Showing posts with label Bangkok. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bangkok. Show all posts

Apr 7, 2010

Thai Protesters Storm Parliament - NYTimes.com

US Army UH-60 BlackhawkImage by matt.hintsa via Flickr

BANGKOK — Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of Thailand declared a state of emergency in the Bangkok area on Wednesday after antigovernment demonstrators broke into the Parliament building, forcing government ministers to flee by helicopter.

The televised announcement came after nearly a month of street demonstrations by the red-shirted protesters, who have paralyzed the city’s commercial district and paraded through the city in defiance of government restrictions. They are demanding that Mr. Abhisit dissolve Parliament and call new elections.

The declaration of a state of emergency gives the military the power to suspend certain civil liberties and ban public gatherings of more than five people. It creates a Crisis Solution Center under joint civilian and military control.

“We need to plan and implement everything to the last detail and with thorough care,” Mr. Abhisit said. “The last thing we want is for the situation to spiral out of control.”

He added, “We do this not with the intention of cracking down on innocent people but to sanctify the law.”

The brief invasion of Parliament earlier Wednesday, the failure of security forces to stop it and the hasty retreat by government officials had added to a growing sense in Bangkok that the government is not in control of the situation.

At a rally shortly the invasion a protest leader, Jatuporn Prompan, was defiant. “If you want to kill us, come on in,” he said. “But if you consider us your brothers and sisters, put your weapons down.”

The ministers, in their dark, tailored suits, could be seen on television clambering over a back wall of the Parliament building and then boarding a Black Hawk helicopter under armed guard.

At the front of the building, red-shirted protesters and their black-uniformed enforcers shoved and wrestled with Parliamentary guards, pushing back security officers with riot shields.

“The Red Shirts were very crazy and yelling,” said Sgt. Paisan Chumanee of the police. “We didn’t know whether they would use violence. To avoid provoking more anger, we used the helicopter.”

The move on the Parliament building came shortly after the conclusion of a cabinet meeting at which ministers extended the Internal Security Act, said Panitan Wattanayagorn, the government spokesman, who was one of those evacuated from the Parliament building.

Mr. Panitan defended the ministers’ hasty retreat, saying they would not have been able to leave on their own “without confrontation.”

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thangsuban, who is in charge of security for the government, was one of those evacuated to a military headquarters after the protesters wrestled with his security guard, seized the guard’s weapon and emptied out the ammunition.

“This is the Parliament! Why are you carrying a gun?” an opposition lawmaker shouted at the guard.

Mr. Abhisit, a target of the protesters, had departed a few minutes earlier to the military headquarters, where he has been based during the protests. He later announced that he had canceled a planned trip to the United States for a nuclear security summit meeting next week because of the continuing unrest.

The protesters, known as the Red Shirts, are the latest front in a social and political struggle between the rural and urban poor and the ruling elite that saw its pre-eminence challenged by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who was ousted in a coup in 2006.

Mr. Thaksin is abroad now, fleeing a corruption conviction, but he is believed to be financing and coordinating much of the protests.

The protesters are demanding the dissolution of the government, which came to power in December 2008 through a parliamentary vote, and new elections. Mr. Thaksin’s supporters form an electoral majority, and it is widely believed that they would win a nationwide vote.

Mr. Abhisit’s term in office runs until the end of 2011. In recent unsuccessful negotiations, protesters demanded that he step down within 15 days, and he offered the possibility of a new election within nine months. The talks broke down in an impasse but could be revived.

In defiance of government orders, thousands kept up a blockade of the main commercial district, where they have forced shopping malls, hotels and banks to stay closed since Saturday. In a show of impunity on Tuesday, convoys of red-shirted protesters roamed the city freely, pushing through military and police blockades with little resistance.

One commentator, Tulsathit Taptim of the daily newspaper Nation, called it “arguably the best day so far for the red shirts and definitely the worst for Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva.”

He added: “Bangkokians’ frustration was palpable — and so was the red shirts’ renewed confidence. Also, for the first time, the prime minister must have started questioning the loyalty of some in the military.”

In a telephone interview, Mr. Panitan, the government spokesman, denied reports in the Thai news media that military commanders were refusing orders to use force against the protesters.

“We gave the military clear guidelines,” he said. “They cannot use force or weapons against the people.”

He added: “We are required to solve the situation positively. That’s the job of the prime minister.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Apr 4, 2010

Protesters Block Heart of Bangkok’s Shopping Zone - NYTimes.com

Thailand Red Shirt Parade 2Image by Honou via Flickr

BANGKOK — Antigovernment protesters who have camped out on the streets of Bangkok for the past three weeks raised the stakes in their mass demonstrations on Saturday, converging on the heart of Bangkok’s shopping district and vowing to remain until new elections are called.

Tens of thousands of protesters, including many families with small children, took over a main intersection, blocking roads leading to upscale shopping malls and five-star hotels and demanding that Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva of Thailand take action soon.

“We will remain here until the government declares that Parliament is dissolved,” said Veera Musikapong, one of the leaders of the protesters, who are known as the Red Shirts.

The government, which until Saturday had tried to take a conciliatory tone, ordered the demonstrators out of the area.

The Thai Foreign Ministry said the government would follow a “multistep approach, from light to heavier measures,” in what appeared to be a turning point in its handling of the crisis, the latest chapter of four years of political turmoil.

On Tuesday the Thai cabinet extended the use of a law that allows the military to clear out protesters and make arrests. Mr. Abhisit said Saturday that protesters had exceeded the limits of their constitutional right to demonstrate and that the government would negotiate or use legal means to oust them.

Mr. Abhisit has offered to call new elections within nine months — about a year before his term ends — but protest leaders, who claim the government is illegitimate, rejected the concession. The Red Shirts, who have wide support in the populous north and northeast, would probably win elections if they were held now, analysts believe.

Protesters, many of whom support Thaksin Shinawatra, who was removed as prime minister in a 2006 military coup, say they are angry at what they perceive as the undue influence of the country’s bureaucracy, military and elite.

Mr. Thaksin, who is overseas and wanted by the Thai authorities for a corruption conviction, addressed the crowd by video link on Saturday. He urged the crowd to fight for equality.

The Red Shirt demonstrations had until Saturday mostly affected a neighborhood of government ministries and offices. By blockading the main commercial district, however, protest leaders have considerably ratcheted up the pressure on Mr. Abhisit’s government.

Despite the threats to remove them, protesters appeared to be in a jovial mood late Saturday. As they listened to speeches, many camped out on the sidewalk in front of display windows advertising luxury brands like Dior, Ferragamo and Tag Heuer.

Tourists who pushed through the throngs of red-shirted protesters said they were polite and helpful.

“I don’t feel threatened,” said Elizabeth York, a visitor from London whose 1-year-old was in a stroller. “They make way for the babies,” she said.

Others were less forgiving of the demonstrators. An 18-year-old Thai, the scion of a wealthy family, drove his Porsche into protesters’ motorcycles and was besieged by the crowd before the riot police intervened, The Associated Press reported.

A woman who said she had to walk several miles to work because of the demonstration gave this assessment of the protesters: “They are very poor and very stupid.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Apr 1, 2010

Memo From Bangkok - Thai Protesters Shed Culture of Restraint - NYTimes.com

BANGKOK, THAILAND - FEBRUARY 28:  Thai police ...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

BANGKOK — Thailand is a country of 145,000 Mercedes Benz sedans and about 75,000 villages, many of them hamlets afflicted by poverty.

During nearly three weeks of mass anti-government demonstrations here, luxury cars have had to share the streets of Bangkok with the blaring megaphones of rural discontent.

Standing in the back of a pickup truck and shaded by a wide-brimmed hat was Thanida Paveen, a 43-year-old mother of two who explained the epiphany that brought her to the demonstration.

“I used to think we were born poor and that was that,” said Ms. Thanida, who grew up in the provinces but now lives in Bangkok and rents out rooms to factory workers in the city’s industrial outskirts. “I have opened my mind to a new way of thinking: We need to change from the rule of the aristocracy to a real democracy.”

The Thailand of today is not quite the France of 1789 — there is no history of major tensions between rich and poor here, and most of the country is peaceful despite the noisy protests. But more than ever Thailand’s underprivileged are less inclined to quietly accept their station in life as past generations did and are voicing anger about wide disparities in wealth, about shakedowns by the police and what they see as the longstanding condescension in Bangkok toward people who speak provincial dialects, especially from the northeast.

The deference, gentility and graciousness that have helped anchor the social hierarchy in Thailand for centuries are fraying, analysts say, as poorer Thais become more assertive, discarding long-held taboos that discouraged confrontation.

BANGKOK, THAILAND - FEBRUARY 28: Supporters of...Image by Getty Images via Daylife

The haves in Thailand have a lot — the country has one of the most inequitable income distributions in Asia, a wider gap between rich and poor than in China, Malaysia, the Philippines or Vietnam, according to a World Bank report.

Four years of political turmoil have brought clearer divisions between wealthy families and their domestic staff, between the patrons of expensive restaurants and the waiters who serve them, between golfing businessmen and the legions of caddies who carry their bags.

“This is a newfound consciousness of a previously neglected part of Thai society,” said Thitinan Pongsudhirak, one of the country’s leading political scientists and a visiting scholar at Stanford University’s FSI-Humanities Center. “In the past they were upset, but they weren’t cohesive as a force and coherent in their agenda. New technologies have enabled them to unify their disparate voices of dissatisfaction.”

The role of technology in bringing together the protesters has been crucial. The leaders of the protest movement have used community radio stations, mobile-phone messaging and the Internet to forge an identity for lower-income Thais and connect a vast constellation of people in villages and towns.

At times the protests in Bangkok could be described as flash mobs of the disaffected. Protesters, who wear trademark red shirts, have converged on government buildings, banks and military bases across the city guided by text messages.

“This would not have been possible 10 years ago,” said Ms. Thanida, who was returning from military barracks in Bangkok where protesters had demanded that soldiers leave the area. The military acquiesced. Like many protesters, she subscribes to D Station, a “red shirt” news service that gives updates and instructions to protesters.

The leaders of the red-shirted protesters have advertised the current round of protests as class warfare and describe themselves as defenders of the “prai,” a feudal word meaning commoner or lower-class citizen. “The blood of the prai is worth nothing” is a phrase now affixed on bumper stickers and T-shirts.

That may be overblown rhetoric. There are many stories of upward mobility in Thailand and, despite the presence of tens of thousands of protesters, the anger has not translated into personal attacks on the wealthy.

The main target of the protesters’ ire seems to be the system: the perception that bureaucrats and the military serve the elite at the expense of the poor. The protesters bewail the 2006 military coup that removed Thaksin Shinawatra, the tycoon turned prime minister who focused his policies on rural areas. And they question the fairness of a judicial system that removed two subsequent prime ministers who were allied with Mr. Thaksin.

To many outsiders, Mr. Thaksin’s role is puzzling: The notion that a billionaire is leading Thailand’s disaffected to rebellion verges on the absurd. It also infuriates the Bangkok elite, who see Mr. Thaksin’s role as largely self-serving. Mr. Thaksin, most analysts agree, was hardly a paragon of democratic values during his five years in power. He intimidated the media, stripped institutions like the anti-corruption commission of their independence and mixed his business interests with those of the government.

Many protesters, as well as associates of Mr. Thaksin, say the protest movement has taken on much larger dimensions than just a battle between Mr. Thaksin and his political rivals.

“This goes well beyond Thaksin,” said Pansak Vinyaratn, one of the main architects of policies during the Thaksin administration. “The question is, will the Thai state be able to harness this negative energy to something positive.”

It is significant that Mr. Thaksin made his fortunes in the telecommunications business. Even his critics concede that he was able to communicate with the rural poor and deliver results in ways that none of his predecessors had achieved. As prime minister, he gave lower-income Thais a taste of a better life, including cheap loans that allowed people to buy pickups and mobile phones, which inadvertently or not laid the groundwork for the current political movement.

In 2005, after four years of Mr. Thaksin as prime minister, the number of people using mobile phones in the vast, rice-growing northeast had more than doubled to 5.3 million.

Incomes in the northeast rose nearly 50 percent during the Thaksin government and even more in the provinces east and south of Bangkok.

The protesters today are not the country’s desperately poor, says Ammar Siamwalla, a prominent economist in Thailand who specializes in development issues. They are more likely to be people whose expectations were raised and then dashed: they started small businesses like hair salons in the Thaksin years when more money started circulating in rural areas, Mr. Ammar said. “It jump-started a lot of things.”

After the coup in 2006, these small-time entrepreneurs were stuck. “They were suddenly caught short by the lack of access to credit,” said Mr. Ammar, who is otherwise critical of Mr. Thaksin’s rule.

Debt levels in the northeast doubled to an average of about 100,000 baht, or just over $3,000, per family. Today rural families still carry this debt, but their incomes are relatively stagnant, in part because crop prices were deflated by last year’s economic crisis.

Beyond the economics, there is an intangible side to Thailand’s political crisis that may be even more significant for the country in the long run.

The once deeply ingrained cultural mores that discouraged displays of anger, that prized politeness and justified the entitlements of the royalty and the elite have been eroded by technology and mobility. The prime minister, Abhisit Vejjajiva, rarely visits the northeastern part of the country because his aides fear a hostile reception. (Mr. Abhisit has been ensconced in a military barracks in Bangkok for much of the past two weeks.) Another group of protesters, the “yellow shirts,” who helped precipitate Mr. Thaksin’s ouster with their own demonstrations, held the country hostage by shutting down the airport for a week in late 2008, a protest that stranded hundreds of thousands of travelers.

The traditional restraints on aggressive and argumentative behavior — the Buddhist clergy and a once deeply held fear of bad karma, among other factors — have been weakened, says William J. Klausner, an expert on Thai culture and Buddhism who has studied village life since he moved to Thailand in the 1950s.

“Villagers today feel far less inclined to accord deference and respect to those in authority simply because of their privileged position and perceived sense of entitlement,” Mr. Klausner wrote in an essay.

Many Thais say they are shocked by the coarse language used by political activists of all stripes today. Insults that were once rarely heard in public have become common.

Thailand appears to be losing a small part of what has long attracted millions of tourists to its shores: a culture of unflappable, bend-over-backwards politeness.

Pakawan Malayavech, a 55-year-old native of a northeastern province, reflected on these changes as she walked through a crowd of tens of thousands of red-shirted protesters recently. She left Thailand as a young woman for the United States, where she drove a Good Humor ice cream truck in Fairfax, Virginia, and did other odd jobs. Then, in 1999, she returned to retire, and now she sees the country like frames in time-lapse photography.

“People used to forgive and forget easily,” she said. “Now the new generation are more like Americans — they talk back.”

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Sep 21, 2009

BBC - Thailand king stable in hospital

Monument to King Bhumibol Adulyadej (Rama IX) ...Image via Wikipedia

The 81-year-old king of Thailand has been admitted to hospital suffering from a fever.

Doctors said King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest-serving monarch, had shown signs of fatigue and was being treated with antibiotics.

King Bhumibol is deeply revered by most Thais and his health is a matter of public anxiety.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva told reporters there was "nothing to be concerned about".

People have gathered at the hospital to offer prayers and convey their good wishes.

Wide respect

A statement from Thailand's royal household said King Bhumibol was taken to the Siriraj hospital in Bangkok on Saturday night.

The Royal Household Bureau said the king was suffering from a fever, fatigue and loss of appetite. He is being treated with intravenous drips and antibiotics.

Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said on Sunday that he was aware the king had been admitted to hospital, but insisted it was only for a check-up.

"His Majesty's condition is not a problem," Mr Abhisit told reporters.

King Bhumibol has long been seen as the only unifying figure in a nation that has seen at least 24 prime ministers, 17 constitutions and more than a dozen military coups during his 63-year reign.

He is widely respected among the Thai people - and he is sometimes accorded an almost divine reverence.

The Bangkok Post newspaper quoted a 60-year old woman, Warinan Phurahong, as saying she ran to the hospital when she heard about the king's condition and plans to stay there until His Majesty recovers.

The king, a constitutional monarch, made a rare call for stability and reconciliation in Thai politics last month. Factions for and against the ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra are jostling for power, often using the king's name and image to strengthen their case.

The weekend saw another outbreak of street demonstrations from the opposing political camps.

Mr Thaksin's supporters, the "red shirts", marked his ousting in a coup three years ago with peaceful rallies in Bangkok.

Mr Thaksin, criticised by his opponents for not showing enough respect to the monarchy when he was in office, spoke to the crowd from exile by video link. He wants fresh elections and a pardon for a conflict of interest conviction.

Meanwhile, the largely pro-government "yellow shirts" demonstrated on the Thai border with Cambodia in a long-running sovereignty dispute over a temple complex that straddles the boundary.

Their protests ended in violent clashes with Thai police.

Thailand remains deeply divided three years after the 19 September 2006 coup which drove out Mr Thaksin while he was in New York to attend the United Nations General Assembly.

Mr Abhisit is on his way to the same event, but the chief of the kingdom's powerful army has scotched rumours that there would be another putsch in his absence.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Aug 26, 2009

Callers ring for service in Thailand

Published: 26/08/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

In terms of mobile phones at least, Thailand is one of the world's most communicative nations. There are more phones than people, according to the United Nations, and marketing figures show that more than 90% of all Thais above school age carry mobile phones.

But there is big trouble among this handset group. Even though there is competition, subscribers are routinely abused by the big companies who control the mobile phone business. There are signs the subscribers are getting angry enough to do something about it.

A recent meeting in Bangkok brought representatives of phone-using groups from across the region into one room to talk about mobile phone networks. The consumers were not at all happy. Complaints ranged from poor quality of calls to lack of help when subscribers switch systems, particularly in keeping their old numbers. So-called "mobile spam" in the form of unwanted text messages infuriates most phone owners. But the biggest complaint of mobile phone users in Thailand and around the region centres on the extra charges - unadvertised and unexplained to users, and available only in the small print on contracts, if at all.

Some consumers believe the phone companies have deliberately misled their customers in order to boost the bottom line. And in Thailand, the bottom line of mobile companies is very impressive indeed. Last week, the No.1 network Advanced Info Services reported its second-quarter story of woe. Founded by fugitive ex-premier Thaksin Shinawatra and now controlled by Singaporean interests, AIS claims to have 27.9 million subscribers, most of whom pay in advance for their phone services. The company complained that its net profit between April and June dropped to "only" 4.2 billion baht, on revenue of 25.2 billion.

It's tough to feel sorry for companies making that sort of profit in the midst of a recession. The other two top phone companies, DTAC and True Move, report similar profits, in line with their customer base.

The UN's International Telecommunications Union recently reported that Thailand has 118 phones per 100 people of phone-using age. With that number of customers contributing that sort of income to the top phone companies, along with the government duopoly which also makes substantial profits from the business, consumers should get more for their baht.

The three major mobile companies recently made what can only be called a sham attempt to address the problem of text-spam. In fact, they well know who is sending unwanted messages to complaining customers. An AIS official admitted his company profits by selling blocks of SMS calls to commercial firms.

Consumers are beginning to appeal to the government and to the National Telecommunications Commission for action. The phone firms, getting a few baht here and a couple more there from almost every advance-pay customer, are making huge profits on questionable business deals. And they still won't even allow subscribers to take their numbers with them when they change providers, claiming it is far too difficult.

The government can, and will do only so much. Consumers owe it to themselves to organise against any perceived mistreatment by the phone firms. Questionable deals should be heavily publicised - members of the media are phone users, too. In extreme cases, boycotts can work far better than slow government officials. Telephone users, meaning pretty well all citizens, deserve a better deal. They should send a strong message to the phone companies that they are not going to take shoddy service any longer.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Govt set to enact security law in Thailand

PM cautions red shirts to control protest rally

Writer: PRADIT RUANGDIT and AEKARACH SATTABURUTH
Published: 26/08/2009 at 12:00 AM
Newspaper section: News

The government will enforce the Internal Security Act in Dusit district from Saturday to Tuesday as part of strict security measures to cope with planned red shirt protests.

Police officers react to the testing of a special high-intensity loudspeaker at a riot control demonstration at the Metropolitan Police Bureau yesterday. The device emits a high-frequency sound painful to humans and has a range of three kilometres and will be on hand in case this Sunday’s rally by the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship turns violent. APICHART JINAKUL

The act will be imposed in the district to protect Government House and government agencies which the demonstrators might target, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday.

Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban has been authorised to take charge of security operations in the district.

The act allows soldiers to step in to ensure law and order in the area. The government enforced the Internal Security Act in Phuket in July to prevent protesters derailing the meeting of Asean foreign ministers.

Red shirt protesters plan another major rally on Sunday at the Royal Plaza.

Under the law, the government would not ban peaceful protests. A rally could take place but it must not prevent government officials reaching their offices, Mr Abhisit said.

People would only be searched for weapons and authorities would consider the suitability of demonstrators' routes.

The prime minister said although the protest leaders insisted their demonstration would be peaceful, the government had learned from intelligence reports that there could be attempts to prolong the rally and make it spiral out of control to try to destabilise the government.

The government had to secure political order and a good atmosphere in the country to guarantee an economic recovery, he said.

Mr Abhisit and Mr Suthep said the government would not wait for the situation to get out of control before invoking the act. The act could be exercised when a situation was looking likely to occur, the prime minister said.

"I would like to stress that the government respects the rights and liberties of people but it is also duty-bound to secure order.

"We want everything to be as normal as possible. I don't believe people nationwide want to see a recurrence of April's incidents," Mr Abhisit said, referring to the anti-government protests that turned into riots in Bangkok during the Songkran holidays.

Jatuporn Prompan, a leader of the pro-Thaksin United Front for Democracy against Dictatorship (UDD) that is planning the rally, said the government was abusing its power by invoking the internal security law and red shirt demonstrators would take strong retaliatory action.

He said the UDD originally planned to rally this Sunday only to protest against the government's delay of its petition for a royal pardon for Thaksin.

But by invoking the internal security law, the government was limiting people's rights, being dictatorial and showing its intention to confront the demonstrators, he said.

The red shirts would also wear black today to protest against Privy Council president Prem Tinsulanonda. They would gather in front of his Si Sao Thewes home today, Gen Prem's birthday.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Aug 17, 2009

Thai Protesters Gather in Bangkok

By Alastair Leithead
BBC Asia correspondent, Bangkok

Thousands of political demonstrators have gathered in Bangkok in the first mass action since the violence that erupted in the city in April.

Supporters of former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, wearing red shirts, were to present a petition to a representative of the royal household.

They say more than five million people have signed it, asking the king to pardon Mr Thaksin.

He was convicted on conflict of interest charges and now lives abroad.

The thousands of demonstrators are a reminder that the deep-rooted political divide in Thailand, which fuelled the violence of April and brought tens of thousands out on to the streets, has not gone away.

The protesters say the five million petition signatures are an indication of the huge level of support for Mr Thaksin.

He has been unable to return to Thailand since the conviction but has stirred up the crowds at anti-government political rallies through telephone calls and video links.

Many of his supporters from the poor rural north and north-east of Thailand are angry at the way their opposing yellow-shirted protesters forced political change by blockading Bangkok's international airports last year and yet have not been punished.

Current Thai Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva, who came to power with the backing of the yellow shirts, has warned the protesters not to resort to violence.

But an unconnected corruption case at the Supreme Court against a senior government figure is expected to attract an opposing group of demonstrators in the same part of the city, so police have been deployed to prevent clashes between the two sides.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/8204589.stm

Published: 2009/08/17 04:15:41 GMT

Jul 19, 2009

Interviews Offer Look at Roles of CIA Contractors During Interrogations

By Joby Warrick and Peter Finn
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 19, 2009

In April 2002, as the terrorism suspect known as Abu Zubaida lay in a Bangkok hospital bed, top U.S. counterterrorism officials gathered at CIA headquarters in Langley, Va., for a series of meetings on an urgent problem: how to get him to talk.

Put him in a cell filled with cadavers, was one suggestion, according to a former U.S. official with knowledge of the brainstorming sessions. Surround him with naked women, was another. Jolt him with electric shocks to the teeth, was a third.

One man's certitude lanced through the debate, according to a participant in one of the meetings. James E. Mitchell, a retired clinical psychologist for the Air Force, had studied al-Qaeda resistance techniques.

"The thing that will make him talk," the participant recalled Mitchell saying, "is fear."

Now, as the Senate intelligence committee examines the CIA's interrogation program, investigators are focusing in part on Mitchell and John "Bruce" Jessen, former CIA contractors who helped design and oversee Abu Zubaida's interrogation. These men have been portrayed as eager proponents of coercion, but the former U.S. official, whose account was corroborated in part by Justice Department documents, said they also rejected orders from Langley to prolong the most severe pressure on the detainee. The former official's account, alongside the recollections of those familiar with events at the CIA's secret prison in Thailand, yields a more nuanced understanding of their role than has previously been available.

Interviews with nearly two dozen current and former U.S. officials also provide new evidence that the imposition of harsh techniques provoked dissension among the officials charged with questioning Abu Zubaida, from the time of his capture through the period when the most grueling torments were applied.

In August 2002, as the first anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks approached, officials at CIA headquarters became increasingly concerned that they were not learning enough from their detainee in Thailand. When the interrogators concluded that Abu Zubaida had no more to tell, Langley scolded them: "You've lost your spine." If Mitchell and his team eased up and then al-Qaeda attacked the United States again, agency managers warned, "it would be on the team's back," recalled the former U.S. official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss classified information.

The officials who authorized or participated in harsh interrogations continue to dispute how effective such methods were and whether important information could have been obtained from Abu Zubaida and others without them. In March, The Washington Post reported that former senior government officials said that not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's coerced confessions.

The International Committee of the Red Cross, in a 2007 report made public this year, said the application of harsh interrogation methods, "either singly or in combination, constituted torture."

George Little, a CIA spokesman, said harsh interrogation was always "a small fraction of the agency's counterterrorism mission." Now, he added, "the CIA is focused not on the past, but on analyzing current terrorist threats and thwarting terrorist plots."

Mitchell, 58, who remained a CIA contractor until this spring, declined to be interviewed. In conversations with close colleagues in recent months, he has rejected the popular portrayal of his role, maintaining that he steered the agency away from far more brutal methods toward practices that would not cause permanent harm to detainees.

Jessen, 60, declined to comment.

Yesterday, Mitchell issued a brief statement: "It may be easy for people who were not there and didn't feel the pressure of the threats to say how much better they could have done it. But they weren't there. We were and we did the best that we could."

The 'Manchester Manual'

A silver-maned, voluble man, Mitchell had retired from the Air Force before the Sept. 11 attacks and won several government contracts, including one from the CIA to study ways to assess people who volunteered information to the agency. While still in the military training program known as SERE -- for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape -- he and his colleagues called themselves "Masters of the Mind [Expletive]," according to two military officials who worked in the program.

In December 2001, the CIA asked Mitchell to analyze the "Manchester Manual," a document seized in a raid in Britain that described al-Qaeda resistance techniques. Mitchell asked Jessen, a senior SERE psychologist, to help prepare the assessment, according to Senate investigators.

The Mitchell-Jessen memo, which was distributed widely within the CIA, discussed the efficacy of techniques such as sleep deprivation and noise bombardment but did not broach waterboarding.

"It is not realistic to think someone who is hardened will talk unless they fear that something bad is going to happen to them," said the former U.S. official, describing Mitchell and Jessen's thinking. "They didn't think rapport-building techniques would work. But they also didn't [advocate] using waterboarding right away."

Mitchell told acquaintances that he also drew important lessons from the theory of "learned helplessness," a term psychologists use to describe people or animals reduced to a state of complete helplessness by some form of coercion or pain, such as electric shock. Mitchell insisted, however, that coercive interrogation should not reduce a prisoner to despair. Instead, he argued, "you want them to have the view that something they could say would hold the key to getting them out of the situation they were in," according to the former official.

"If you convince [a terrorism suspect] he's helpless, he's no good to you," the former official said.

A Breakthrough in Bangkok

In early April 2002, some officials at the CIA's Counterterrorist Center were not convinced that the man in U.S. custody was indeed Zayn al-Abidin Muhammed Hussein, Abu Zubaida's given name. The Saudi-born Palestinian, then 29, had been sought by the FBI on suspicion that he played a role in a foiled 1999 plan to attack Los Angeles International Airport and tourist destinations in Jordan.

The detainee had been captured in Pakistan in late March 2002 after a firefight that left him wounded in the thigh, groin and stomach. After being treated in Pakistan, he was flown to Thailand for interrogation.

The CIA dispatched FBI agents Ali Soufan and Steve Gaudin for an initial look. The two men arrived a few hours before the wounded man was transferred to a hastily assembled CIA interrogation facility near one of Bangkok's airports.

Details of their experience and that of the CIA officials who followed them to Thailand with Mitchell were gleaned from public testimony, official documents and interviews with current and former intelligence and law-enforcement officials with access to confidential files. Through the FBI, Gaudin declined to comment for this article, and Soufan referred reporters to his congressional testimony and other public statements.

Soufan, a Lebanese American, later described the FBI's method as "informed interrogation." It was based on "leveraging our knowledge of the detainee's culture and mind-set, together with using information we already know about him," he told a Senate panel in May.

On the agents' first night in Thailand, Abu Zubaida went into septic shock because of his wounds and was rushed to a local hospital. Gaudin and Soufan dabbed his lips with ice, told him to ask God for strength and cleaned him up after he soiled himself, according to official documents and interviews.

At his bedside, Gaudin asked Soufan to show Abu Zubaida a photograph of Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, an Egyptian suspect in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa in 1998. The two agents had photos of terrorism suspects on a handheld computer, and Gaudin accidentally displayed the wrong photo.

Abu Zubaida said: "This is Mukhtar. This is the mastermind of 9/11."

The agents did not know that Mukhtar, a name that had surfaced in some raw intelligence and an Osama bin Laden video, was a nickname for Khalid Sheik Mohammed. Nor did they know that Mohammed was an al-Qaeda member.

Abu Zubaida had given the agents the first positive link to the man who would later be charged as the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks.

'Creating the Atmosphere'

With the FBI's breakthrough, the CIA recognized that the captured man was indeed Abu Zubaida and began assembling a team to send to Thailand. Agency officials had no firm notion of what a post-Sept. 11 interrogation of a terrorism suspect should look like.

"It was not a job we sought out," said one former senior intelligence official involved in early decisions on interrogation. "The generals didn't want to do it. The FBI said no. It fell to the agency because we had the [legal] authorities and could operate overseas."

In Mitchell, the CIA found an authoritative professional who had answers, despite an absence of practical experience in interrogating terrorism suspects or data showing that harsh tactics work.

"Here was a guy with a title and a shingle," recalled the participant in the Langley meeting, "and he was saying things that others in the room already believed to be true."

Mitchell boarded a CIA plane for Bangkok with R. Scott Shumate, a CIA psychologist; two agency officers who worked undercover; and a small team of analysts and support staff, including security personnel to control Abu Zubaida.

Among those on the plane was an agency expert on interrogation and debriefing, an officer who was part of a training program intended to help the agency detect double agents and assess recruits for foreign espionage. The trainers taught strategies for extracting sensitive information but prohibited coercive tactics.

When Mitchell and the CIA team arrived in Thailand, Abu Zubaida was still in the hospital. The two FBI agents, Soufan and Gaudin, met the CIA officers at a nearby hotel for a debriefing.

Although senior CIA officials in Bangkok were nominally in charge, they deferred to Mitchell, according to several sources familiar with events at the prison.

"There was a big sense of arrogance about him," one source said.

After Abu Zubaida was discharged, the FBI was shut out of the interrogations as Mitchell began establishing the conditions for Abu Zubaida's interrogation -- "creating the atmosphere," as he put it to colleagues.

In the initial stages, Abu Zubaida was stripped of his clothes while CIA officers took turns at low-intensity questioning. Later, Mitchell added sleep deprivation and a constant bombardment of loud music, including tracks by the Red Hot Chili Peppers. After each escalation, he would dispatch an interrogator into Abu Zubaida's cell to issue a single demand: "Tell me what I want to know."

Mitchell sometimes spoke directly to the prisoner, but unlike the CIA officers, he wore a mask, according to two sources familiar with the events in Thailand.

He repeatedly sought authorization from the CIA's Counterterrorist Center for his actions.

"The program was fully put together, vetted and run by the counterterrorism folks at the agency," the former U.S. official said. "CIA headquarters was involved directly in every detail of interrogation. Permission had to be obtained before every technique was used, and the dialogue was very heavy. There were cables and also an IM system. All Mitchell's communications were with the Counterterrorist Center."

In Bangkok, word circulated among those at the secret site that the tactics had been approved "downtown" -- agency jargon for the White House.

Escalating Torment

Soufan testified to Congress in May that Abu Zubaida went silent once Mitchell took charge. Within days of the CIA team's arrival, the cables between Bangkok and Langley became devoid of new revelations. Agency officials decided to let the FBI back into the interrogations, but on the condition that forced nudity and sleep deprivation be allowed to continue.

The CIA team lowered the temperature in Abu Zubaida's cell until the detainee turned blue. The FBI turned it back up, setting off a clash over tactics.

Under FBI questioning, Abu Zubaida identified an operative he knew as Abdullah al-Mujahir, the alias, he said, of an American citizen with a Latino name. An investigation involving multiple agencies identified the suspect as Jose Padilla, the al-Qaeda operative later convicted of providing material support for terrorism.

"In two different bits, after sleep deprivation, is when Abu Zubaida gave clues about who Padilla might be," the former U.S. official said. "When that was put together with other CIA sources, they were able to identify who he was. . . . The cables will not show that the FBI just asked friendly questions and got information about Padilla."

As more miseries were heaped on Abu Zubaida, some members of the CIA team joined the FBI agents in pushing back. Among them was Shumate, the CIA psychologist, who voiced regret that he had played a role in recommending Mitchell to the agency, former associates said. Shumate did not return phone calls and e-mails seeking comment.

Soufan later told Justice Department investigators examining the FBI's role in detainee interrogations that he viewed Mitchell's early methods as "borderline torture."

In addition, one of the CIA team members told others in the group that he believed Abu Zubaida was being honest when he claimed to know nothing about significant al-Qaeda plots, according to two officials with access to classified reports.

Although Abu Zubaida was not a member of al-Qaeda and had limited relations with bin Laden, he was a font of information on the membership of the terrorist group because of his long-standing ties with Mohammed and North African jihadists, according to former intelligence and law-enforcement officials who have read his files. Abu Zubaida's attorneys maintain that he had no connection with al-Qaeda.

"You've got it all wrong," the detainee told one interrogator in May 2002, according to a former intelligence official with access to sensitive records. Abu Zubaida said that al-Qaeda had been surprised at the devastating efficacy of the Sept. 11 attacks and that any plans for future attacks were mere aspirations.

Abu Zubaida was lying but eventually would disclose everything, Mitchell asserted to his colleagues, citing his backers at the Counterterrorist Center. He repeated that his methods had been approved "at the highest levels," one of the interrogators later told the Justice Department investigators.

At the secret prison, dissent over Mitchell's methods peaked. First Shumate left, followed by Soufan. At the site, Shumate had expressed concerns about sleep deprivation, and back in Langley he complained again about Mitchell's tactics, according to the former U.S. official and another source familiar with events in Thailand.

Then one of the CIA debriefers left. In early June, Gaudin flew to Washington for a meeting on what was happening in Thailand, and the FBI did not allow him to return.

Jessen, newly retired from the military, arrived in Thailand that month. Mitchell and his partner continued to ratchet up the pressure on Abu Zubaida, although Bush administration lawyers had not yet authorized the CIA's harshest interrogation measures. That came verbally in late July and then in writing on Aug. 1, paving the way to new torments.

Interrogators wrapped a towel around Abu Zubaida's neck and slammed him into a plywood wall mounted in his cell. He was slapped in the face. He was placed in a coffin-like wooden box in which he was forced to crouch, with no light and a restricted air supply, he later told delegates from the Red Cross.

Finally, he was waterboarded.

Abu Zubaida told the Red Cross that a black cloth was placed over his face and that interrogators used a plastic bottle to pour water on the fabric, creating the sensation that he was drowning.

The former U.S. official said that waterboarding forced Abu Zubaida to reveal information that led to the Sept. 11, 2002, capture of Ramzi Binalshibh, the key liaison between the Hamburg cell led by Sept. 11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and al-Qaeda's leadership in Afghanistan.

But others contend that Binalshibh's arrest was the result of several pieces of intelligence, including the successful interrogation by the FBI of a suspect held at Bagram air base in Afghanistan who had been in contact via satellite phone with Binalshibh, as well as information gleaned from an interview Binalshibh gave to the television network al-Jazeera.

Abu Zubaida was waterboarded 83 times over four or five days, and Mitchell and Jessen concluded that the prisoner was broken, the former U.S. official said. "They became convinced that he was cooperating. There was unanimity within the team."

One More Time

CIA officials at the Counterterrorist Center were not convinced.

"Headquarters was sending daily harangues, cables, e-mails insisting that waterboarding continue for 30 days because another attack was believed to be imminent," the former official said. "Headquarters said it would be on the team's back if an attack happened. They said to the interrogation team, 'You've lost your spine.' "

Mitchell and Jessen now found themselves in the same position as Soufan, Shumate and others.

"It was hard on them, too," the former U.S. official said. "They are psychologists. They didn't enjoy this at all."

The two men threatened to quit if the waterboarding continued and insisted that officials from Langley come to Thailand to watch the procedure, the former official said.

After a CIA delegation arrived, Abu Zubaida was strapped down one more time. As water poured over his cloth-covered mouth, he gasped for breath. "They all watched, and then they all agreed to stop," the former official said.

A 2005 Justice Department memo released this year confirmed the visit. "These officials," the memo said, "reported that enhanced techniques were no longer needed."

Staff writers Walter Pincus and R. Jeffrey Smith and staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.