GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO 3
"FACING SOUTH FLORIDA." 3
JIM DEFEDE IS OFF THIS WEEK. 3
THE SEPTEMBER 11th TERRORIST 3
ATTACKS RESHAPED LIFE AS WE 3
KNEW IT AND MARKED A DEFINING 3
TURNING POINT IN U.S. 3
INTELLIGENCE OPERATIONS. 3
TO HELP PREVENT ANOTHER 9/11-3
LIKE INCIDENT, THE DEPARTMENT 3
OF HOMELAND SECURITY WAS 3
CREATED AND THE C.I.A. 3
EVOLVED INTO A WAR-FIGHTING 3
INTEL SERVICE. 3
I RECENTLY SAT DOWN WITH PHILIP 3
MUDD, THE FORMER DEPUTY 3
DIRECTOR OF THE C.I.A.'S 3
COUNTERTERRORIST CENTER. 3
HIS NEW BOOK R.S ONE OF THE 3
C.I.A.'S MOST CONTROVERSIAL AND 3
HAUNTING POST-9/11 CHAPTERS, 3
THE USE OF SO-CALLED ENHANCE 3
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. 3
WE DO WANT TO WARN YOU, PARTS 3
OF THIS CONVERSATION ARE 3
SENSITIVE AND MAY BE 3
UNCOMFORTABLE TO HEAR. 3
THANK YOU FOR YOUR MORE THAN 3
TWO DECADES OF SERVICE TO THIS 3
COUNTRY. 3
THANKS. 3
AND THANK YOU FOR COMING IN 3
TODAY. 3
THIS IS KIND OF YOUR 3
OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOUR OWN 3
STORY AND TO TELL THE STORY OF 3
YOUR FRIENDS IN THE 3
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. 3
YEAH. 3
AND WHAT THE CLIMATE WAS 3
LIKE RIGHT AFTER THE 9/11 3
TERRORIST ATTACKS WHICH AMERICA 3
HAD NEVER SEEN THE LIKES OF 3
BEFORE. 3
YEAH. 3
AND YOU WERE IN FEAR THERE 3
COULD BE ANOTHER IMMINENT 3
ATTACK AT ANY TIME. 3
I WAS AT THE WHITE HOUSE 3
EXECUTIVE OFFICE BUILDING. 3
THAT'S THE OFFICE BUILDING FOR 3
WHITE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY 3
STAFF ON 9/11. 3
WE WERE EVACUATED. 3
I REMEMBER SOMEBODY WALKING 3
DOWN THE HALL SAYING WE GOTTA 3
GET OUT. 3
WE GOTTA GET OUT BECAUSE WE 3
THOUGHT THE NEXT PLANE WAS 3
MEANT FOR US. 3
THAT WAS THE SHANKSVILLE, 3
PENNSYLVANIA PLANE. 3
YOU KNOW, I WENT BACK TO THE 3
C.I.A. 3
A FEW MONTHS LATER, AND THE 3
FEELING WAS FOR YEARS THE 3
FEELING WAS OVERWHELMING. 3
EVERYDAY THE DIRECTOR, THEN THE 3
C.I.A. 3
DIRECTOR, GEORGE 10 AT WHO'S 3
BECOME A FRIEND SINCE THEN. 3
GEORGE WOULD LOOK AT US AND 3
SAY, LOOK, LOOK, IF THERE'S 3
ANOTHER 9/11 TOMORROW, WHAT WE 3
USED TO CALL THE SECOND WAVE, 3
THE SECOND WAVE OF 9/11 3
ATTACKS, IF THERE'S ANOTHER 3
9/11 TOMORROW AND YOU LOOK BACK 3
AND SAY I SHOULD HAVE DONE X, 3
Y, Z, WHY DON'T YOU DO IT 3
TODAY? 3
BECAUSE IT'S GONNA HAPPEN 3
AGAIN. 3
WE ALL ASSUMED THERE WOULD BE 3
ANOTHER 9/11. 3
SO THE INTENSITY, THE PRESSURE 3
LASTED FOR YEARS. 3
AND THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY 3
IS THE THOUGHT THAT WE WERE 3
LOSING FOR ME AT THE C.I.A. 3
GOING INTO ABOUT 2004, 2005, I 3
THOUGHT WE WERE LOSING FOR TWO 3
OR THREE OR FOUR YEARS. 3
I THOUGHT AL-QAIDA WAS WINNING. 3
THE INTENSITY OF PRESSURE WAS 3
HIGH. 3
IT'S A PRESSURE THAT MOST 3
PEOPLE CAN'T IMAGINE. 3
YEAH, I THINK SO. 3
SO YOU PROCEED TO REORIENT 3
THE C.I.A. 3
YEAH. 3
YOU REORIENT THE 3
INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY. 3
YOU SHIFT YOUR STRATEGY. 3
YOU SET UP THESE BLACK SITES 3
WHICH ARE SECRET SITES AROUND 3
THE WORLD WHERE YOU TAKE 3
SUSPECTED TERRORISTS AND 3
SUBJECT THEM TO ENHANCED 3
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES. 3
YES. 3
THAT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN 3
AMERICA. 3
YES. 3
TO UNDERSTAND THE C.I.A., YOU 3
HAVE TO STEP BACK. 3
IT'S AN AGILE ORGANIZATION. 3
WE'RE NOT THE MILITARY, WE'RE 3
NOT THE FBI. 3
WE DON'T OPERATE UNDER U.S. 3
LAWS. 3
WE DO WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT 3
SAYS, AND WE DO IT QUICKLY. 3
SO IF YOU GO BACK AND STEP BACK 3
IN 2002 WITH THAT IDEA, 3
WHATEVER THE PRESIDENT SAYS, 3
WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. 3
ADD ANOTHER ELEMENT. 3
IN THE SPRING OF 2002 THE 3
C.I.A., AND I REMEMBER THE 3
NIGHT HE WAS CAPTURED, I 3
REMEMBER THE NIGHT, THE SPRING 3
OF 2002, THE C.I.A. 3
CAPTURED ITS FIRST HIGH-VALUE, 3
HIGH SORT OF SENIOR AL-QAIDA 3
TERRORIST. 3
HE TALKED. 3
HE WAS INJURED DURING HIS 3
CAPTURE. 3
HE WAS ALMOST KILLED. 3
THE C.I.A. 3
ACTUALLY FLEW OPPOSITIONS TO 3
HELP HIM SURVIVE. 3
BUT AFTER A WHILE HE SAID YOU, 3
YOU C.I.A. 3
GUYS, GO HOME, HAVE BABIES. 3
I'M NOT GOING TO TALK AGAIN. 3
THE C.I.A. 3
GUYS I KNEW, THE GUYS, MY 3
FRIENDS I INTERVIEWED FOR THE 3
BOOK, MOST OF THEM MEN SAID 3
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? 3
IF HE HAS INFORMATION THAT 3
MIGHT STOP THE NEXT ATTACK, AND 3
IF HE DECIDES TO STOP TALKING, 3
DO WE SEND THEM TO THE UNITED 3
STATES WHERE HE GETS A LAWYER 3
AND THE LAWYER SAYS SHUT UP, OR 3
DO WE PUT HIM IN OUR OWN 3
FACILITIES AND SUBJECT HIM TO 3
AGGRESSIVE INTERROGATION 3
TECHNIQUES? 3
BACK IN 2000 -- I WOULD THINK 3
THE ANSWER WOULD BE DIFFERENT 3
TODAY IN 2019, BUT BACK IN 2002 3
PEOPLE SAID WE'RE GOING TO 3
CREATE OUR OWN FACILITIES, AND 3
WE'RE GOING TO PUSH HIM AROUND, 3
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. 3
PUSH HIM AROUND. 3
YEAH. 3
BUT WHAT HAPPENED IN THOSE 3
SITES IS TANTAMOUNT TO TORTURE 3
IN A LOT OF PEOPLE'S VIEWS. 3
YEAH. 3
I KNOW THESE WERE 3
CONSTRUCTED, THESE TECHNIQUES 3
WERE CONSTRUCTED TO PUSH RIGHT 3
UP TO THE EDGE OF THE LAW, BUT 3
MANY PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER THIS 3
TORTURE, INCLUDING OUR OWN 3
SENATE, ACCORDING TO THE 2014 3
INTELLIGENCE REPORT FROM THE 3
SENATE. 3
THAT'S RIGHT. 3
I WOULD GO BACK TO 2002. 3
I BRIEFED THE SENATE, MY 3
FRIENDS BRIEFED THE SENATE. 3
WE TOLD THEM WHAT WE WERE 3
DOING. 3
I THINK THE MESSAGE I WOULD 3
HAVE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE IS, 3
LOOK, IN 2002 AMERICA WAS IN A 3
DIFFERENT PLACE. 3
THE SENATE SAID TO ME AND THE 3
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 3
SAID TO US, LOOK, DO WHAT YOU 3
HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SURE THIS 3
DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. 3
SO THE C.I.A. 3
WENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF 3
JUSTICE AND SAID WE HAVE AL-3
QAIDA PRISONERS. 3
WHAT CAN WE DO TO THEM WITHIN 3
THE LAW? 3
AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 3
GAVE US WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION 3
TO CONDUCT INTERROGATIONS THAT 3
WERE VERY AGGRESSIVE, VERY 3
AGGRESSIVE: 17 YEARS LATER I 3
THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE 3
NOT WITNESSED AN ATTACK LIKE 3
9/11, AND THEY SAID THE STUFF 3
YOU DID BACK THEN WAS 3
INAPPROPRIATE. 3
I ACCEPT THAT. 3
I THINK THAT'S OKAY. 3
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 3
SIMULATED DROWNING, ANAL 3
REHYDRATION. 3
YES. 3
PUTTING PEOPLE IN STRESS 3
POSITIONS, SEXUAL HUMILIATION. 3
NO. 3
STRIPPING PEOPLE NAKED AND 3
HAVING THEM HANGING -- 3
YES. 3
-- BY THE CEILING. 3
YES. 3
I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO DO 3
CHAPTER AND VERSE. 3
SOME OF WHAT YOU SAY IS WHAT WE 3
DID, SOME HAS BEEN REPORTED IN 3
THE MEDIA. 3
THE QUESTION WE HAD WAS PRETTY 3
STRAIGHTFORWARD. 3
I'M SORRY, I DON'T MEAN TO 3
INTERRUPT, BUT WHAT DID I SAY 3
THAT WAS INCORRECT? 3
ANAL REHYDRATION, IN OTHER 3
WORDS IF SOMEONE REFUSES TO 3
TAKE WATER AND FOOD, WHAT DO 3
YOU DO? 3
WELL, BUT ACCORDING TO THAT 3
SENATE REPORT, THAT WAS 3
CONDUCTED EVEN AFTER IT WAS 3
DETERMINED THAT PEOPLE DIDN'T 3
NEED THAT TYPE OF TREATMENT. 3
THAT WAS NOT THE POSITION OF 3
THE INDIVIDUALS AT THE C.I.A. 3
I WOULD READILY ADMIT THAT 3
WATERBOARDING WAS A C.I.A. 3
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE, SLEEP 3
DEPRIVATION, THAT IS DEPRIVING 3
SOMEONE FROM SLEEP, PUTTING 3
SOMEONE IN A CONFINED POSITION, 3
THAT IS IN A BOX. 3
I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE -- 3
HOURS IN A COFFIN-LIKE BOX? 3
I GET HATE MAIL ALL THE 3
TIME. 3
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS RECTAL 3
REHYDRATION WAS NOT A TECHNIQUE 3
THAT WAS USED AS A 3
INTERROGATION TECHNIQUE. 3
IT WAS USED AS A MEDICAL 3
TECHNIQUE. 3
YOU CAN SAY YOU DON'T LIKE IT. 3
I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DEBATE 3
THIS, IT'S A TECHNICAL ISSUE. 3
I UNDERSTAND PEOPLE DON'T LIKE 3
WHAT WE DID. 3
WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHAT HAPPENED 3
IN 2002 WHEN THE FIRST PRISONER 3
CAME IN, I THINK THE QUESTION 3
WAS DO WE LOOK AT TECHNIQUES WE 3
USED ON AMERICAN MILITARY 3
OFFICERS TO SUBJECT THEM TO 3
TECHNIQUES TO PREPARE THEM FOR 3
INTERROGATION OVERSEAS, DO WE 3
TAKE THOSE TECHNIQUES AND APPLY 3
THEM POTENTIALLY TO AL-QAIDA 3
PRISONERS? 3
BACK THEN IN 2002 IN THE SPRING 3
AND SUMMER OF 2002 PEOPLE SAID 3
YES, AND THEN THE SECOND 3
QUESTION WHICH PEOPLE FORGET 3
WAS DOES THE DEPARTMENT OF 3
JUSTICE SAY THIS IS LEGAL? 3
, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 3
TOLD US ACCORDING TO THE LAW 3
FEDERAL LAW, THE U.S. 3
CONSTITUTION YOU CAN DO THIS. 3
SO MY COLLEAGUES -- 3
WHAT ABOUT THE GENEVA 3
CONVENTION, WHAT ABOUT ARTICLE 3
3 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION? 3
I THINK THE PEOPLE WHO 3
WORKED AT THE C.I.A. 3
SAID THESE ARE NOT PRISONERS OF 3
WAR. 3
THEY ARE TERRORISTS WHO DON'T 3
WEAR A UNIFORM. 3
THEY DON'T CONFORM TO THE LAWS 3
OF WAR, THEREFORE, AGAIN, LIKE 3
IT OR NOT, THIS IS THE JUDGMENT 3
THAT PEOPLE MADE, THEREFORE 3
THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THE 3
GENEVA CONVENTION. 3
I THINK PEOPLE CAN DEBATE 3
WHETHER THAT'S APPROPRIATE. 3
I THINK THAT'S A FAIR DEBATE IN 3
AMERICA, BUT IN 2002 PEOPLE 3
SAID, NO, THEY DON'T FALL UNDER 3
THE GENEVA CONVENTION. 3
SO THERE ARE AMERICANS BEING 3
HELD AROUND THE WORLD BY 3
ADVERSARIAL GROUPS, COUNTRIES. 3
YES. 3
WOULD IT BE OKAY FOR THOSE 3
ENTITIES TO SUBJECT AMERICANS 3
TO THE SAME TYPE OF TREATMENT? 3
NO, I DON'T THINK SO. 3
FIRST OF ALL, IF YOU ATTACK -- 3
IF YOU CAPTURE AN AMERICAN 3
MILITARY OFFICER, THAT'S AN 3
INDIVIDUAL IN UNIFORM WHO FALLS 3
UNDER THE LAWS OF WAR. 3
THE TERM ENEMY COMAANT WAS 3
COINED DURING THIS ERA, I MEAN, 3
THAT WAS CONCEIVED IN ORDER TO 3
CLASSIFY THIS GROUP OF 3
DETAINEES, NOT AS CIVILIANS, 3
AND NOT AS MILITARY, RIGHT? 3
I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. 3
NOW, I THINK THE REAL QUESTION, 3
AND THIS HAS PARTLY BEEN 3
ANSWERED, IS TO GO TO THE 3
AMERICAN CONGRESS AND THE 3
SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF 3
REPRESENTATIVES AND SAY, LOOK, 3
IN 2002 YOU SAID WHAT WE DID AT 3
THE C.I.A. 3
WAS OKAY. 3
IF YOU THINK THIS IS 3
INAPPROPRIATE, AND I THINK 3
THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE IF YOU'RE 3
AN AMERICAN LEGISLATOR, IF YOU 3
THINK THIS IS INAPPROPRIATE, 3
THEN TELL US YOU CAN'T DO IT 3
AGAIN. 3
HOWEVER, AND THIS IS REALLY 3
WHERE PEOPLE LIKE ME GET 3
IRRITATED, DO NOT REVISIT 2002 3
AND PRETEND LIKE IN 2002 YOUR 3
STORY WAS DIFFERENT. 3
I SPOKE TO THE SENATE AND THE 3
CONGRESS IN 2003 ABOUT WHAT WE 3
DID. 3
AND THEY SAID, OKAY. 3
SO MOVING FORWARD I THINK IT'S 3
PERFECTLY FINE TO SAY I DON'T 3
LIKE WHAT THE C.I.A. 3
DID. 3
I THINK THAT'S LEGITIMATE. 3