Below is my column today in USA Today on the torture report. This is the slightly longer version that ran on the Internet.
—————————————–
As Shakespeare wrote in the Merchant of Venice, “truth will out.” The release of the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee was the long-awaited truth about one of this country’s most shameful chapters. Like water, truth has a way of finding its way out even against the determined obstruction. However, the question is what truth came out this week in the hundreds of pages of highly disturbing, and often disgusting, details of the “enhanced interrogation” program.
There are obvious “truths” about waterboarding being a crime and how torture is a poor vehicle for obtaining intelligence.
Then there are truths that are less obvious but equally clear in the pages of this report. Here are three such inconvenient truths that emerge from the Torture Report:
Truth #1: The CIA proved it is immune from legal restraints
As damaging as this report is to the reputation of the Agency, it reaffirms the underlying assumption that made the torture program possible: CIA officials enjoy effective immunity from the law.
The report details crimes that run gamut of the criminal code. It starts with torture itself that is not just a crime but a war crime. However, the report also details – and names some of those responsible – for destroying evidence, lying to Congress and obstructing investigations into the torture program. Former Director Michael V. Hayden is cited for actively telling employees to lie and for personally giving false information to Congress . CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin was expressly called on the Senate floor by Sen. Dianne Feinstein for giving false information to Congress. CIA General Counsel Scott Muller in 2003 is quoted as lying to the White House about the existence of videotapes on the interrogations. The report details false statement after false statement given by past directors and high-ranking officials to Congress, to the White House and to the American people. It also details how, after CIA were told about inquiries into the legality of the torture program, officials promptly ordered the destruction of video tapes to get rid of the evidence.
Yet, what did all of that prove? It proved that the CIA could commit all of these crimes, even war crimes, and not face a single federal charge. Not one. The only thing more chilling than the torture carried out in our name was the fact that it was carried out with utter impunity.
Truth #2: The Justice Department First Facilitated Torture And Then Obstructed Its Prosecution
One of the least discussed “truths” in this study is the ignoble role played by the Justice Department. During the Bush Administration, figures like Jay Bybee and John Yoo issued the infamous “torture memos” that gave legal cover for the programs. The only thing more tortured than the subjects was the legal authority used to justify their abuse. However, the report also details how the Bush and Obama administrations obstructed the investigation at every turn. Six months after Congress began to investigate the program and was demanding to interview key players, Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly announced the Justice Department’s own investigation under John Durham. As soon as the Justice Department investigation was announced, virtually every key player refused to speak with congressional investigators in light of the internal investigation. As expected, Durham later found that not a single crime could be found. Not in the destruction of evidence. Not in the false statements. Certainly not in the torture itself.
Holder and the Justice Department proved as much enablers as did their predecessors in the Bush administration. Soon after taking office, President Obama shocked many by going to the CIA and assuring employees that, despite his recognition of the torture, no one would be prosecuted. Holder and the Justice Department played as great a role in fulfilling that pledge as Justice did in facilitating the program itself.
Truth #3: Torture remains a question of effectiveness for many in government
Perhaps the most chilling truth is that the CIA and key American leaders continue to deny the very premise of both international and domestic laws. The key response of the CIA was to insist that the program was “effective” – the very rationale that is expressly rejected in the Convention Against Torture and other laws. It does not matter if torture was useful or productive. It is a war crime. We should know. We wrote that language saying that no nation can justify torture due to “exceptional circumstances” or effectiveness. Yet, the very agency that committed these crimes has continued to argue that those crimes were productive exercises.
The current debate over whether torture works reveals how far we have fallen as a nation in our view of this war crime. Not only does our embrace of torture threaten our own soldiers and citizens abroad, we have lost the moral high ground internationally. The truth is that torture could easily return to the United States so long as it is viewed as a practical question instead of a moral one.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
Isn’t it interesting how “progressivism” doesn’t work in the argument against torture or EIT? I’ve even seen quotes from GW to argue against their use.
When ISIS dons redcoats and marches out in formation to fight, then 18th century “international standards” might apply. When ISIS ignores innocent civilians watching the battlefield, then 19th century “international standards” might apply. When ISIS allows the Red Cross to monitor prisoners of war, then 20th century “international standards” might apply.
ISIS doesn’t give a shi* which century the international standards for rules of engagement or treatment of enemy combatants are in vogue; except to know what limits are placed on their enemy. Rules generally work for civilized societies but when your enemy doesn’t respect the rules, what then?
I’ll repeat because none of you has denied it; NOT ONE OF YOU WILL ARGUE IN FAVOR OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IF IT MEANT SACRIFICING THE LIFE OF YOUR INNOCENT LOVED ONES!
“I’ll repeat because none of you has denied it; NOT ONE OF YOU WILL ARGUE IN FAVOR OF INTERNATIONAL STANDARDS IF IT MEANT SACRIFICING THE LIFE OF YOUR INNOCENT LOVED ONES!”
But what we have pointed out more than once is that when it comes to my relatives and your relatives I want the techniques and tactics that have the best chance of getting them back alive and destroying or capturing the perpetrators.
And that is not torture. Torture does not provide the best chance to produce actionable intelligence.
When your loved ones life and well being are on the line, the last thing you want is some yahoo torturing people. Not if you want to get them back alive. Not if you want to capture the terrorists who took them hostage. Not if you want to destroy the terrorists.
CIA Docs Obtained by Judicial Watch in 2010 Show Congress Approved of Enhanced Interrogation:
https://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2014/12/cia-docs-obtained-jw-2010-show-congress-approved-enhanced-interrogation/
Most of us agree that torture is wrong. The disagreement lies in the definition of what constitutes torture. Those on the Right attempt to re-define what the Left regards as torture as “enhanced interrogation. Thankfully, the Founders of our country prohibited torture by giving us the right to remain silent. If we extended that privilege to our foreign enemies, there is no doubt that innocent Americans will die because we will be less effective in acquiring information to defend ourselves from terrorists. But that is the price we must be willing to pay in order to claim that ours is a nation of laws. Similarly, we could make our country far safer were we to lower the standard of proof in criminal cases from “beyond a reasonable doubt” to “more likely than not.” But the Founders made the judgment that it is better that 10 otherwise guilty go free than to imprison wrongly 1 innocent person. This country is paying a heavy price in terms of additional crime in order to protect the innocent- far more injury and death than any terrorist could ever inflict on our country.
Cheney admitted recently on Fox that the ends justify the means. This is the hallmark of immorality! Did the Right not condemn the Democrats for passing Obamacare by using bad means?
Jeff Silberman wrote: “Those on the Right attempt to re-define what the Left regards as torture as “enhanced interrogation. Thankfully, the Founders of our country prohibited torture by giving us the right to remain silent. If we extended that privilege to our foreign enemies, there is no doubt that innocent Americans will die because we will be less effective in acquiring information to defend ourselves from terrorists. But that is the price we must be willing to pay in order to claim that ours is a nation of laws.”
I don’t see that the Right is “re-defining” anything. The line between coercive interrogation and torture clearly exists. Yelling at someone is coercive interrogation but not torture. I still do not perceive waterboarding to be torture because it is not painful and it leaves no lasting scars. It is more like playing loud heavy metal music. I call that annoying, not torture.
The argument that makes the most sense to me is the right to remain silent. We should pass laws to make it clear that this right to remain silent also extends to prisoners of war. If the prisoner voluntarily chooses to give up this right and tell what he knows, fine, but coercive interrogation techniques should not be used by the CIA or other government agencies.
I think if the Democrats stopped using false labels like calling enhanced interrogation torture, and instead focused on the core issue that humanity calls upon us to recognize the right of all humans to remain silent, much more progress could be made for agreement on this issue.
You did not respond to my analogizing waterboarding to Russian roulette, the latter of which I trust you regard as torture. Both contain the risk of death but neither need leave physical scars, and you dismiss the emotional trauma altogether? Why?
Jeff, I do not consider Russian roulette to be torture either. Not even close.
Torture can be in the form of causing severe psychological distress, but for it to be torture, it must rise to a higher level than that. People voluntarily play Russian roulette and get a rush out of it. Are they torturing themselves? I don’t think so.
It seems to me that the line between what someone might call torture and something that is simply annoying or discomforting varies between individuals. I would not consider withholding food from a prisoner for a week to be torture, but you can probably find someone to claim that it is. Taking away a prisoner’s clothes is not torture either. The concept of what constitutes torture is entirely subjective because people have different tolerances of pain and different reactions to stressful situations. I voluntarily decline anesthetic at the dentist office, but others might consider a dentist drilling on teeth without anesthetic to be torture.
If humanity and the most humane treatment of prisoners is what we are after, then this label of torture should be dropped. Your argument about the right to remain silent carries much more weight. An argument against coercive interrogation is much more effective. Then the semantic arguments cease. Just argue that coercive interrogation methods are immoral, and that information should be derived only through voluntary means. Treat the prisoner to a delicious dinner and offer him plenty of wine. Talk to him that way.
Many of the defenders of coercive interrogation- as you call it- have had a difficult time explaining why coercive interrogation should stop short of torture if coercive interrogation is so effective and necessary to prevent the next 9/11. They are trying to have it both ways- they want to permit coercive interrogation, but they don’t want to become torturers. In order to be effective, however, the detainee has to believe that the interrogation will go all the way if necessary; there is no stopping until he talks. Thus, I would argue that we must decide either to allow coercive interrogation whatever it takes or prohibited it altogether.
“I don’t see that the Right is “re-defining” anything. The line between coercive interrogation and torture clearly exists.”
Maybe there is a line between coercive interrogation and torture. But the question is are the enhanced interrogation techniques in fact torture.
If the Bush administration did not redefine torture there would have been no need for the torture memos of Bybee, Yoo and Gonzales. It would not have been necessary for Gonzales to write “Physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serous physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
If the Bush administration did not redefine torture then they would have simply referred interrogators to the manuals and definitions that had been in use since the end of WWII and which were consistent with international standards still in use.
The idea that it is the left or anyone else is defining enhance interrogation up to torture is false on its face. The Bush administration knew what they wanted to do was a war crime so they wrote phony memos redefining torture.
bigfatmike wrote: “If the Bush administration did not redefine torture then they would have simply referred interrogators to the manuals and definitions that had been in use since the end of WWII and which were consistent with international standards still in use.”
For it to be a “redefinition” of torture, you would have to show me prior legislation that defined waterboarding as torture. Show me any federal law that identifies waterboarding as torture. For it to be a crime, you need a law that is violated.
You guys just keep repeating this mantra that waterboarding is torture, but every document you produce fails to mention waterboarding is torture. I don’t think you guys are lying. I just think you do not do your homework and simply trust the lazy journalists at CNN or the New York Times who misrepresent the truth.
If a federal law was clearly violated by the CIA waterboarding prisoners, then you should be able to cite the law that was violated. Why is nobody doing citing that law? Because it does not exist. All you have are authority figures who say “they believe” such and such law was violated. In other words, their personal interpretation of the law would include waterboarding.
Previously Mike Appleton provided the federal statute on torture. Here it is again:
http://psm.du.edu/media/documents/us_regulations/federal_law/us_law_federal%20torture_statute.pdf
Guess what. Nowhere does it mention water or waterboarding. Some people are going to read that law and their bias and perspective leads them to think waterboarding is included in that definition. Others read it and say, no, waterboarding is not painful and causes no lasting harm, so while it is uncomfortable and annoying and even scary, it really isn’t torture.
Did the Bush administration define waterboarding as not being torture? Of course they did. They defined specifics lacking in the statutes. But for it to be a “redefinition,” you have to show that previously the law declared waterboarding to be torture. It never did as far as I can tell.
The revision of the Army Field Manual to prohibit waterboarding was done under the Bush administration in 2006. Unfortunately, the manual applied only to the army and not to the CIA. But it points out that the REDEFINING is being done recently by those who want to stop the practice of waterboarding. You talk like the prior manuals defined it as torture and prohibited it, but the truth is that it is the more recent manual that prohibits the practice. When Holder became Attorney General under the Obama administration, he is the one who redefined waterboarding as torture for the Justice Department. The prior AG made no determination about it. Did some people prior to and during the Bush administration think that waterboarding was torture? Of course, but not everybody. There has never been any agreement in law that I can find that identifies waterboarding as torture. It certainly is the White House policy today to consider it torture, but the law still fails to identify it as such.
Please, just reference the law between WWII and the Bush Administration that defined waterboarding alone as torture and made it illegal. Then you will have proven your assertion. Otherwise, I don’t believe you are telling the truth.
“Please, just reference the law between WWII and the Bush Administration that defined waterboarding alone as torture and made it illegal. ”
The core of your argument seems to be that water boarding is not mentioned in the statute, therefore it could not be torture.
But that is pure sophistry. You know the statute mentions no specific methods of torture. Does that mean there is no torture? Of course not.
The statute describes torture so that we can identify methods and procedures that count a torture. For example: ” “‘torture’’ means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering”
It is intended to provide flexibility so that methods of torture can be identified as creative minds bring methods of torture to application.
Prior to the phony memos of the Bush administration there was no question that water boarding was torture. There still is no question except for apologist defending Bush, Cheney, Gonzales, Bybee, Yoo and a few others.
bigfatmike wrote: “The core of your argument seems to be that water boarding is not mentioned in the statute, therefore it could not be torture.”
No. My argument is that the statute does not define what “severe pain” is. Therefore, it is up to policies and regulations to define it for us. That is what the Bush administration did. Waterboarding was defined as enhanced interrogation and not torture. Everywhere Bush went, he reiterated that we do NOT torture our prisoners. For some reason, you never got his memo.
Now we have a new administration, and they define waterboarding as torture and prohibit it. That is like defining a penalty in Obamacare and swearing to the American public there will be not one tax in Obamacare, only to have the Supreme Court come along and define the penalty as a tax. In any case, the administration defines waterboarding as torture, they have the right to define it that way and prohibit its use, so that is the way it is now. When we get a new administration, that might change.
I can’t see waterboarding as torture because it does not cause severe pain. It seems to me that it is mostly wimpy lightweights who define waterboarding as torture.
Nevertheless, having said all that, I agree with the right to silence argument and the prohibition of coercive interrogation. Such methods are too ripe for abuse. Why can’t we all just agree on the same policy but for different rational reasons? I don’t see why you have to convince me that waterboarding is torture in order to agree with me that we should not be waterboarding prisoners as a method of interrogation.
What people need to consider is that this Senate report and other gossipy opinions being expressed recently are a strategy to shift people’s attention away from Obama’s failed foreign policy that led to Iraq doing exactly what President Bush predicted would happen if we pulled out of there too soon. ISIS is an embarrassment to Democrats who waffled on Iraq.
It’s nice that all of you people can sit back and be so self righteous – particularly when someone else is putting it on the line so you can be safe and hateful. How would you act if one of those vile freaks was getting ready to cut your head off and no one did anything to help you?
” How would you act if one of those vile freaks was getting ready to cut your head off and no one did anything to help you?”
I think we have been clear. We expect the appropriate forces of this country to take strong action to rescue the hostage and deal with the perpetrators.
How, exactly, is it that you think torture would be of any use?
We know torture is less effective than other techniques in producing actionable intelligence. In fact, we have examples where torture stopped the flow of intelligence – torture prevented us from getting cooperation that might have provided useful information.
Over the centuries torture has never proved effective at preventing violence – from Scots hundreds of years ago to partisans in Europe battling the German military, torture did nothing to prevent ordinary people battling for their cause. If anything torture incites rather than intimidates.
Finally, what is the point of using torture for revenge? If we capture perpetrators why not prosecute them and let the world see that even if delayed, justice is certain?
Again, what, exactly, is the argument for torture. I can’t think of one thing torture can do for us that we cannot do better with another tactic or technique.
So far the only argument produced to justify torture is the other guy is really, really bad.
I for one, would rather used techniques we know give us a better chance to overcome and bring to justice those who are really, really bad.
Trying to out do our adversaries with really brutal, stupid and senseless acts like torture has no appeal for me at all – none at all.
When it comes to weapons for battle, my criteria is effectiveness, tools to get the job done.
I choose effective means to gather intelligence, not torture.
I choose effective methods to convince our adversaries to join us, not torture.
I choose effective methods to destroy or capture our adversaries, not torture;
I choose just methods to prosecute and punish the perpetrators, not torture.
Again why would anyone choose a stupid, brutal and ineffective, criminal and reviled method like torture – unless you are trying to make our adversaries look better and seem more likable?
Isn’t it time we brought the war criminal to justice? Isn’t it time we turn the architects of this criminal policy over to the international organizations that have the recognized authority to deal with war criminals? Isn’t it time we do the right thing?
U.N. Court, for First Time, Defines Rape as War Crime
By MARLISE SIMONS
Published: June 28, 1996
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/06/28/world/un-court-for-first-time-defines-rape-as-war-crime.html
Rape, Murder and Genocide: Nazi War Crimes as Described by German Soldiers
The myth that the Nazi-era German armed forces, the Wehrmacht, was not involved in war crimes persisted for decades after the war. Now two German researchers have destroyed it once and for all. Newly published conversations between German prisoners of war, secretly recorded by the Allies, reveal horrifying details of violence against civilians, rape and genocide.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/rape-murder-and-genocide-nazi-war-crimes-as-described-by-german-soldiers-a-755385.html
Max -1 – I had to read the whole article (little of which was new) to get to the key conclusion, that 5% of the German Army were sociopaths. Of course, this would be about the same amount as the US Army.
The above document is in reference to this case:
Feds make shocking new torture allegations vs. ex-Chicago cop
http://www.suntimes.com/news/24840656-418/feds-make-shocking-new-torture-allegations-against-former-chicago-cop.html#.VIuapzHF9vE
If torture isn’t illegal in America, explain this:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
STEVEN MANDELL,
formerly known as “Steven Manning”
No. 12 CR 842
Hon. Amy J. St. Eve
http://www.suntimes.com/csp/cms/sites/STM/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=VZjFhOo1d4Dxm75$6K_xdmz4HMxoNCN1X0IloFWmgvVV2GhumTPilGkMrB_ySyyxjMpqdV2Mso4mH6beQ6T6p6cn$IfHvVpaPD23r0DuAcZaTfjnUETyN4ze2Kxdkdy8&CONTENTTYPE=application/pdf&CONTENTDISPOSITION=mandell-CST-010914.pdf
“Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause… for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country.”
— George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775
http://www.aol.com/article/2014/12/11/senator-bush-misled-nation-in-run-up-to-iraq-war/21115130/?cps=gravity
Senator: Bush misled nation in run-up to Iraq war
There was a concerted campaign on the part of the Bush administration to connect Iraq in the public mind with the horror of the Sept. 11 attacks. That campaign succeeded,” said Levin, who cited opinion polls from that time showing many Americans believed former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks. “Of course, connections between Saddam and 9/11 or al-Qaida were fiction.”
He referenced a Dec. 9, 2001, appearance by Vice President Dick Cheney on “Meet the Press.” Cheney said: “It’s been pretty well confirmed that he (Atta) did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack.”
“Far from ‘pretty well confirmed,’ there was almost no evidence that such a meeting took place,” Levin said. “Just a single, unsubstantiated report, from a single source, and a mountain of information indicating there was no such meeting. … Travel and other records indicated that Atta was almost certainly in the United States at the time of the purported meeting in Prague.”
Levin released a letter he received earlier this year from CIA Director John Brennan. In the letter, Brennan offered this statement from the cable: “(T)here is not one USG (U.S. government counterterrorism) or FBI expert that . has said they have evidence or ‘know’ that (Atta) was indeed (in Prague). In fact, the analysis has been quite the opposite.”
Levin has asked previous CIA directors to declassify the entire March 13, 2003, cable to no avail and has called on Brennan to fully declassify it too.”
The torture was o=done on Bush’s watch. he knew it was being one. Obama stopped it in 09. So exactly who is the president who should have been impeached and brought to trial?
(You may not like that it is Senator Levin but that does not negate the informatuion he provides. If it is not true all the CIA has to do is declassify the info.)
leejcaroll, the AP article by Deb Riechmann claiming that Bush attempted to tie Iraq to 911 is bogus. Senator Levin should be ashamed of himself. I remember Bush being very clear to come out and say that Iraq was not connected to 911. His point was that Iraq was a haven for terrorists. The bogus report you shared focuses upon some marginal statement by Cheney about Atta being in Prague (which has been confirmed by surveillance but it was a “secret meeting” that is questionable). Unfortunately, that only shifts focus away from what Bush was really talking about. Al-Zarqawi was the real person of interest. He had started Al Qaeda in Iraq and had a strong presence there. It was his organization in Iraq, with direct ties to Bin-Laden in Afghanistan, that was the focus of the Bush administration. It is strange how short people’s memories are.
What we should really be worried about is that every administration gradually moves the nation in an unconstitutional direction and we are not correcting course.
Every president and Congress stray a little further since the 1970’s so-called War on Drugs but never give that power back. Judges allow them to do it.
Our current U.S. Supreme Court has a duty to correct course by providing judicial review.
Obama will never be impeached. He could kill an albino and eat him on television and still not be impeached.
There is nothing he can do…no law he could break….that would ever cause the Democrats and liberals to agree to impeach and remove him from office.
“There is nothing he can do…no law he could break….that would ever cause the Democrats and liberals to agree to impeach and remove him from office.”
What has he done except make some people really, really mad?
Some have claimed that loosing at the supreme court is grounds for impeachment. But if being on the wrong side of a supreme court argument was grounds for impeachment we would have to go back and impeach them all – some of them several times over.
Our elected representatives can do what ever they want. But when it comes to high crimes and misdemeanors, that is a whole ‘nother thing altogether.
BTW, it would crack me up to watch republicans take that right of center corporate lap dog out of office. You guys would have wall street and big corporations screaming bloody murder if you put so much as a finger on their man.
One big reason we should all oppose torture, cruelty, excessive secrecy and warrantless activities is it will (and has) be turned around on us! It corrupts the entire American justice system that will harm you and your children.
If you have no regard for other people, it will be used on Americans also. Once you allow government agencies to bypass the constitutional rule of law whenever they feel like it – they will do the same to you!
If we treat the most unpopular foreign suspects humanely and using a fair judicial process, it forces the government to become legitimate again in it’s dealings with you also.
Jeff,
Who is applauding torture? For that matter who is applauding war? It’s not as though anyone is giving a standing ovation over being told they are an irrelevant branch of government. Now for the citizens; that’s torture.
It’s all well and good to have these theoretical debates on the (im)morality of torture but I’ll repeat; not one of you would take anything off the table to save innocent lives, especially your own or your family.
In the real world, we have ‘civilized’ enemies and we have ‘barbaric’ enemies. This is not a game of Risk; the civilized enemy might roll the dice but the barbarians would rather cut your head off and drag your corpse around for a while. You don’t tell your enemy who’s coming to fight, when they will fight, where, with what and how and you most certainly don’t tell them when you’ll be done.
Drop the impeachment talk. He’s a terrible president but he shouldn’t be impeached.
Justagurl,
“What exactly would Obama be Impeached for??? Can you please specify???”
Here are a few reasons for impeachment that come to mind: conducting unauthorized war in Libya (and elsewhere–like Yemen, Pakistan), killing of at least 2 American citizens without due process, not upholding the rule of law by not prosecuting those who conducted torture, changing the law unilaterally, NSA spying on Americans which violates our rights.
For anyone who still thinks torture yields actionable intelligence, I respectfully suggest going back and reading my December 2013 article, We have ways of making you talk….
If I can ever come up for air from work, I have plans to reprise that article with later information, in view of the report released this week.
Thanks Chuck. I forgot about that one. A little light on the subject never hurts – except maybe the torturers.
Herewegoagain, my point was why was it announced without announcing a replacement and beginning the process? So I assume there was a political reason.
What are those 3 Supreme Court Rulings???