Listen to Glenn’s conversation with Richard Fidler of ABC (Australia)

Listen to Glenn’s conversation with Richard Fidler of ABC (Australia)

Source (click to listen to audio): www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2012/05/14/3502192.htm

Glenn Carle worked for the CIA for 23 years, and in 2002 was offered a special assignment: to interrogate a ‘high value target’.

Broadcast date: Monday 14 May 2012

Glenn Carle’s last job with the CIA was working in anti-terrorism, which became hugely important after the World Trade Centre was attacked in 2001.

The high-value target he was sent to interrogate was thought to be Osama bin Laden’s banker.

Glenn’s years of training and experience led him eventually to believe that the CIA had the wrong man. He struggled to reconcile his orders to ‘make’ the suspect talk with the oath he had sworn to uphold the letter of the law.

By speaking out Glenn is now regarded by many as a traitor.

His book – heavily redacted on the orders of his former employer – is called The Interrogator: a CIA Agent’s True Story published by Scribe.

Interrogation Policy after Osama bin Laden

by soo 0 Comments
Interrogation Policy after Osama bin Laden

Abstract: It may never be clear whether “enhanced interrogation” tactics produced essential intelligence that led U.S. forces to Osama bin Laden’s Abbottabad compound in May 2011. But bin Laden’s death has renewed the debate over the ethics of interrogation policy, and the Boisi Center has brought together three experts to discuss the implications. Glenn Carle, a 23-year CIA veteran and author of last year’s The Interrogator: An Education, will join distinguished constitutional law professor Sanford Levinson (editor of the textbook Torture: An Anthology) and theologian Kenneth Himes, O.F.M. (author of a several seminal articles on theology and torture) for a robust conversation about the theory and practice of interrogation today.

Click here to read entire article …

Interrogation Policy after Osama bin Laden

by soo 0 Comments

Glenn Carle, a 23-year CIA veteran and author of The Interrogator: An Education, is joined by Sanford Levinson, the W. St. John Garwood and W. St. John Garwood, Jr. Centennial Chair in Law at the University of Texas Law School, and Kenneth Himes, O.F.M., associate professor of theology at Boston College, for this conversation about the theory and practice of interrogation today.

Source (click to watch video of presentation): http://frontrow.bc.edu/program/carlelevinsonhimes/

thestar.com reviews the interrogator

thestar.com reviews the interrogator

The plot goes like this: A CIA agent is given the task of interrogating a prisoner who is believed to be a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda and could lead the U.S. to Osama bin Laden. The prisoner has been kidnapped off the street in an unnamed Middle Eastern country.

The only problem? Over the course of the interrogation, the agent concludes the CIA has the wrong man. He advises his masters of his conclusions.

But the CIA doesn’t listen. It instructs the agent to press harder. The spy agency believes the prisoner’s refusal to answer certain questions is proof of his guilt.

When he still fails to reveal anything, the CIA sends both the prisoner, known as Captus, and his interrogator to Hotel California — the CIA’s most secret detention centre — where the prisoner is tortured.

A page-turner, right? Well, this tale is not the creation of a master of spy thrillers. Glenn Carle, a former CIA officer with 23 years in the service, lived it….

Read the entire review here

Bin Laden’s Death Rekindles Torture Debate

The killing of al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden has reignited the debate over torture. Advocates of “enhanced interrogation techniques” argue the mission validates their position, while others contend that tough questioning played a small role.

Former Bush administration officials, such as John Yoo, who authored memos justifying the techniques, and members of Congress, such as House Homeland Security Committee chairman Rep. Peter King, R-N.Y., were quick to claim vindication. However, The New York Times reported that the techniques played a small role at best in identifying the courier that led to bin Laden’s lair.

Click here to go to original post:

Assessment of Al Qaeda

by soo 0 Comments
Assessment of Al Qaeda

Following Steve Coll’s open remarks, panelists assessed the al-Qaeda threat 10 years after the terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001. All of the panelists agreed that while the threat from al-Qaeda remains, it has significantly diminished over the last 10 years. They answered questions from audience members at the end of the discussion.

Speaking on Al Qaeda then and now…

Click Here to see the panel video on C-SPAN…

Glenn on PBS NewsHour – Al-Qaida ‘On the Run,’

JIM LEHRER: The CIA has Osama bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders on the run. That’s according to CIA Director Leon Panetta. He told The Washington Post this morning: “It’s pretty clear, from all the intelligence we are getting that — all the intelligence we are getting they are having a very difficult time putting together any kind of command and control, that they are scrambling.”

And Panetta attributed the success, in part, to improved relations with Pakistan, saying, “We do a lot more operations together.”

Click here to see PBS transcript…

The Washington Post Article from July 13, 2008

by soo 0 Comments
The Washington Post Article from July 13, 2008

Overstating Our Fears

By Glenn L. Carle
Sunday, July 13, 2008

Sen. John McCain has repeatedly characterized the threat of “radical Islamic extremism” as “the absolute gravest threat . . . that we’re in against.” Before we simply accept this, we need to examine the nature of the terrorist threat facing our country. If we do so, we will see how we have allowed the specter of that threat to distort our lives and take our treasure.

The “Global War on Terror” has conjured the image of terrorists behind every bush, the bushes themselves burning and an angry god inciting its faithful to religious war. We have been called to arms, built fences, and compromised our laws and the practices that define us as a nation. The administration has focused on pursuing terrorists and countering an imminent and terrifying threat. Thousands of Americans have died as a result, as have tens of thousands of foreigners.

The inclination to trust our leaders when they warn of danger is compelling, particularly when the specters of mushroom clouds and jihadists haunt every debate. McCain, accepting this view of the threats, pledges to continue the Bush administration’s policy of few distinctions but ruthless actions.

I spent 23 years in the CIA. I drafted or was involved in many of the government’s most senior assessments of the threats facing our country. I have devoted years to understanding and combating the jihadist threat.

We rightly honor as heroes those who serve our nation and offer their lives to protect ours. We all “support the troops.” Yet the first step for any commander is to understand the enemy. The next commander in chief should base his counterterrorism policies on the following realities:

We do not face a global jihadist “movement” but a series of disparate ethnic and religious conflicts involving Muslim populations, each of which remains fundamentally regional in nature and almost all of which long predate the existence of al-Qaeda.

Osama bin Laden and his disciples are small men and secondary threats whose shadows are made large by our fears. Al-Qaeda is the only global jihadist organization and is the only Islamic terrorist organization that targets the U.S. homeland. Al-Qaeda remains capable of striking here and is plotting from its redoubt in Waziristan, Pakistan. The organization, however, has only a handful of individuals capable of planning, organizing and leading a terrorist operation. Al-Qaeda threatens to use chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear weapons, but its capabilities are far inferior to its desires. Even the “loose nuke” threat, whose consequences would be horrific, has a very low probability. For the medium term, any attack is overwhelmingly likely to consist of creative uses of conventional explosives.



No other Islamic-based terrorist organization, from Mindanao to the Bekaa Valley to the Sahel, targets the U.S. homeland, is part of a “global jihadist movement” or has more than passing contact with al-Qaeda. These groups do and will, however, identify themselves with global jihadist rhetoric and may bandy the bogey-phrase of “al-Qaeda.” They are motivated by hostility toward the West and fear of the irresistible changes that education, trade, and economic and social development are causing in their cultures. These regional terrorist organizations may target U.S. interests or persons in the groups’ historic areas of interest and operations. None of these groups is likely to succeed in seizing power or in destabilizing the societies they attack, though they may succeed in killing numerous people through sporadic attacks such as the Madrid train bombings.

There are and will continue to be small numbers of Muslims in certain Western countries — in the dozens, perhaps — who seek to commit terrorist acts, along the lines of the British citizens behind the 2005 London bus bombings. Some may have irregular contact with al-Qaeda central in Waziristan; more will act as free agents for their imagined cause. They represent an Islamic-tinged version of the anarchists of the late 19th century: dupes of “true belief,” the flotsam of revolutionary cultural change and destruction in Islam, and of personal anomie. We need to catch and neutralize these people. But they do not represent a global movement or a global threat.

The threat from Islamic terrorism is no larger now than it was before Sept. 11, 2001. Islamic societies the world over are in turmoil and will continue for years to produce small numbers of dedicated killers, whom we must stop. U.S. and allied intelligence do a good job at that; these efforts, however, will never succeed in neutralizing every terrorist, everywhere.

Why are these views so starkly at odds with what the Bush administration has said since the beginning of the “Global War on Terror”? This administration has heard what it has wished to hear, pressured the intelligence community to verify preconceptions, undermined or sidetracked opposing voices, and both instituted and been victim of procedures that guaranteed that the slightest terrorist threat reporting would receive disproportionate weight — thereby comforting the administration’s preconceptions and policy inclinations.

We must not delude ourselves about the nature of the terrorist threat to our country. We must not take fright at the specter our leaders have exaggerated. In fact, we must see jihadists for the small, lethal, disjointed and miserable opponents that they are.

The writer was a member of the CIA’s Clandestine Service for 23 years and retired in March 2007 as deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/11/AR2008071102710.html

Translate »