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.
Deny it all you want, but there is not one person in this blog that would stop short of breaking the law to save an innocent family member.
Annie
This admission of Bushes came after he denied knowing that it happened. When he “realized” it, his song and dance turned first to denouncing it THEN excusing it.
There’s only one reason someone excuses the illegal acts of their subordinates…
“… When America does it that means that it is not bad.”
Our enemy hopes we don’t and therefore embolden them because they know, if caught, we treat them like cupcakes. So who is more scared of who?
The degree of torture isn’t what makes the act of torture illegal. IF that were the measure, then everything would be torture lite.
http://youtu.be/TWHfHTGr6TI
Bush says waterboarding is legal because the lawyers said it was legal.
davidm:
Here are some places to start:
http://www.aclu.org/files/projects/foiasearch/pdf/DOJOLC000062.pdf
http://psm.du.edu/media/documents/us_regulations/federal_law/us_law_federal%20torture_statute.pdf
The foregoing links are to the federal torture statute and a December 30, 2004 DOJ legal memorandum on the applicable standards under the statute.
You can also read United States v. Lee, 744 F.3d 789 (5th Cir. 1996), upholding convictions against a Texas sheriff and several deputies for waterboarding a prisoner to secure a confession. They went to prison.
There are cases from various state courts on the topic. You should also be aware that we court martialed soldiers in 1902 for waterboarding Filipino prisoners of war in the Spanish-American War.
Internet searches will reveal tons of relevant information on the subject. The problem is that most people don’t want to do the work of reading it. What I have cited is domestic law. There is a wealth of treaty law as well.
Mike Appleton, thanks for the homework.
The first link only mentions waterboarding once, and it is in the context of other behavior that is unquestionably painful (i.e., “(concluding that a course of conduct that included, among other things, severe beatings of plaintiff, repeated threats of death and electric shock, sleep deprivation, extended shackling to a cot (at times with a towel over his nose and mouth and water poured down his nostrils)…”).
The second link does not mention water or waterboarding anywhere. It defines torture in the context of inflicting pain. We have already established that waterboarding does not cause pain. So I don’t see how it helps us define waterboarding as torture.
Still trying to find the United States v. Lee. Seems that there is a tax case with the same title and also a firearms case. I don’t have the same access to legal databases that you lawyers do.
Well Annie, if women were his natural target instead of young boys…
… He might suggest to lop off their breasts.
@ bigfatmike ~ We have more torture of innocent victims of crime here in the USA than the CIA did to any Guantanamo Bay detainee.
One such story below;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-police-man-accused-of-battering-burning-cousin-with-hot-wax-20141017-story.html
@Msjettexas: “We have more torture of innocent victims of crime here in the USA than the CIA did to any Guantanamo Bay detainee. ”
Perhaps you did not notice but the news story you cited was about a crime. The man was arrested.
Even if you believe we have more torture of innocent victims than the CIA tortured at Guantanamo, why would that suggest we should allow war criminals to go free? Why would we ignore the criminals at Guantanamo or all the dark prisons world wide.
If we take your news example as a model then it seems to me the guidance suggested is that we must prosecute war criminals.
Which is what I believe in any case. I have some sympathy for the low levels guys that actually did the deed. After all they were lied to by superiors. But the architects of the policy, the Bybee’s, Yoo’s, Cheney’s must be prosecuted.
There was no question that these acts were torture and crimes of war prior to their obfuscations that lead, and sometimes pressured, others to commit crimes.
Does anyone else remember to news stories of FBI agents and others who tried to report the treatment of detainees as crimes.
Does anyone else remember FBI agents being withdrawn from joint tasks forces because of recognition that the techniques were criminal acts.
Does anyone else remember the comments of military officers who raised questions because they knew that before interference by high administration official these acts were clear violations of the US Code of Military Justice.
It might take a minute to google those news stories. But I remember some of the details. Before the phoney law memos there was no question that these techniques are war crimes. FBI agents knew it and refused to cooperate – to their credit. Military men knew it and some of them spoke out – to their credit.
Do you really think any of the architects of these policies could possibly gain an acquittal at an international war crimes trial? I think not!
Water boarding, stress positions, temperature extremes are all war crimes.
The only question is will we prosecute the architects and leaders who designed and implemented these criminal policies?
Whereas we define the bad guys by what they do…
… When America does it that means that it is not bad.
Max, I don’t have any, but that sure sounds like torture to me.
Bad guys torture.
http://youtu.be/hn1VxaMEjRU
Are we at war with a civilized culture or are these the same barbarians that have plague mankind for centuries? They don’t conduct war as the former so do they respect the fact we do? Most likely the opposite reaction.
Annie
John Yoo: crushed testicles
I think the enemy will cut off their heads and post it on Youtube. Not just combatants. Aid workers. Christian Children.
Nothing we can do will ever make them anything but the horrible savages that they are.
Stop with the nonsense.
@Paul C. Schulte ~ ” (ah, what price we pay for beauty)”.
You said it! I have two gorgeous girls. They don’t need makeup and yet they spend an hour to ‘get ready’ to go anywhere. lol
Jill:
I have argued for years that all torture allegations should be investigated and prosecuted. I characterized my comment as speculation as to why I believe the President declined to instruct the DOJ to move ahead. I do not suggest that I agree with that decision because I don’t.
Mike A – what goes around, comes around. If I investigate my predecessor, then my successor will investigate me. It is better not to start the investigation.
http://youtu.be/bO2p0KHyzpw
John Yoo on torture.
@Inga~ “If the US uses torture on enemy combatants, how do you think they will treat our troops when captured? You don’t think its more likely they will be tortured in retaliation? Sheesh, think”
I think they don’t care one bit whether we use torture or not, their going to do what they want. Think ISIS will change their minds on torture and stop beheading people? Never!
Heck, we have more torture of innocent victims of crime here in the USA than the CIA did to any Guantanamo Bay detainee. One such story below;
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-police-man-accused-of-battering-burning-cousin-with-hot-wax-20141017-story.html
Mike A. I truly disagree that prosecutions of Bush/Cheney would have torn the country apart. As I quoted above, candidate Obama strongly condemned torture. It was one of the many lies he told to get elected. This stance against torture was the majority stance. It was only after he was elected and Obama’s followers failed to be honest about who they had just elected that we started hearing the idea you advance, that prosecutions would have torn the nation apart. No, they would not have done that. Bush and Cheney were not popular and the people had turned against torture. I consider this to be one of the most egregious failures of Democrats and other followers of Obama that people refused to hold Obama to account for lying and failing to follow the rule of law. He is excused and you are even now making an excuse for him.
I agree that we must face the truth. This includes Obama supporters who absolutely still cannot reckon with the fact that they were mistaken (in 2008) or willfully a part of murder and torture in the US by electing him in 2012. It has been so frustrating to those of us who saw through him in the beginning, that those who did not made every excuse for his behavior.
I’m sorry to speak this strongly to you because I believe you are a good man. But you are dead wrong to put up the idea of prosecutions tearing this nation apart. Then, it was doable because the people loved and adored Obama. Now, it is most likely not because people still refuse to hold Obama to account for his actions.
Msjettexas – corsets were laced so tight that you literally could not breathe, so you would faint (vapors) and be placed on a lounge chair to rest until you got your breath back. Some women were able to achieve an 18″ waist (the hour-glass figure). Some women would have the lower two ribs removed to make the waist smaller (ah, what price we pay for beauty).