Earlier today, I spoke with veteran Washington Post reporter
Dana Priest. My question was simple: At what point
did it become clear that the United States' treatment of detainees in overseas
prisons was harsh, and possibly illegal? (For more FP torture coverage, see here.)
Allegations of detainee abuse first started trickling out in January 2002 -- in
essence, as soon as detainees came into U.S. custody. But it wasn't until
eleven months later that Priest and fellow Post reporter Barton Gellman wrote
the first definitive account of such abuse. On the day after Christmas,
2002, the Post described "stress and duress" tactics, extraordinary
rendition to countries like Syria, and the harsh treatment of al Qaeda
operative Abu Zubayda. The article used the word torture -- saying that the
United States harshly interrogated prisoners, and sent them to foreign prisons
to gain the "fruits" of torture without having to do it themselves.
According to one official who has been directly involved in rendering captives
into foreign hands, the understanding is, "We don't kick the [expletive]
out of them. We send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive]
out of them."
Back then, the CIA was Priest's beat. She says her tip-off on the "stress
and duress" story came when she noticed a separate, unmarked compound near
the main Bagram holding facility. "It wasn't in the military
compound," she says. "But it was surrounded with triple concertina
wire," the type used in high-security prisons. "I thought -- they
have a separate facility, so are they working under separate rules? I knew the
CIA and military were working in teams together, but at what?"
She and a team of Post reporters, among them Rajiv Chandrasekaran and Barton
Gellman, working in parallel and in competition to New York Times writers like Tim
Golden and Carlotta Gall, started piecing the stories together. "Really,
there were just a handful of reporters who could make inroads on the
subject," she says.
The reporting was painstaking. "It was a very decentralized thing. You
weren't even sure what the questions were," she says. "We couldn't
connect it up. We couldn't see the big picture. And there was no past reporting
to go on. Everyone was making it up. We'd follow these little reports from
Afghanistan, about people disappearing. That was it."
Crucial to the success of the early reporting were the teams of lawyers at
organizations like the Center for Constitutional Rights struggling to glean
information on detainees. "We were all getting little teeny scraps and
putting it together painstakingly," she says. "Nobody told you the
whole story, or even a quarter of a story." One Post article on an
extraordinary rendition came together because a someone happened to write down
the number on the tail of an airplane. "You needed to keep those little
scraps in your head," Priest notes.
Another big break -- for which she won a Pulitzer Prize -- came when she completed
a story about the black sites, secret overseas prisons. The story took more
than two years to report, and, she says, reporting on the subject still didn't
get much easier -- it took years for Congress to devote as much attention to it
as reporters and defense lawyers were.
"Congress did nothing," she says, "until political winds
had changed, and the Democrats were feeling a little more at ease in the world.
It's a new feeling for them. Because, before, there were Democrats in those
meetings saying, ‘Do what you've got to do.'"
Alex Wong/Getty Images
Read More
(0)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE