Respectfully submitted by Lawrence E. Rafferty (rafflaw)-Weekend Contributor
This past week’s news reports of the Senate report on the CIA Torture program were both distressing and enlightening. I was dismayed to not only read what the full extent of the CIA’s Torture program was, but also when I read pundits and former CIA officials claim that rectal rehydration was merely a medical procedure! I was further discouraged when commenters on this blog made claims that waterboarding and other torture tactics were either necessary or what the devils deserved.
Very few pundits or commenters seem to care if the so-called Enhanced Interrogation techniques were legal or ethical when the CIA resorted to them shortly after 9/11. This “debate” over the actions taken in our name by the CIA has gone from a report based on the CIA’s own words to denials that the techniques were torture, to claims that great intelligence value was gained using the torture and claims that it was a biased report written by Democrats.
When we were attacked on September 11, 2001, most of the world was supporting the United States in its hours of grief and anger. What happened after the attacks quickly turned the tide of world opinion against us and created new enemies. When the CIA delved into its historical “playbook” to devise black sites and brutal interrogation techniques, the result, in my opinion, was a loss of our ethical and legal bearings that are still out of whack today.
When our greatest generation fought enemies stronger and just as brutal as what we face today, our forces were held to a higher standard than the enemy we were fighting. The idea that America does not torture or mistreat its prisoners or enemies is not a new one. It dates back at least to when General George Washington decided that British regulars and paid mercenaries fighting for the British were not to be mistreated in our detention facilities.
He made that decision knowing what too many of our soldiers had experienced under the hands of the British forces. We were supposed to be better than our enemies.
When the CIA delved into the black sites and torture techniques, another US agency, the FBI balked and questioned the tactics being practiced by the CIA. The FBI was gaining valuable information from al Qaeda operative, Abu Zubaydah, after his capture in March of 2002, but that all changed when he was put into isolation for 47 days.
“The Senate report describes the F.B.I. questioning — both in the hospital and later at the black site — as successful. Intelligence reports indicate he provided valuable information, but denied knowing anything about plots against America. But agency officials believed he was holding out. In response, Mr. Mitchell offered a menu of interrogation options.
While C.I.A. and Justice Department lawyers debated the legality of the tactics, the report reveals, Mr. Zubaydah was left alone in a cell in Thailand for 47 days. The Senate report asserts that isolation, not resistance, was the reason he stopped talking in June. Mr. Soufan said he was livid when he read that. “What kind of ticking-bomb scenario is this if you can leave him in isolation for 47 days?” he said.
For three weeks in August 2002, Mr. Zubaydah was questioned using the harshest measures available, including waterboarding. But the Senate report says he never revealed information about a plot against the United States. The C.I.A. concluded he had no such information.” New York Times
The CIA has used harsh interrogation and torture during past wars and conflicts and eventually the agency was brought under control. Waterboarding is torture, no matter what name it is given. Isolation, rectal rehydration, sleep deprivation, to name a few, are torture. We have prosecuted past enemies for waterboarding and even some of our soldiers who crossed the legal and moral line.
Why is it now only a crime if our enemies do it to us? Will we regain the soul of America again and finally get past partisan grievances to retake the moral standing of our nation?
We talk often on this blog about the rule of law. Whether it is a President who is grabbing more power for the Executive Branch or citizens of color who seemingly are undervalued by our Justice system. An argument can be made that ever since money starting taking control of our government, we have lost our rule of law because the wealthy and powerful seem to be immune to prosecution. Does the CIA stand above the rule of law?
Will the CIA be brought under control? Will government officials who authorized the torture and those that carried it out and those that refused to prosecute it be brought to justice? I submit that if we do not get control over the CIA our collective souls will continue to suffer in our eyes and in the eyes of the world. As Ali H. Soufan, the former FBI interrogator mentioned earlier says, our actions have consequences.
“‘We played into the enemy’s hand,” said Ali H. Soufan, a former F.B.I. agent who clashed with the C.I.A. over its interrogation tactics. “Now we have American hostages in orange jumpsuits because we put people in orange jumpsuits.”’ New York Times It is an overused phrase, but it fits here:
“The whole world is watching.”
Only we can resurrect the soul of America. We are better than torture. At least we used to be.
“The views expressed in this posting are the author’s alone and not those of the blog, the host, or other bloggers. As an open forum, weekend bloggers post independently without pre-approval or review. Content and any displays or art are solely their decision and responsibility.”
😆
Nick…good to read you take Inga’s side…how noble. Don Quixote would be proud.
“JT” it is…and I quit again again.
Dang again…M/i>…the “M” should have been “<" …duh.
I quit again 🙁
You name/title fight is quixotic. But, I too fight some quixotic battles. So, fight on Don Quixote, fight on.
As a teacher I taught at schools where I was expected to be called Mr. Schulte and some schools where it was proper to call me Paul. I refused to be called Mr. S. I knew the kids were trying to be nice, but it somehow grated at me.
Dang…even HTML eludes me today. M/i> should have been
I quit.
Nick…nope,, just frustration at a lack of manners.
Since I am in one of those irritable moods…let’s ask John Brennan what he was doing, from the White House, with that Annex in Benghazi? A clone of Robert Komer in LBJ’s daze? It isn’t like Brennan, whom I sort of likeM/i>, is a new guy in DC…like the rest in power, he came young and never left. However, he is privy to all that is CIA. And all that are connected to it. The current power dudes, in the Executive Branch and Congress, best hope he doesn’t spill his guts.
As I said: “Are we lost yet?”
Ari, You have a myopic view of respect. Hemorrhoids acting up?
Msjettexas…you realize of course that President Obama is merely the current house stooge for the cognoscenti … just dumb enough to be their pet. Other wise, I’d likely get along with him face to face…without his puppet masters running the show. Same for Bush 43…what you see is NOT what you get.
As I’ve mentioned before, the senior institutionalized bureaucrats run things, the office holder is merely a figure head. Why else is ex-VP Cheney still in the news? An old Nixon acolyte no less? Next term I expect Valerie Jarret to be the celebrity schmuck. H*ll, bring back Haldeman.
Are we lost yet? That jury is still out.
Msjettexas … uh, welcome the the heathen clan. 🙂
@Airdog ~
“BTW…much as I despise him, I still refer to the President as President Obama…unless I screw up…which I have, but acknowledge the screw up here and now. I abhor the man in the the office, however ignorant he is with his struggle to be “black”…I still respect the “office” he holds. I am less positive about those who voted to put him there”
I respect the office of the President and will refer to it as such but I cannot even upper case the p in president when referring to president Obama because I do not respect him. I can respect the office but not the man who holds the office.
Inga suggests…
Oy. Jesus Aridog. Many many many commenters interchange JT, Professor Turley, Jon, Jonathan, Mr.Turley at any given time.
Got it…that makes it right and respectful. Mob rule, right?
Hey “JT” …how you hangin’ these days!
That good enough?
F**k It.
@Aridog ~ You are so right about the day Gruber testified, this report comes out. Of coarse it was planned that way.
You are not old fashioned, you are well mannered. I think that art has been lost over time. I used to be a columnist, a side job I did for enjoyment, and my column was about etiquette. I would never address Prof. Turley as JT either. I have referred to him as Mr. Turley as well, but Professor was more appropriate. 🙂
Nick Spinelli said…
I use JT. “To each their own” is a phrase that covers many disagreements.
Good for you. That phrase is meaningless on the subject of respect.
BTW…much as I despise him, I still refer to the President as President Obama…unless I screw up…which I have, but acknowledge the screw up here and now. I abhor the man in the the office, however ignorant he is with his struggle to be “black”…I still respect the “office” he holds. I am less positive about those who voted to put him there.
Why is this subject an issue?
You do what you do … if I like it is meaningless.
Oy. Jesus Aridog. Many many many commenters interchange JT, Professor Turley, Jon, Jonathan, Mr.Turley at any given time. Quit being such an authoritarian. As Paul would say, “Your’re not the boss of us!” Oh Lordy, I must run now. This thread has veered into the ridiculous now. 😀
BTW… I still assert that the CIA never acts alone, and if any souls were lost, it was all of our government’s. The report by the Senate is cr*p.
But Dr Gruber is smothered, right? I mean, please, and hour or so before he testified? Sort of…like the dork he is, got paid and now says whoopsie? New “scandal” arrives just in time? Mission accomplished.
Inga said…
Many commenters use “JT”. JT hasn’t complained about it that I am aware of.
Why should he have to complain about it? Why should you need to be aware of it? That “many ” do it does not excuse the disrespect and the presumption of personal affinity that it implies. You tell me who knows him face to face on a personal level over time and I’ll recant…in their cases only. Until he invites me over for dinner and we spend personal time together, he’s going to be “Professor Turley” to me. Most likely even after all that. Now if he also invites Megyn Kelly and we jive, all the better. 😉 Then we can talk sh*t.
Honestly, I do not understand this…YMMV
I use JT. “To each their own” is a phrase that covers many disagreements.
I just completed a post, but hadn’t touched “Post Comment” and it disappeared. Is there a way to retrieve it?
The US military vet, Bradley Stone, was just found dead in Pa. It is the headline story, breaking news, currently on TV and print media. This story and the school massacre in Pakistan are the 2 dominant stories currently. To even intimate this story was/is “sight unseen” is blatantly false.