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
“non-invasion” should have been “non-invasive”
diogenesthegreat said …
Jim22, … I would only agree with you insofar that right now the CIA is perhaps getting too much of the blame, whereas congress and the white house (including both the Obama and Bush administrations) isn’t getting enough of it.
Praise be on that statement, I agree…even if we disagree on the precedent and perspective matter, all to often when scandal arises one participant is frequently tossed under the proverbial bus, ignoring previous and current participation by Department of State, the US Military, (MAAG operations, by any other name these days, are the plain example of this complicit joint activity) and others, as well, who usually have men and women also in the conduct proscribed…often lower level operators who are following their orders, often obtuse in their own right (a CYA feature used by senior leadership) which by itself is not really a defense (re: Nuremberg) , but is an explanation…and points to motivation. In my decades of time I have seen this attitude seep in to even the administrative ranks, where law is frequently ignored in some endeavor…out of shear convenience or purely personal desires at high levels. As I have mentioned previously, I was an undisclosed whistle-blower 3 times on the administrative level precisely because of blatant law breaking.
For me, it is what motivates this activity that we must finally address and acknowledge our flaws uniformly…and accept responsibility for them. Just making it a dispassionate argument about laws and violation case by case solves nothing. Even my interventions changed only behavior case by case, but did not change the culture that enabled it. I’m hesitant to comment anecdotally because I have seen the positive effects of non-invasion relationship building and same in interrogation, as well as seen the opposite as well…since both instances leave me concerned about motivation for the latter, although in the cases I could recite, I can’t find fault with the individuals. Thus I am not an unbiased observer when all this occurred in a time of great pressure to perform by any means necessary. My one anecdotal citation, cited elsewhere, about some kids and baseball, which I participated in, actually led to being notified by those kids when something bad was about to happen. A positive action elicited intelligence even without actually interrogating per se. The concept was posed first in my time by LTG Victor Krulak , contrary to what his leadership deemed necessary. None the less, LTG Krulak’s concepts have been utilized in both Iraq and Afghanistan, with some degrees of success. I find it noteworthy that a USMC idea has been adopted now by more elements of the US military…and also refocused what MAAG outfits do in the field.
Eric,
“Obviously, the President acted with reference to legality given the Executive legal attention and the collaboration with Congress on the matter.”
So did the Nazi’s – look at who attended the Wannsee conference, it was mostly all lawyers.
And yes, yes I know, “Godwin’s Law” but oh well.
@Jim22
“Carol Kichen, Agree 100%. I think Feinstein is looking for a position at Rolling Stone”.
I completely agree with your post.
Mike Appleton: “Third, effectuation of the later statute must logically compel the conclusion that the legislative body intended to revoke or repeal the conflicting provisions in the prior statute.”
Now, that’s interesting. The situation appears to be that Congress intended to authorize enhanced interrogation as necessary and appropriate. However, I have not seen indication of intent to revoke prohibition on torture.
Mike Appleton: “More specifically, your argument relies on the premise that the President could reasonably read the authorization to mean that he or she may take such measures as he or she may deem necessary or desirable without reference to legality”
Obviously, the President acted with reference to legality given the Executive legal attention and the collaboration with Congress on the matter.
Jim22,
I would only agree with you insofar that right now the CIA is perhaps getting too much of the blame, whereas congress and the white house (including both the Obama and Bush administrations) isn’t getting enough of it.
But as far as the CIA being “innocent before proven guilty” – they’ll have that right when it comes to formal criminal proceedings but in terms of public and academic discussion they have forgone the presumption of innocence by flat out admitting to the crimes that have taken place.
And on a related note, I don’t think there’s a small enough violin in the world that you can play for the CIA – they are perhaps the least sympathetic federal institution that is a part (or is it apart?) of the US government. As Daniel Patrick Moyniham used to argue, the agency is so passed the point of reform even being effective that it should be abolished all together.
Mike Appleton,
Well, yeah. That’s why you do a review to determine Congress’s intent with “appropriate”. The rest of the statute – with “all” and “any” – is clear.
The War on Terror is not a traditional war when outside of its sovereign v sovereign aspect, eg, taking down the Taliban and Saddam. It is also counter-terrorism, and in that aspect, it does appear from reporting that Congress intended to authorize “allnecessary and appropriate force” to “prevent any future acts of international terrorism” – including enhanced interrogation.
Eric,
You didn’t answer the question – I am proposing genocide specifically as a counter-terrorism measure. Why, in that case, would it be illegal from your point of view, if genocide was the only “effective” way of countering this manifestation of radical Islamic terrorism that we’ve been up against since at least 9/11 (in actuality its been much longer than that)?
As Mike Appleton said, your legal reasoning is nothing more than an invitation to tyranny.
It’s interesting how the liberals never want to hear an explanation from the people that they are attacking. In this case it is the CIA. Nothing they can say will be allowed to be true if it contradicts their preconceived guilty verdict of the accused. Apparently, liberal/Dems do not believe in innocent until proven guilty. They do this all the time. I work in the Power Gas Turbine industry so anything I say about fracking or base load energy is false because I have a self interest regardless of the facts.
And Max, Since I’m going to do some future rape in your book, you must be celebrating the day the terrorists nuke one of our cities. I can’t believe you hate this country.
Carol Kichen, Agree 100%. I think Feinstein is looking for a position at Rolling Stone.
I’d be more than happy to give the good senator a recommendation if she would promise to stay away from the Senate.
Sandi Hemming
“I have learned one important thing since 9/11, don’t try to discuss it with liberals”.
lol, isn’t that the truth because we know their truth will be polar opposite of Conservatives. This report was put together by only Liberals. We are finding out that it is full of errors and completely biased in nature and put out by a pissed off old woman named Feinstein because somebody read her e-mails with the approval of Obama & Kerry. Sour-grapes I suspect, but when you disagree with their report, Liberals accuse you of loving rape and torture. Example below:
Max-1
Paul C
I’ll put it this way:
Any man that can confuse consensual sex with acts of RAPE either has a rape in his background he’s running from or is attempting to excuse some future RAPE he may or may not commit… Or has lost his white all together.
Shaking my head…
or
Max-1
Sandi and Carol
We anally probed some folks with broom handles…
You ok with RAPE?
Who knew…
or
rafflaw
It is amazing how some people can excuse torture for political reasons. Even John McCain, who has some skin in the game, agrees that it was torture. Even if you do not “believe” the Senate report, it makes no difference whether torture is legal. It is illegal under domestic law and international law. This document comes right out of the emails of the CIA. People should be in jail.
Yes it was a political document. People can babble about all of the documents the Democrats reviewed – that is not an investigation. As one Senate staffer said, the reason they only review documents is so they can cite the pieces that support their conclusion. If you start doing something intellectually honest like interviewing the participants you might end up with the wrong conclusion.
There was an interview today with an Air Force Colonel who spent 6 years in the Hanoi Hilton. He said he disagrees with McCain that the CIA tortured people. Even if they did get some garbage information if they got one or two pieces of helpful information it is worth it. He also said he likes and respects the Senator, but even John McCain has the right to be wrong on some subjects.
Tim Russert asks Hillary Clinton her opinion on torture with a quote about torture by a former president;
http://youtu.be/t1c10kwZWL4
MAX-1~
“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then is heard no more; it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” ~ Shakespeare
The gentleman doth protest too much, methinks.
@Max-1 . . .
Democrats Hypocrisy Over The Iraq War:
http://youtu.be/FCVZlLBchVE
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou is sentenced to 30 months in prison for leaks:
Kiriakou was the first person in 27 years to be convicted of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. His prosecution is part of a broader Obama administration crackdown on the disclosure of national security information.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/former-cia-officer-john-kiriakou-sentenced-to-30-months-in-prison-for-leaks/2013/01/25/49ea0cc0-6704-11e2-9e1b-07db1d2ccd5b_story.html
The Bill Clinton Murders. . . .
http://youtu.be/KxmK3-r54yQ
President Bill Clinton ordered U.S. warships stationed in the Persian Gulf and in the Red Sea to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles against the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service in downtown Baghdad.
http://youtu.be/ENAV_UoIfgc
@Max-1
If this were a Republican only authored report critical of only Clinton’s attack in Irag, how would you be commenting?
Carol Kichen. High Five
https://twitter.com/JohnKiriakou/status/542294196129112064