Bizarre, Congress, Constitutional Law, Courts, Criminal law, Free Speech, International, Justice, Lawyering, Media, Military, Politics, Science, Society, Supreme Court, Uncategorized

The CIA Lost Its Soul and Took Ours With It

220px-John_Brennan_CIA_official_portrait

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.”

463 thoughts on “The CIA Lost Its Soul and Took Ours With It”

  1. Again, I cannot intelligently comment on this topic in any detail because I am very biased…and conflicted at the same time. I am no “arm chair general” experience wise, but I doubt my views at times…and cannot resolve them.

    I think rafflaw made his case, except for the title meme about the CIA losing its soul. The CIA has always been joined at the hip with DoD’s MAAG (in its various itrations), DoD Military Intelligence, DoD’s SOCOM (and its predecessors), Department of State’s embassies and consulates, USAID, and Congress…and some others I may have missed. That’s not to say I agree with rafflaw overall…but he raises valid points without hysterics. To say the CIA lost its way is to ignore who traveled with them, in the past and now. Circa 2001 the CIA was ineffectual, some say, but that was a result of the collaboration I cite (post Vietnam and post Bosnia etc.)…e.g., they were expected to be in the back ground. The truth is that the CIA has never acted alone and never will.

  2. DARREN,
    WHY did you delete my comment which was merely a response to Barkin Dog’s comment in which he wondered if Cheney had anything to do with 911?
    If you and the author are sure that you know the truth about 9-11, then why are you so afraid of questions about it?

  3. Trooper, Over 60% of Americans are fine w/ these techniques. When we get hit again, 70-80% will be fine. If these hand wringers had a child held by a terrorist, or just some shitbird, they would be JUST FINE w/ these techniques and even real torture, like cutting off fingers, to find out where the child is held. MTP did a piece today on the people conducting these VERY arbitrary drone strikes. They are fudging their undies if someone like an Elizabeth Warren ever became prez. Of course, that ain’t gonna happen. But, there are no guarantees in this world. What is so apparent is these hand wringers are clueless about history. Patton had a “no prisoners” policy. WTF do they think his troops did w/ those Nazis??? You can’t fix stupid.

  4. “Pope John Paul II, in his encyclical, “Veritatis Splendor,” included  “physical and mental torture” in his long list of social evils which are not only  shameful but also “ intrinsically evil.” In their 2007 document, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued: “A prime example (of intrinsically evil actions) is the intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion and euthanasia. Direct threats to the sanctity and dignity of human life, such as human cloning and destructive research on human embryos are also intrinsically evil. Other direct assaults on innocent human life and violations of human dignity, such as genocide, torture, racism and the targeting of noncombatants in acts of terror war, can never be justified.”
      “The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church” asserts that the “prohibition against torture” is a principle that “cannot be contravened under any circumstances” (No. 404). It quotes Pope John Paul II as saying:” Christ’s disciple refuses every recourse to such methods, which nothing can justify.” Pope Benedict XVI, in a 2007 talk to Catholic prison ministers, directly quoted the “Compendium.” He asserted: “Means of punishment or correction that either undermine or debase the dignity of prisoners” must be avoided.
    The U.S. bishops commissioned, in 2008, a pastorally helpful document, “Torture is a Moral Issue: A Catholic Study Guide,” which insists that human dignity can never — even in an enemy — be violated by torture. They warn against allowing the end to justify the means or resorting to desperate measures in  desperate times. They urge us to listen to the voices of survivors of torture. They counsel against allowing euphemisms such as “enhanced interrogation methods” to paper over the resort to torture.”

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/deaconsbench/2014/12/a-timely-reminder-torture-is-intrinsically-evil/

    1. Inga – you have the termidity to call on the Catholic Church to condemn torture? The same church that supported the Inquisition? Well, we’ve come a long way, baby.

      1. Elaine, maybe it’s a combination of humidity and temerity. You know all that water and hydration…..

  7. And to bring the thought experiment even closer to reality

    The further development of this example involves the case, where the fat man is, in fact, the villain who put these five people in peril. In this instance, pushing the villain to his death, especially to save five innocent people, seems not only morally justifiable but perhaps even imperative. This is essentially related to another famous thought experiment, known as ticking time bomb scenario, which forces one to choose between two morally questionable acts. Several papers argue that the ticking time bomb scenario is a mere variation of the trolley problem.

    IN this case the fat man DEFINITELY has to take the hit to save the rest.

    The point is that it is easy for those of us in our snug houses and protected little communities to make judgements about other’s actions, and when the perception of danger has passed. Crying foul at the people who protected them to the best of their ability……. I might mention those same people who would cry the loudest if no one actually did try to protect them. You just can’t win with some people.

    However, when you are in the middle of the fray, on the front lines. charged with saving the majority of the people, you make decisions that are not palatable. Are those decisions always the right ones? Not necessarily. , but which are the ones you HAVE to make at the time.

    Fat evil man or the innocents on the track?

  8. I sincerely doubt that there is one person here who likes the idea of enhanced interrogation techniques. I can’t imagine that there is anyone who things that torture is a grand idea.

    However, when we are in a situation where if you do nothing many innocent people will die or if you do “persuade” informants to give up information you may be able to save thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands….to do nothing is worse.

    As I posted in the other thread this situation is similar to the classic ethical dilemma presented in college classes (assuming they teach anything anymore).

    There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?

    Would you flip the switch? Would you do the unthinkable to save the greater number of people. Or would you stand on your principles and let them get killed?

    http://neuroethicscanada.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/trolley-switch.jpg

    Another variation is this:

    As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

    This is probably closer to the CIA situation.

    The CIA may have gone overboard and actually tortured. However, as one of those hypothetical group of people standing on the tracks. I’m sorry, but the fat man has to go.

    War is ugly. War is hell. Bad things happen in war.

  9. Well Nick some of these mooks are worried that people who cut the heads off of Americans on Youtube might get hemorrhoids. Somehow I don’t think most Americans care about that.

  10. on 1, December 14, 2014 at 4:22 pmInga
    Sometimes we have to listen to people who sit in their easy boy loungers with a ham sandwich in one hand and a beer in the other and pontificate about what “we” Americans should be willing to stoop to in the name of national security, while at the same time the armchair generals yell about Obama allowing spying on US citizens and the use of drones. Many of us have already recognized the wrongness of all of these things, while others still cherry pick which issues to be outraged over. If its illegal and immoral it’s wrong no matter who does it.
    ****************
    Wrong, I mentioned it here.

  12. I like to pick out the cashews and walnuts from those nut mixes. All we got here are peanuts and filberts.

  13. Trooper, Their cult leader kills women and children w/ impunity w/ drone strikes on a DAILY basis. Not a peep!

  14. That no one will be getting prosecuted for these crimes is adding insult to injury. I suppose that perhaps shaming ourselves in front of the world will have to be punishment enough.

  15. ‘A LOT OF THESE GOMERS DIDN’T KNOW SHIT’: FORMER CIA OFFICER ON TORTURE REPORT

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/12/10/lot-gomers-didnt-know-shit-former-cia-officer-torture-report/

    Excerpt:
    “It doesn’t matter what tactics you use, you’re not going to get information if people don’t know anything and most of these Gomers didn’t know shit,” he said. “Who in the leadership was stupid enough to think they would? Why would these guys have detailed knowledge about plans and targeting? Even if they were hard-core jihadis who took part in operations, that doesn’t mean they would have knowledge of upcoming attacks.”

    Once the U.S. went into “the business of interrogation,” U.S. allies in the “war on terror” were encouraged to hand over suspects — and they did, no matter how flimsy the evidence. Lots of others were turned in by bounty hunters. And of course we know that a lot of people falsely dimed out their personal enemies or political rivals.

    Torture grew inevitably out of the militarization of the CIA that took place after 9/11, this former CIA officer said, when the agency was tasked with obtaining information to support battlefield needs. “That’s important but it’s tactical information and the military’s intelligence agencies should handle that,” he said. “The agency became more involved in interrogation than intelligence gathering. There’s a whole generation of young officers who think that intelligence gathering is getting information out of a guy shackled to a chair.”

  17. Who Are Jim Mitchell And Bruce Jessen? CIA Torture Psychologists Were Experts In Communist Chinese Interrogation

    http://m.ibtimes.com/who-are-jim-mitchell-bruce-jessen-cia-torture-psychologists-were-experts-communist-1747541

    Excerpt:
    The architects behind the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency’s brutal torture program were two retired Air Force psychologists considered masters in the art of coercion. Jim E. Mitchell, 63, and Bruce Jessen, 65, were paid upward of $80 million by the U.S. government to devise America’s boldest and most controversial counterterrorism operation in the country’s history that included methods such as mock burials, “rectal feeding” and waterboarding, according to a Senate report released Tuesday. Some of their methods — based on Korean War-era interrogation tactics used by Chinese Communists — were even too gruesome for the CIA.

    Neither man had ever carried out a real interrogation, had language skills or expertise on al Qaeda – the chief enemy in the war on terror – when the CIA handpicked Mitchell and Jessen to spearhead its supposed intelligence gathering program shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Their psychology backgrounds were in family therapy; their Ph.D. dissertations were on high blood pressure. The CIA’s methods were described in detail following a five-year investigation by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.

    1. Elaine – the North Koreans set up the style of interrogation that cracked John McCain. If the two psychologists were from that school then they knew what they needed to do.

  19. Barkin Dog —

    Surely you jest! Dick Cheneyi gave the order to NOT stop the plane on 9-11 that radar tracked headed towards the WH. WHY? Because that was the plane which flew OVER the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National airport & was reported by MSM as the plane that supposedly crashed into the Pentagon —but didn’t. NO PLANES crashed on 9-11.

  20. The Psychologists Who Taught the C.I.A. How to Torture (and Charged $180 Million)

    http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/12/psychologists-cia-torture-report

    Excerpt:
    The C.I.A.’s chief of interrogations, after seeing one of the interrogation plans devised by the psychologists, wrote to colleagues: “[t]his is a train wreak [sic] waiting to happen and I intend to get the hell off the train before it happens,” according to the report.

    The psychologists were playing so many different roles simultaneously that some C.I.A. and military staff became concerned about the apparent conflict of interest. One such warning, sent in a draft cable to C.I.A. headquarters, noted, “Another area of concern is the use of the psychologist as an interrogator. The role of the ops psychologist is to be a detached observer and serve as a check on the interrogator to prevent the interrogator from any unintentional excess of pressure which might cause permanent psychological harm to the subject.” But as the cable continued, “We note that [the proposed plan] contains a psychological interrogation assessment by psychologist [DUNBAR] which is to be carried out by interrogator [DUNBAR]. We have a problem with him conducting both roles simultaneously.”

    However, the conflict even exceeded the multiple roles played by the psychologists. Ultimately, according to the report, the C.I.A.’s Office of Medical Services raised concerns that the conflicts of interest were “nowhere more graphic than in the setting in which the same individuals applied an [enhanced interrogation technique] which only they were approved to employ, judged both its effectiveness and detainee resilience, and implicitly proposed continued use of the technique—at a daily compensation reported to be $1800/day, or four times that of interrogators who could not use the technique.”

    The psychologists were actually designing the torture, overseeing its implementation, assessing its effectiveness, and getting paid handsomely for it. Mitchell and Jessen’s consulting business was ultimately awarded $180 million in contracts by the C.I.A., $81 million of which was paid by the time the agreement was terminated in 2009, according to the report.

    1. Elaine – the price in your headline went from 81m to 181m. Don’t think Vanity Fair is going to be a reliable source on this,

Comments are closed.