Abu Zubaydah was a high-ranking member of al-Qaida and a close associate of Osama bin Laden. The U.S. government believes he became al-Qaeda's top military strategist following the death of Muhammad Atef in November 2001.

The highest responsibility of the President of the United States is national defense. President Bush has stated that after his capture, "Zubaydah was defiant and evasive. He declared his hatred of America. During questioning, he at first disclosed what he thought was nominal information -- and then stopped all cooperation. Well, in fact, the "nominal" information he gave us turned out to be quite important. For example, Zubaydah disclosed Khalid Sheikh Mohammed -- or KSM -- was the mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks, and used the alias "Muktar." This was a vital piece of the puzzle that helped our intelligence community pursue KSM. Abu Zubaydah also provided information that helped stop a terrorist attack being planned for inside the United States -- an attack about which we had no previous information. Zubaydah told us that al Qaeda operatives were planning to launch an attack in the U.S., and provided physical descriptions of the operatives and information on their general location. Based on the information he provided, the operatives were detained -- one while traveling to the United States.

We knew that Zubaydah had more information that could save innocent lives, but he stopped talking. As his questioning proceeded, it became clear that he had received training on how to resist interrogation. And so the CIA used an alternative set of procedures. These procedures were designed to be safe, to comply with our laws, our Constitution, and our treaty obligations. The Department of Justice reviewed the authorized methods extensively and determined them to be lawful. I cannot describe the specific methods used -- I think you understand why -- if I did, it would help the terrorists learn how to resist questioning, and to keep information from us that we need to prevent new attacks on our country. But I can say the procedures were tough, and they were safe, and lawful, and necessary.

Zubaydah was questioned using these procedures, and soon he began to provide information on key al Qaeda operatives, including information that helped us find and capture more of those responsible for the attacks on September the 11th."

In authorizing the aggressive interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, President Bush fulfilled his constitutional responsibility to "provide for the common defense," and the nation is grateful to him for his leadership.

"The report, which Mayer cited in less detail last year in the New Yorker, says that al Qaeda member Abu Zubaydah told the Red Cross “that he had been waterboarded at least 10 times in a single week and as many as three times in a day.” Abu Zubaydah also was confined in a box “so small he said he had to double up his limbs in the fetal position” and was “one of several prisoners to be ‘slammed against the walls.’”

Ohhh, I see. If Abu Zubaydah (a high-ranking member of al-Qaida and a close associate of Osama bin Laden) told the Red Cross these things, then they MUST be true. Only a card-carrying blame-America-first leftist like Roxanne would rush to such a man's defense. Not to mention using such nonsense as an excuse to title her article:"Bush Administration Guilty of War Crimes." How pathetic.

Dear Zack and John,
If you read the report carefully "the Red concluded after close investigation that the methods employed by the CIA constituted torture. The Red Cross happens to be expert at investigating human rights violations, usually outside the US...they also speculated that those who approved such methods and we have Bush, Cheney and Rice discussing exact methods of torture on record already, that they would indeed be guilty of war crimes. So...it doesn't take a commie pinko to conclude that yes indeed suspects held in our custody were torture. When you start deciding that those labeled "terrorists" are fair game, not subject to the Geneva Convention which the US has pledged to uphold not skirt around, I think it's safe to conclude at this point that we have abandoned every principal defined in our constitution and now we are simply a lawless land bent on revenge. How very sad.
Roxanne

You still don't get, Roxanne. The Red Cross based it's investigation on the testimony of a notorious al-Qaida leader (Abu Zubaydah). And you, always looking at all things political through your leftist prism, believe him over your own country. How very sad.

No what's sad is you choose to blindly believe and follow what ever the Bush administration feeds you. They have been proven liars time and time again. Any group of folks that would deliberatly lie and distort facts to lead our nation into a pre-emptive war leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians and thousands of US military deaths isn't deserving of our blind trust.
Are you also disregarding the recent Supreme Court ruling which said that the Geneva Convention does protect Qaeda members and other Guantanamo detainees. This ruling brought the federal War Crimes act into play under which Geneva violations can be prosecuted as war crimes.
You don't just get to pick and choose who you torture Zack based on who you think is the biggest terrorist.
Roxanne

Here's a quote from the Jane Mayer, the author of the book you're basing your riduculous analysis on, Roxanne:

"I personally doubt there will be large-scale legal repercussions inside America for those who devised and implemented “The Program.” Activists will be angry at me for saying this, but as someone who has covered politics in Washington, D.C., for two decades, I would be surprised if there is the political appetite for going after public servants who convinced themselves that they were acting in the best interests of the country, and had legal authority to do so. An additional complicating factor is that key members of Congress sanctioned this program, so many of those who might ordinarily be counted on to lead the charge are themselves compromised."

Have a nice time waiting for those "War Crime" trials to begin, Roxanne. A nice long, endless amount of time.

I see you chose not to publish my comments. I had read in Greenville Online that you didn't tolerate opposing points of view -- especially if they were well articulated -- and so now I know it's true. My father tells me this was how it was behind the iron curtain when he was a boy. He tells me much about how dangerous such practices were then and now. You really need to broaden your horizons, Roxanne. You're in bad company.

Oh, now I see how it is, Roxanne. When someone starts to win the debate or say things that don't fit into your own silly little template of how the world should work, you simply stop publishing comments from that reader. How very, very sad. Because that's not just wrong journalistically, it points to a very real personality flaw -- the inability to listen. And that, my dear Roxanne, is why you were fired from your radio show. Not for your political views, but for your inability to listen, process and reply to people who have opinions different than your own. And your knee-jerk response to quickly shut them out, as you did me, like a little girl who throws her hands over her ears and runs home screaming. Trust me, Roxanne, the boys don't find you scary. On the contrary, they find you pompous, obnoxious and spoiled. You are truly a pathetic over-the-hill nobody, blogging in a room with no windows or doors.

Dear Zack and Yusef,
You both need to get some exercise or vent your rage some other way than by commenting

on my blog. If my posts upset you so much don't read them. Just stick to your Republican talking points and Fox News and all will be well in your world. You see this is my website and my blog and yes, I get to approve the comments so when people come by repeatedly to insult me, make pronoucenments about my career and my personal life, I choose not to publish those, that's my right. If you want to set up your own website that will be your right as well. I'm not operating under the 1st amendment here, these are my rules. I write for my own edification and to try to share information with others. If you are mean spirited, think you know everything or are just plain insulting to me, stay the hell away. That's the deal.
Roxanne

Why do you bother having a comments section if you don't publish everyone's comments? I'm a big fan of salon.com and they publish everyone -- whether they agree with their comments or not. They only censor profane language -- and sometimes not even that. I personally would rather read many different points of view rather than have the blogger pick and choose what they think is right for me. That's just plain weird.

Terri,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. When a blog opens itself up to comments on its content, the blogger is, in fact, setting up a public forum -- which innately calls for the free exchange of ideas. If a blogger only publishes comments from those who "tow the party line" -- then that blogger is playing big brother. I too am a frequent visitor and commentor at salon.com and no matter how vehemently I've disagreed with an article (usually something by Joan Walsh), they ALWAYS published it. They never judged it based on my degree of congeniality. They just published it. Period. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy and it shouldn't be trifled with.