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
Eric,
It can’t be appropriate without being legal.
Interesting response to the Senate report by former CIA directors and deputy directors:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-interrogations-saved-lives-1418142644
Apparently, there are fundamental inaccuracies with the content of the report and flaws in the process by which it was made.
Sandi Hemming: “We do not use many of the methods described in this report. And have not for the last six years, I’m told. So why is everybody ranting and raving about water boarding three people so long ago? We’ve gotten information that way that has helped save lives.”
I agree. Jim22 made a similar observation. Restoring and maintaining the actual context is important for the public, political discourse.
False narrative is standard practice for others in the political arena and they’re proven effective at it. You’re right to reiterate the actual context. Whenever you don’t task a stand for the actual context, others will be spreading a false narrative relentlessly.
Even here, as far as actual context, I find it odd that I should have to cite to PL 107-40. The 9/11 AUMF is a famous law, not at all esoteric. Yet even lawyers commenting here seem somehow to have completely overlooked an entire area of law, let alone the law most obviously relevant to the legal character of the enhanced interrogations.
People are already suggesting Obama “pardon” Bush Admin officials because… Free dumb!
Pardon the only person thrown in jail related to the torture program… John Kiriakiu.
The bad guys torture…
… And it’s never torture when America is the bad guy doing the torturing. YES?
Sandi
I’m sorry but the “redacted” Senate report refutes your entire premise you lay out in the very first paragraph. We DID torture prisoners. We DID torture more than just three detainees. We DID break our international obligation to human dignity. It’s all there. The victims alive have been speaking. We DID not listen…
rafflaw: “Counter terrorism efforts also must comply with the law.”
Well, yeah. That’s the point. The law I cited mandating our counter-terrorism officials and agents clearly says “all necessary and appropriate force … to prevent any future acts of international terrorism”.
Based on a plain reading of the law, in their context, the controversial enhanced interrogations complied with the law. But perhaps not other law. So there’s an uncertainty. As google kindly answered my question, a conflict between a prior and later federal statute calls for an “implied repeal” analysis.
While most of the controlling statute’s language is clear and weighs towards a superseding intent, as Mike Appleton pointed out, there is a question about the meaning of “appropriate”.
diogenesthegreat: “I ask this because you keep saying how congress basically told the white house do “whatever is necessary” to get the job done. Well, does that mean that genocide becomes permissible under the law? If not, why?”
That’s a different question than the legal character of the enhanced interrogations. You’re asking a Constitutional question, what is the President’s authority under the Constitution as Commander in Chief and as Chief Executive, and to conduct U.S. foreign relations? The best answer I can give you is to study Article II and its practice in American history.
The purpose of citing PL 107-40 is to remind that counter-terrorism, which has included the enhanced interrogations, is legal by federal statute.
$80. million bucks to pay these two psychologists who taught SERE and reverse engineered it to create this despicable enhanced interrogation program, also known as torture. Really sickening.
Paul S.,
“Chuck does not want to discuss those issues in psychology and thus will, like a pouty child, take his ball and go home.”
Seems rather sudden to change topics when the discussion regarding the psychologists (which he brought up) hadn’t even gotten off the ground. I, too, have read a great deal about vile psychology experiments and the damage that terrible psychologists can do to people and their families. I would love to have a discussion about those issues sometimes. But I don’t want to discuss those issues now. The issue he brought to the table right now is the psychologists’ participation and payment of $81 million dollars.
Let’s discuss the issues and ramifications of that before segueing into false memory syndrome, MPD, or Project MKUltra, etc etc. I’m perplexed why you’d suddenly want to change topics. Why is that?
“The fact that people have done questionable things is never off topic on these threads. You clearly have not been following along.”
That is true overall, but generally the conversation becomes tangential after some discussion on an initial point that prompts questions. You hit him with a tangential comment right off the bat. You assume I have not been following along.
Prairie Rose – I was responding to a comment that Chuck made. Had he approached the subjected differently, we would not be having this discussion. 🙂
Inga – 80 mill does not seem out of line considering what they paid Gruber.
We do not use many of the methods described in this report. And have not for the last six years, I’m told. So why is everybody ranting and raving about water boarding three people so long ago? We’ve gotten information that way that has helped save lives. Just because McCain says it isn’t so doesn’t mean a thing. The DoD, HHS, WH all say they got info.
One comment I read today, with a picture of a man jumping out of the WTC, was “do you think this man gives a damn about how these people are tortured” and I hadn’t thought about those people in connection to this report.
So, how much torture did the people who weren’t killed instantly go through. How many were burned alive knowing it? How many people were trying to reach loved ones, many did. Were the calls that got through a form of torture? For me it would be. How many children died? What fear goes through your mind deciding to jump? What torture for loved ones to see pictures of the jump? What torture did loved ones go through waiting for news; especially the ones that got no calls? I could continue questions, but certainly by now you have the ache inside that I do typing them.
Now multiply that torture by thousands. Probably the worst torture human beings all over the world experienced at the same time. And explain to me how you wouldn’t do things you never thought you would do? Three vile human beings get terrified for a period of time. So terrified they talk rather than go through that again. And they continue talking, not just one day, but hundreds of days. That information is connected to other information received by every decent intelligence agency in the world, by CIA employees given orders to find more information, and by people volunteering what they know (and putting their lives in danger).
I will never agree that our nation lost any values that day and every day since. I think there are millions of people who wished for the security we’ve been given. Given by people risking their lives to get it for us. And I listen to a Senator from my state (I never voted for, thank God) lecture the American people about things that were done to keep us safe. And I get angry, and sick, and I cry for the pain everyone has gone through and goes through every day. The little girls that don’t have Daddy to go to Father’s dance. Or Mommy that isn’t there to explain why I’m bleedingy when I haven’t hurt myself. And boys who didn’t have a father to show them how to love a woman even when your mad as hell. To teach them never hit, especially loved ones. Who don’t have a Dad coaching their little league team, when so many others do.
I cannot fathom the pain people are going through listening to this garbage. We are what we have always been. A country dedicated to freedom. We have made mistakes, lots of them. But we’ve learned to be better. We water boarded three people and stopped. Maybe because someone said we can’t be this way. No one has told us exactly when and why we stopped, but we did, six years ago, and we’re still listening to criticism for doing our duty.
I will never criticize anyone who has volunteered to go through who knows what hell for us, their country. Nor people who gave orders they hated, but thought necessary. We are a great country, especially when we question ourselves and rethink things. That is what makes us great, every day.
God bless this wonderful country, and help us to continue the fight for freedom, and the courage to doubt ourselves, and make corrections
Eric
Counter terrorism efforts also must comply with the law. The error is yours thinking that there is any legal excuse for resorting to terror.
Why the Founding Fathers thought banning Torture Foundational to the US Constitution
http://www.juancole.com/2014/12/founding-foundational-constitution.html
Paul Schulte,
You meant to direct your comment to me. 🙂
“Aridog – I think Chuck just wants to vilify those two psychologists but not have to defend the others who did questionable things. The field of psychology is peppered with people who did questionable things. For example, how many lives have been ruined by ‘false memory syndrome?’”
Chuck has a background in psychology, so it is logical to conclude that he has particular concerns regarding fellow psychologists participating in torture. Further, having particular concerns about the two psychologists in question doesn’t lead to not wanting to “have to defend the others who did questionable things”. That does not follow.
Of course the field of psychology is peppered with people who have done questionable things–but that is off topic.
I’d like to know and discuss his perspective. Discussing other problems in the field of psychology is a conversation for another time.
Prairie Rose – yes Chuck has a background in psychology. My particular concern is a comment he made early on where he was only distressed by the two psychologists involved in the alleged torture. However, I have a long memory of psychology experiments done on live subjects that are certainly as distressing if not more distressing. Chuck does not want to discuss those issues in psychology and thus will, like a pouty child, take his ball and go home.
The fact that people have done questionable things is never off topic on these threads. You clearly have not been following along. 🙂
rafflaw: “Torture is illegal. Period. People should be in jail.”
You’ve made the same fundamental error made by Mike Appleton: you’ve failed to account that counter-terrorism is mandated by federal law and policy.
The situation here appears to be an issue of federal statutes in conflict where an action appears to be legal and illegal at the same time according to separate federal laws. In such a case, the conflict is usually resolved in deference to the later federal statute, which in this case, is the counter-terrorism statute.
Jim22: “Your definition of torture and mine differ and we most likely will never agree on it. especially when the definition is ambiguous.”
That is a legitimate question. How does context factor in the analysis?
It’s apparent that enhanced interrogation was not normal practice even in the context of interrogating Qutbist terrorists in the period following 9/11, but rather limited to a small group of particularly high-level captives in circumstances that were extraordinary even in the context of the War on Terror. Also, as you say, in context, it hasn’t been entirely clear that the enhanced interrogation did rise to torture, where opinions have differed.
From what I gather, context would be factored in an “implied repeal” analysis of two federal statutes in conflict.
Such a review might reasonably conclude that enhanced interrogation was necessary and appropriate for the particular captives in the context of the counter-terrorism exigencies of that period, but the practices are no longer necessary or appropriate.
Or, such a review might conclude that a determination for enhanced interrogation should be made on a case by case basis with a strict set of criteria, which more or less is how it was applied in the 1st place.
Elaine M.,
“Does anyone remember John Kiriakou? He’s someone we should not forget.”
Yes, I remember him. I agree with you. We have far too many whistleblowers being prosecuted under the Espionage Act–I think he’s one of them.
Did the ACLU defend his actions in any missives?
diogenesthegreat …we’re done. I prefer reflection with perspective, you call it deflection. Without perspective how do we determine motivation and act to remedy that. You refuse to address it and that is your prerogative.
BTW..just where did you get the idea I favored torture of any kind? That’s what I get from you comment about “may come as a surprise to you.” I have been very careful to NOT say that. You are projecting. It is no surprise to me that the best intelligence does not come from torture. I never said otherwise.
Torture is illegal. Period. People should be in jail.
” We are quick to accuse but slow to propose alternatives that work”
This may come as a surprise to you but torture is not required in order to collect information from suspects and/or witnesses. US law enforcement doesn’t torture, the United States military doesn’t torture, it is an unnecessarily grotesque form of interrogation, that is the reason why it is illegal in the first place.
diogenes – depending on how you define torture, US law enforcement does torture people.