[00:03] [Music] Dear viewers, welcome to today's interview. Today we're speaking with a rather unusual American figure, Mr. John Kiriakou. He sacrificed a comfortable life, preferring to confront the security establishment—I mean the CIA and the American intelligence agencies. He wrote a book titled "The Reluctant Spy: My Secret Life in the War on Terror." John Kiriakou, thank you for
[00:36] accepting to speak with Al Jazeera. Perhaps our first question will begin with the story of 2007, when you first exposed the Americans. Everyone was surprised. How could that be? You said it actually happened in 2007 in a television interview I gave to ABC News. In
[01:09] 2007, I mentioned three things that changed the course of my life. I said that the CIA tortures detainees, that torture is official US policy, and that the policy of torture was personally approved by President Bush. I wrote about the president's responsibility. Did you know who you were going to confront—the CIA and dozens of
[01:44] intelligence agencies? I didn't mean it that way. It seems naive of me, at least. During my years in service, the torture program was the worst of the secret programs in Washington until 2007. In 2005, a report by Hesh stated that the CIA was torturing its detainees, and in 2007, a similar report was issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross. So, the president was lying to the American people. In December 2007, President Bush was speaking at a
[02:15] press conference, looking directly into the camera, and said, "We don't torture." I had the opportunity to tell the truth, and I did. If I had done this in any Third World country, I would have been killed. In America, I survived. Tell us, who protected you? How did you get protection from lawyers? Who protected you? Well, several groups of people protected me. In fact, after my first
[02:47] television interview, that interview became a controversial issue that attracted the public. I received many death threats, to the point that the local police had to be called to the area and place a security car in front of my house. The FBI was receiving calls telling them that I was going to be killed. And that's how it ended. My wife and I left with our children, and we spent a week in Mexico. This was solely to get away from the area until things calmed down a bit.
[03:18] But I made a smart move: I hired the best lawyers I could afford, specialists in national security cases. The Washington Post described them as legal giants. They were truly excellent. But in addition, I had already decided to form alliances with groups of friends and support groups for my case. These groups were formed primarily to help former whistleblowers, in a kind of
[03:52] project aimed at holding the government accountable, like the whistleblower program. They are essentially groups that help government officials who want to tell the truth. I also worked on gathering supporters within Congress, and they continued to support me even after the FBI and CIA turned against me. I am still protected. It is said that Washington is the city of second chances, meaning that if you are a member of
[04:22] Congress or a high-ranking government official and you commit an illegal act, such as... You get caught with a prostitute, or drunk driving, or you falsify your tax returns, and people will most likely forgive you, and you'll get a second chance at your career here in Washington. That doesn't apply to me, but luckily for me, a place like Los Angeles is a second chance city.
[04:54] Hollywood liked my story and my book, so I think Los Angeles could be a good place to live. But I'll never work in Washington again. Back then, I was a diligent employee, working for my country, following the laws, knowing who the enemy was, but saying, "I saw something wrong." You could have kept quiet, but you
[05:25] stopped and said, "This is wrong." You know you'll face many people here in Washington, the least of whom is the President of the United States. Then you have a C. For them, you become the number one traitor. What drove you? Some say, "What's the reason?" Because you've already ruined your family's life.
[05:55] Ronald Reagan said in 1980, "We are a shining city on a hill, and we are a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. Many people wish they were American." Therefore, we must set an example. It is neither American, nor constitutional, nor legal to have a torture program, and that is precisely what my government did. I was inside the CIA during the
[06:26] September 11 attacks, and I remember that terrifying day. I lost friends in those attacks as well. But on the other hand, we cannot forget who we are. If we want people to believe that we are a nation of law, a nation that respects human dignity, human rights, and civil liberties, then we must abandon those practices, and those values must be embodied in our daily lives. But after September 11, we
[06:57] lost what we were. Personally, I was not prepared to compromise those values. Tell us, what did you discover? Much has been written on this subject, but in front of Al Jazeera's camera, what did you discover? What's new? We saw that as something laughable. I didn't really say anything new. I didn't say anything that hadn't already been said
[07:33] in the Human Rights Watch and Human Rights Watch International reports. But I was the first intelligence officer to confirm the accuracy of what was stated in those reports about the existence of a torture program and that the CIA was actively involved. One of the most horrific aspects of that heinous program was the torture of those they captured. Many of the people the CIA arrested, tortured,
[08:03] and sent to other countries to be tortured were innocent and had no connection to terrorism. Let's say you and I lived in a village in Afghanistan, and I didn't like you or I borrowed money from you and didn't want to pay you back. I would go to the Americans and tell them that this person belonged to al-Qaeda. The Americans would arrest me, I would get $150, and you would go to Guantanamo.
[08:34] Therefore, I wouldn't have to pay back the money I borrowed from you. Guantanamo was filled with people like this— innocent people. I'm talking about people ranging in age from 15 to 85. Can you imagine that an 85-year-old could be an active member of al-Qaeda? These people didn't pose a threat to America. Was the CIA really that naive back then? Meaning,
[09:07] any informant An Afghan man tells them that Ahmed or Mohammed is a terrorist, and they believe him. Was the goal simply to fill the prisons to give the president the impression that they were working hard? It wasn't so much a matter of naiveté as it was a matter of fear. Osama bin Laden said at the time that he was planning an imminent attack, which culminated in the September 11 attacks, and we believed him. Those attacks pointed to the biggest intelligence failure in the history of the United States. And here was Osama bin Laden carrying out the biggest, most unbelievable operation.
[09:40] We knew something was coming, but we had no idea it would be carried out inside the United States. So we were afraid and apprehensive of an even bigger operation. Secondly, if you were an intelligence officer and you were in Afghanistan, would you allow the indifference of that 85-year-old man when he could have been the mastermind behind that operation? No one would have agreed to that risk. So we were rounding up hundreds of
[10:10] innocent people. Do you think that President Obama realized this tactical failure and tried to rectify the situation in the end by attempting to close Guantanamo now for the sake of history? Is that the reason for Obama's stance? What he failed at, I think, and personally I was enthusiastic about Obama, but Obama is the worst nightmare of my life because he's the one who sentenced me to prison, not just me, but me and seven other former
[10:42] National Security Agency informants. So, in a way, Obama considered Guantanamo to be something abhorrent. It was a very horrific policy and it should have ended, but Congress wouldn't allow him to. Congress wouldn't allow him to get the necessary funds to close Guantanamo. What exactly was the information that exposed him and made you the enemy in moments? What information did you bring?
[11:20] Names of some people, for example? We were torturing detainees. That's what you said. Abu Zubaydah, for example. Abu Zubaydah was the first to be tortured. In Abu Zubaydah's case, did the torture of Abu Zubaydah give any real, vital intelligence information, or was it ultimately a stupid police operation? The torture of Abu Zubaydah didn't lead to any intelligence breakthrough, it didn't save
[11:53] American lives, and it didn't prevent other operations that happened later. He wasn't number three. In al-Qaeda, as we were supposed to believe, Abu Zubaydah had no direct contact with Osama bin Laden and possessed no information about future planned operations. However, his torture made many within the CIA feel more at ease. Ultimately, what they did amounted to nothing more than a form of
[12:26] human degradation. America is now experiencing a phase of these ethical debates about the role of the police and security personnel. It is not a police institution, or at least it wasn't intended to be one. Nor was the CIA intended to be a paramilitary institution. Its function from the moment of its inception was clear: to recruit informants to steal secrets, then analyze those secrets and present the conclusions of their analyses to
[12:57] political decision-makers in a way that allows them to make the best decisions regarding foreign and defense policy. That is its mission. It is not the CIA's role to send paramilitary forces to a foreign country to kidnap suspected terrorists or to use advanced weapons to kill people. If that is policy, we have the US military to do that. But the CIA's job, simply put, is to recruit informants. Informants to steal
[13:32] secrets. Do you think, after all this time, that the CIA has returned to its normal role? I don't think at all that it's about to return to its original mission. I think it's become embroiled in other operations. The CIA is currently a paramilitary organization. The CIA has its own army. The CIA possesses—and here I must choose my words carefully— mechanical equipment that can be used in foreign countries. Therefore, I believe the opposite is
[14:04] true. The CIA is not about to return to the roots of its original mission; rather, it is transforming from it to become something else. I don't think its founder would have believed this, but you could argue that it's the war on terror, and we need the likes of the CIA. National security requires these agencies to step outside their ethical framework. So, let's strike the enemy. If you want to do that, fine, because only rational people can agree
[14:36] to disagree. We have laws in this country that govern such matters, and if we are a nation of laws and a people governed by a constitution, then we must submit to those laws, whether we like them or not. If the law says you cannot kill people, then you cannot do it. But if you want to kill people, change the laws. But as for... For Americans, this is the message that members of Congress are currently selling: "Look, this is the enemy, and ultimately, we have the right to kill,
[15:09] imprison, and torture, secretly or openly. Why do you reject this? We have a law in this country, ratified in 1946, called the Federal Torture Act. This law criminalizes all the techniques used to torture Abu Zubaydah, Khalid bin Sheikh, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, and many others who were captured. It is simply against the law." In 1964, we repatriated Japanese soldiers who had practiced waterboarding on American prisoners of war
[15:41] during World War II. In January 1968, the Washington Post published a front-page photo of an American soldier waterboarding a North Vietnamese prisoner. On the same day the photo was published, the Secretary of Defense ordered an investigation, which resulted in the soldier's arrest and imprisonment for 20 years. So, this is the law; it hasn't changed and still exists in
[16:12] legal circles. But we are the ones who have changed. And here I will ask: Why was torture prohibited in 1946 and 1948, but not in 2002, when the law... Mike Pompeo hasn't changed. He says here and there that he's now open to the idea of reinstating torture. Is this
[16:43] possible now, given the current political climate in Washington and in the face of American public opinion? No. In fact, this would be a crime leading to his dismissal. In 2015, Congress passed something called the McCain Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act. This amendment reiterated the prohibition against torture and listed the techniques used by the Bush administration that were illegal. So, Mike Pompeo can say he likes torture,
[17:15] but he won't be able to reinstate this program. Also, employees don't want to carry out torture orders. This is a major shift in the world of American intelligence. We observe here and there that the new generation doesn't want torture. We've heard and read several testimonies from within. Political views are changing. I think most CIA officers are afraid
[17:46] of receiving orders to torture detainees, and then when the next president comes in and says he wants the Justice Department to investigate illegal torture operations, those officers end up in prison. No one wants to risk that, and that's what makes America You went to prison because the Obama administration considered you an enemy within, no matter how much you loved Obama. Yes, I
[18:21] loved Obama. Barack Obama was an enemy of transparency and an enemy of an open and honest government. We have a law in this country called the Espionage Act, passed in 1917 to counter German saboteurs during World War I. It has never been amended since then. In fact, the law never even mentions the term "classified information." Moreover, the concept of secrecy didn't even exist before the
[18:55] 1950s. Now, between 1917, when this law was enacted, and 2002, when Obama became president, three people were charged with espionage for speaking to the media. After Obama took office, he prosecuted eight National Security Agency informants for giving statements to the media. So, Barack Obama wasn't a liberal; he was as bad as Richard Nixon, who was obsessed with
[19:27] leaks. I understand that your future is in Los Angeles now, with several productions, and I understand. When you were sent to prison, who were your neighbors? What can you tell us about your experience in an American prison? The relationship between intelligence, national security, and freedoms? What lessons did you learn that you can talk about today in front of Al Jazeera's camera? In an
[19:58] American prison? No, not an Afghan prison. Yes, it was an American prison. Thirty percent of the prisoners were there for committing sexual assaults on minors, and that was the worst thing about the prison. But the prison was also full of murderers, drug dealers, and organized crime gangsters. It was a real prison. We have that term here in the
[20:30] United States. Did you have any protection? You were a different kind of prisoner. I was a completely different kind of prisoner, and I did have protection, and I'll tell you why. Because it was a strange and unusual situation for me. The Italians adopted me in a way inside the prison, and when I say Italians, I mean leaders of organized crime gangs in New York. One of the Italians followed a story in the New York Times and read that I was going to be sent to
[21:01] that prison where they were. He took it upon himself to talk to all the Italian prisoners and explain the difference to them. Between a CIA officer and an FBI agent, because an FBI agent is basically a police officer, someone who wears a badge and arrests people. So, he explained to them that I wasn't a police officer, that I'd never arrested anyone, that I'd never worn a police badge, and that my job as a CIA officer was to serve overseas to protect my country and protect American citizens. When I arrived at
[21:34] that prison, they welcomed me with open arms and protected me. They were the most important group of people in the entire prison. There were neo-Nazis, Black drug gangs, Spanish drug gangs, Muslim terrorists. Yes, we had some of those with us, like the uncle of the guy who blew up Times Square. We had an Iraqi Kurd who tried to sell a Stinger missile to a terrorist group. We had all kinds of
[22:08] prisoners. John, I don't want to interrupt you. Who is the enemy now? Muslim terrorists? Who? That's a complicated question, and the answer isn't going to be simple. I'm not sure we know exactly who our enemy is. You could say that Islam isn't our enemy. My chief in the Counter-Happening Division of the CIA. He was a Muslim and he was the director of all counterterrorism operations. Yes, we have hundreds of Muslims within the CIA, and they are patriots and
[22:40] defenders of freedom. So the enemy is not Islam. The enemy is any group that seeks to terrorize or intimidate any person or any people in any country. People are innocent. If you have a problem with the government, with institutions, or with a culture within institutions, you can work from within that culture to change it. But to plant a bomb, to open fire, and to kill people en masse is
[23:11] wrong and has no justification or explanation. So we must continue to fight, and we must continue to infiltrate groups that can harm us. But we must also be very careful not to fall into generalization and say that an entire nation is our enemy or that an entire group is the enemy. They do this every day in America. They do it constantly, and this is very dangerous
[23:41] because these politicians sometimes don't understand the power and impact of their words, that they can sway public opinion, and that they make some problems more severe. I think this is what we are unfortunately seeing in America today. In conclusion Mata says Islam is certainly not the enemy. Islam is never the enemy. The enemies are those individuals and groups who intend to harm us. [Music]
[24:14] With these interesting details, we conclude this interview, dear viewers. Thank you for your attention. Until next time.