The Senate report is out and linked below. It is remarkable in both its candor and breadth. I was particularly moved by watching Sen. John McCain, a victim of torture, explaining to his colleagues why this country must not only condemn this torture program but come clean about our failure to meet the fundamental values that define us as a people. It was a true profile of courage — an all too rare moment in our contemporary politics where a politician transcends politics and stand boldly on a higher moral ground. What McCain showed was the difference between a politician and a statesman. He proved himself to be the latter this afternoon.
While I have been critical of Feinstein in the past, I considered this speech to be also her finest hour. While I have criticized the lack action from the committee over the years on this issue, Feinstein did overcome considerable pressure from the intelligence community to bury the report. As the video below shows, McCain called the use of the torture was “shameful” regardless of whether it was effective.
What is most remarkable is the direct identification of people like Hayden, Muller, and others who are accused of giving false information to Congress. This record is combined with the admission that dozens of videotapes were destroyed shortly after the CIA was informed that the legality of the program had been raised. The absence of any criminal charges creates an obvious and troubling disconnect given this lengthy account.
It was equally chilling to not only read of the death of one detainee of possible hyperthermia but the fact that two psychologists created a company and received $80 million for their clearly unethical role in the torture program.
Notably, while the President has repeated his condemnation of the program, there remains a disconnect with the actions of his Administration. The CIA continues to oppose the release of the report and, more importantly, shows a continuing failure to appreciate the depth of the criminal character of this torture program. The CIA issued a statement that again claims that the program was “effective.” As I have discussed in prior columns, it does not matter whether torture is effective or ineffective. It is not just a crime but a war crime. The continued effort of the CIA to claim that it got something positive from torture only reaffirms the view of a rogue agency.
Here is the report: Senate Report
Inga,
Of course I don’t have proof. I’m not CIA. Even if I was, I wouldn’t bring out classified info here. But when former and serving counter-terrorism officials outright say it or heavily imply it, I’m inclined to believe them.
When David Gregory asks, “Did harsh interrogations help in the hunt for bin Laden?” and the President’s serving NSA advisor replies, “I’m not, I’m not going to comment on specific intelligence”, but then proceeds to take a breath and re-open his big mouth to say, “except, except to say the following, that intelligence was gathered from detainees, it was gathered through interrogation, it was gathered from other liaison services, it was gathered technically, it was gathered through human sources, right, over time” – and 3 of the 5 categories he names are controversial – Donilon probably said more than he should have.
If I was Donilon’s boss, I would have told him to stick to the story that bin Laden was outed by locals and that’s it. As is, the Pakistanis you mention only fit into one of Donilon’s categories, human sources.
A chain made link by link. Only seeing the ending links of the finished chain doesn’t make the beginning links irrelevant. The chain metaphor implies each link is necessary for the following link.
Jim22, Did you read the accounts? There is murder, breaking limbs, anal rape. Are you really arguing that you don’t know if those actions are legal? The law against torture is US law. It is not ambiguous nor is what was done ambiguous.
Torture is not an act of bravery. A detainee is in your complete control. If you think it shows bravery to take a person who is under your complete control and anal rape them, then really, what can I say to you?
Again, if you think you did the right thing by torturing another person then you should be brave enough to submit yourself to a court of law.
Jill – “Because Jim 22, the law on torture isn’t ambiguous, nor is what happened (happens) to people in US detention ambiguous. It is wrong to pretend that we don’t know what happened. We do. Read the accounts. None of it is legal.”
Under what law? How do you know “None of it is legal”? The law that diogenesthegreat showed one, isn’t U.S. law and two, is ambiguous at best. How do you break that law? Since no one has any specifics I will assume like other commentators have stated that we legally haven’t done anything wrong. You might not like what is being done ethically and that is your right. I’ll take being water boarded over having my head cut off though. And yes, I hope I would be brave enough to do whatever it took to save American lives including you.
My comment around 1:40 is missing. If someone would get it for me, thank you.
Because Jim 22, the law on torture isn’t ambiguous, nor is what happened (happens) to people in US detention ambiguous. It is wrong to pretend that we don’t know what happened. We do. Read the accounts. None of it is legal.
BTW, you say you’re not a terrorist. Well there are two things about that: 1. your president can say you’re a terrorist and kill you-that’s the new “law” in the US. You don’t get to appeal his decision, you don’t get to challenge it. It’s his decision not yours.
Likewise, if you will go to Seton Hall University, you will see their careful documentation of the people who were/are being detained. Most of them weren’t terrorists either. Even USGinc. admits to that fact. So you are saying that it’s o.k. for others, just not you to be anal raped. That’s not a a principled ethic.
USG had an offer to have OBL handed over for trial in a neutral third party nation. No can do!
Whoever that old guy on the toilet was he wasn’t found via torturing anyone. Further, if Cheney, Bush and Obama et al think they are committing the right thing by ordering torture then they should do what any other person who breaks the law does,– stand before a court of law and argue their case.
Jill, I’m not a terrorist so I’m not sure how I would expect to be treated. Bringing up things like anal rape doesn’t make the “law” that isn’t even U.S. law from what I can tell any less ambiguous. My point is, how do you have a discussion when a law is based on peoples personal sliding scales?
Eric,
So can you prove that any good info was obtained through torture? Maybe the info was obtained through less violent methods.
So are you saying that actionable info was obtained by torture of detainees in order to find Obama? I was under the impression that he was found because some Pakistanis ( who were not tortured) outed him. Maybe I’m wrong, how WAS he found?
Inga,
We had to hunt him down before we could kill him.
The journey to bin Laden’s bedroom door was done with a chain manufactured link by link from “intelligence … gathered from detainees, it was gathered through interrogation, it was gathered from other liaison services, it was gathered technically, it was gathered through human sources, right, over time. And it was gathered, by the way – and this is a very important point I think for your viewers and for Americans generally to understand – this was an effort across two administrations” (Tom Donilon, Obama NSA advisor, May 2011).
Maureen McCarthy: “Eric – thank you for taking the time to research the federal statutes in question. I appreciate the information.”
No problem. Copy-and-paste is a remarkable invention, even if margins do get screwy in the transcription. Professor Turley and Mike Appleton presume that all the legal weight falls on one side of the controversy, which simply is untrue.
Bush the younger acknowledged authorizing torture in his book. He lives freely. John Kiriakou was the whistleblower that exposed torture. He lives behind bars. That’s the reality.
Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain, and Ms. Feinstein [and their minions] are simply using their words and speeches to polish their shadows, which reveals not where they are, but where they aren’t.
They’re just lying to themselves. Otherwise the reality would be reversed.
http://www.thenation.com/article/161936/cias-secret-sites-somalia#
Tortue is still going on.
So Jim22? Do you consider anal rape by US personnel while in custody of the US to be legal? If this happened to you, would you file a complaint or just say, well, I really don’t know if that was O.K. or not? It’s just too ambiguous! I don’t think anything should be done. Who can say, certainly not me?
Remember, a detainee is under the complete control of the US officer(s) in charge. So really, do you think if you were anally raped in that situation you’d have some doubts about whether it was a crime? If you wouldn’t say that about yourself, why would you say it about some person who was picked up off the street for no reason, thrown in jail and anally raped? Is that O.K. for someone else but not for you because you are an American? Is this what it’s come to in our nation?
Eric, we killed Osama Bin Laden, I didn’t hear that we TORTURED him first.
Reblogged this on Citizens, not serfs.
diogenesthegreat, So it is not U.S. law? Also, who gets to decide what “violence to life or person” is? It all seems very ambiguous to me and not very concrete or spelled out. How can you possible get consensus on a law like that or understand if you are following it correctly? To me it would be like giving out a traffic ticket for running a red light where everyone’s definition of red is different.
diogenesthegreat: “There is no balancing of interests required, the only way to defend this is by creating a false dichotomy.”
The false dichotomy is the notion that the harm from enhanced interrogation of Qutbist terrorists outweighs the harm from Qutbist terrorist acts and, on our part, failure to deter and prevent Qutbist terrorist acts.
Inga: “And the apologists are saying that torture works to get real and valuable information. Evidence has pointed to the fact it doesn’t.”
Except evidence has pointed to the fact it does. Those “apologists” include folks included in Senator McCain’s endorsement, “I commend the President and his team, as well as our men and women in uniform and our intelligence professionals, for this superb achievement” when we killed Osama bin Laden.
Jim22,
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=E160550475C4B133C12563CD0051AA66
“Persons…placed ‘ hors de combat ‘ by…detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;”
diogenesthegreat – “It was inevitable that this illegal torture program was to descend into outright sadism. Nor was this program nearly as surgical or sterile as its apologists make it out to be. ”
What was illegal about it? What exact law was broken? I’m not trying to be stupid here, I just hear this claim but it never seems to be backed up with an actual law.