aggressive programs, because those were the priorities of the president at the time and of the agency. And we put some of our very best officers into those programs

because if it's your most important priority, you want your best people working for it. So the fact that Haspel and others worked on the torture program, it sounds like didn't at all prevent them from rising through the ranks, that it actually boosted them, especially Haspel. Correct. Once Trump wins the election and becomes president, she's promptly named deputy director of the CIA, which is in its own right, is an extraordinary job at the agency. And she's at the highest levels of power in the United States

government. It's a big job. And then President Trump decided he wanted Mike Pompeo, then director of the CIA, to become the next secretary of state. And now, suddenly, she's nominated to be the CIA director. So now that Haspel is the nominee, how are lawmakers thinking about these experiences that we've been talking about? The waterboarding at the black site in Thailand and the destruction of the tapes documenting this kind of interrogation. Now that she's up for this far bigger job, as these lawmakers prepare for her confirmation hearing on Wednesday.

Haspel is going to face a tough confirmation hearing, in particular from Democratic senators and some Republican ones as well. And she knows it and they know it. And this is what precipitated a crisis on Friday when Haspel went to the White House and basically said, look, I don't want to put myself through this and the CIA through this and damage both of our reputations if you're not committed to standing behind me. And she had second thoughts and she offered to pull out of this thing. And she thought about it. And I think by Friday night, the crisis had been resolved. And she said, OK, I'm going to do this. I'm going to go forward

with this. And in fact, just today on Monday, she was spotted on the Hill walking confidently meeting with senators. So the confirmation is on track. What's at stake from the point of view of these lawmakers who are going to be sitting across from Haspel and asking her these questions? For them, what is the point of this hearing? I think for some senators, it's simply about electoral politics. Some lawmakers want to send a message to their constituents that this behavior was okay, and we support it. And maybe their constituents actually believe that torture works or this program was effective. And then there are other senators, certainly the senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, who's running

for reelection. This is her legacy. She actually led the investigation into all the bad stuff that happened during this program. For others, I think they have bigger concerns, such as what message they want to send to the rest of the world. Are we going to support and confirm an individual who participated in what many people believe was torture, right? What message do we send by confirming Haspel is the next director of the CIA? I mean, that is the big message. And I think our position as the leader of the free world, we set the tone and how's the rest of the world going to react to that? They're going to say, well, I guess, is that okay? That's the way I feel. Can you imagine, can you imagine these people, these animals over

in the Middle East that chop off heads, sitting around talking and seeing that we're having a hard problem with waterboarding. We should go for waterboarding and we should go tougher. They asked me, why do you think about waterboarding, Mr. Trump? I said, I love it. I love it. And I said, the only thing is we should make it much tougher than waterboarding. It feels like the critical question at Haspel's confirmation hearings will be whether as the top official of the CIA, not just a subordinate anymore, she would be willing to walk the CIA down this path again. Because even though she would be running the CIA, she still answers to one person, and that would be the president. And this president has himself advocated for the most aggressive forms of interrogation. He seems quite comfortable with them. And so would she say yes

again now? Bennett says she wouldn't lead the agency down that path again if asked to. I think she would certainly be the type of director who would not be afraid to tell the president this is wrong, and it's not smart, and we're not doing it. Now, they might have a new director the next day, but I think she would certainly be prepared to pay that price to do what's right. So what Bennett is saying is that if President Trump were to ask her to do this, that the president might be very disappointed by her answer, that she would say no based on the lessons of this era. That's right. But that would open her up to some pretty severe questioning about whether she thought it was wrong. And if she thought it was wrong, why did she go through it in the beginning? Right. If it was okay once when she had a very large role and could have stopped it, why should we believe that she won't do it again

when she's the head of the entire CIA? And I think she's probably going to have to answer that question in various forms many times when she faces some pretty tough senators. And do you think that one of the reasons why John Bennett, this top spy who talks to no one, said yes to your interview was to deliver this very message, that Haspel would be a check on the president, that she would say no to anything resembling torture. Yeah, I think Bennett and others who have spoken to me about Haspel, they believe that she would be a check on an erratic president, right? And I think they want the American public to know that she's a safe bet. She's a safe bet in a chaotic time. What Bennett and others would say

is she knows not to cross certain lines, right? You get chalk on your cleats, but you don't go over the line. And I think Bennett and others believe that she will guide the agency through this very chaotic period in American history. And is that possibly because she wants to cross that line, because she has so much chalk on her plates? There is no doubt that Haspel has learned a few great lessons from being involved in the interrogation program and destroying those tapes. And one can assume Haspel doesn't want to relive those moments. Thank you, Adam. Thank you. A few more questions. What makes a good spy? What makes a good case officer? To me, one of the real qualities that you need is an ability to deal with ambiguity because it's a very gray world.

It's a world where, in essence, the ends have to justify the means. I mean, you're dealing with some very, in many cases, unpleasant people or corrupt people or people who you wouldn't necessarily want to take home for Thanksgiving dinner. That's not always comfortable. So if you're a person who sees the world in terms of black and white, good guys, bad guys, right, wrong, and there's not an ability to deal with moral ambiguity in terms of the grayness of espionage, I think you're going to have a hard time. Haspel's Senate testimony is scheduled for tomorrow morning. Here's what else you need to know today.

In a highly anticipated announcement this afternoon, President Trump is scheduled to declare whether he will pull the U.S. out of a historic nuclear deal with Iran. Officials familiar with the president's thinking tell The Times he is inclined to scrap the agreement and reimpose sanctions on Iran, despite pleas from allies, including Britain, Germany, and France,

who have argued it would be a major diplomatic error. And the Attorney General of New York, Eric Schneiderman, resigned on Monday night, hours after he was accused of physically abusing four women. The women told The New Yorker that Schneiderman, the state's chief law enforcement officer and a prominent critic of President Trump's choked and slapped them. In a statement, Schneiderman disputed the allegations, but said they would prevent him from carrying out his job. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.