SSCI votes to declassify Report on CIA Detention and Interrogation Program

@Greg:

A secret “enhanced interrogation” program, authorized by a president, where orders were later given to destroy evidence. . . What could possibly be shocking, when we already knew that much?

Greg,
I think your partisan brain is mis-remembering the actual facts and specifics surrounding that bit of controversy. 🙂

Jose Rodriguez covered it pretty thoroughly in his book, Hard Measures. He had full legal cover to destroy the video tapes in question (the transcripts of which were not destroyed). The only usefulness those tapes would serve would be for enemy propaganda (I have no doubt those interrogation sessions would be hard to sit through and watch by the squishy-hearted). And they would put the lives of CIA officials in those tapes at risk.

From my blogpost (citing Dana Priest of the WaPo):

Rodriguez writes that he ordered the tapes’ destruction because he got tired of waiting for his superiors to make a decision. They had at least twice given him the go-ahead, then backed off. In the meantime, a senior agency attorney cited “grave national security reasons” for destroying the material and said the tapes presented ‘“grave risk” to the personal safety of our officers” whose identities could be seen on the recordings.

In late April 2004, another event forced his hand, he writes. Photos of the abuse of prisoners by Army soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq ignited the Arab world and risked being confused with the CIA’s program, which was run very differently.

“We knew that if the photos of CIA officers conducting authorized EIT [enhanced interrogation techniques] ever got out, the difference between a legal, authorized, necessary, and safe program and the mindless actions of some MPs [military police] would be buried by the impact of the images.

“The propaganda damage to the image of America would be immense. But the main concern then, and always, was for the safety of my officers.”

Readers may disagree with much of what Rodriguez writes and with the importance of some of the facts he omits from his book, but the above sentence speaks volumes about why this book is important. In this case, a loyal civil servant — and the decision-makers above him who blessed these programs — were not thinking about the larger, longer-lasting damage to the core values of the United States that disclosure of these secrets might cause. They were thinking about the near term. About efficiency. About the safety of friends and colleagues. In their minds, they were thinking, too, about the safety of the country.

And after some back-and-forth with agency lawyers for what seemed to him the umpteenth time, he writes, Rodriguez scrutinized a cable to the field drafted by his chief of staff, ordering that the tapes be shredded in an industrial-strength machine. The tapes had already been reviewed, and copious written notes on their content had been taken.

“I was not depriving anyone of information about what was done or what was said,” he writes. “I was just getting rid of some ugly visuals that could put the lives of my people at risk.

“I took a deep breath of weary satisfaction and hit Send.”

You wrote:

It was already known by 2009 that 21 detainees had been beaten and tortured to death. We pretty much let that one slide.

I think you are confusing the CIA interrogation and detention program with that of military detention/interrogation. Two different beasts. Also, you should check out Marc Thiessen’s book that covers the specifics of a number of these cases of detainee deaths and abuses. The devil’s in the details.

It’s interesting that George W. Bush, Cheney, and other members of the Bush administration were granted immunity from any charges that might result in August, 2013.

Seriously?! What a farce!

I’ve got to acknowledge that this was done by the DOJ on Obama’s watch.

Any responsible succeeding administration and its DoJ would not have handled it much differently. Only political partisans and misguided bleeding hearts of the Kucinich and Medea Benjamin flavor are rankled over this.

@westie:
Torture has worked on people; but I agree, it’s unreliable. Which is why Cheney, Bush, CIA interrogators would all agree with you.

The purpose of EITs (only a handful out of a 100 in the CIA program ever received any form of EIT), if you’ve actually been paying attention and following closely (read the category archives, buddy) wasn’t to extract information or a confession but to achieve a state of cooperation.

Hmm…I’d really like to hear Nancy Pelosi weigh in, here. I’m sure she’d love to open her crusty pie-hole on this one, again.

And right on cue….

Former Vice President Dick Cheney is “proud” of the “tone and attitude” he set at the CIA, House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said Sunday on CNN’s State of the Union, amid growing tension between the Agency and the Senate Intelligence Committee over the declassification of a Bush-era torture report that the Senate says will show the CIA misled the American public.

“I do believe that during the Bush-Cheney administration, that Vice President Cheney set a tone and an attitude for the CIA,” Pelosi said. “Many people in the CIA are so patriotic, they protect our country in a way to avoid violence, etc. But the attitude that was there was very…I think it came from Dick Cheney. That’s what I believe.”

“I think he’s proud of it,” Pelosi added.

Moments later, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers called Pelosi out for politicizing the controversy over the report ahead of the 2014 midterm elections.

“What worries me about that more than any other statement is that politicizes this in a way that’s horribly counterproductive and likely to lead people to the wrong conclusions,” Rogers said on State of the Union.

“Why now, in an election year, would you bring this up and then to say this is about Dick Cheney…clearly when you say things like that it becomes highly charged politically,” Rogers said, cautioning that the report “is not the Holly Grail, it doesn’t answer all the questions” surrounding the controversial use of enhanced interrogation techniques.

The Senate Intelligence Committee voted Thursday to declassify parts of its torture report, which Committee Chair Dianne Feinstein said “exposes brutality that stands in stark contrast to our values as a nation.”

The CIA and the Intelligence Committee sparred in March over accusations that the CIA spied on Senate staffers working on the report, while the CIA charged the Senate with unauthorized access to classified documents.

I love how MSNBC just nonchalantly labels it a “torture report”.

@Aqua: You picked up Thiessen’s book, if I remember correctly. I think most people are only familiar with the arguments and framing of the debate through the critics.

@Greg:

Over 100 waterboarding sessions in the case of one particular captive, but Rodriguez states—specifically in reference to that bit particular bit of information—that “it was not torture.”

Think about that for a moment. One individual, waterboarded over 100 times, but “it was not torture.” How can anyone unquestioningly believe such an absurd assertion?

Because maybe it’s an inaccurate statement to claim an HVT received “100 sessions” of waterboarding; and if he had endured that many sessions without “breaking”, then it probably really wasn’t all that torturous now, was it? 😉

I think I saw the interview (was it CNN or MSNBC?) where the talking head (cant’ remember who he was) mentioned the 100 number. He’s off in his numbers. I think it was 183 drips/pours for KSM and maybe something like 83 for Zubaydah. (Yup, just looked it up).

Of course you’d already know all of this if you’ve been actually following this closely. Instead, we’re rehashing old news information. I can’t remember, but have you read any of my previous posts?

The fact that it was formally determined to be legal suggests nothing more than that our laws may have been subverted.

And because it was formerly deemed legal, none of the CIA officials involved in the program should retroactively be punished nor prosecuted so long as they abided within the parameters of the established guidelines.

That Rodriguez was himself involved disqualifies him as an objective witness concerning the morality and legality of the act, because he’s defending what he himself took part in.

Nonsense. Then you should disqualify Ali Soufan’s opinion as well; because he’s certainly partisan on the matter and has a certain level of involvement in the early days. I think his is an important voice that should be weighed in. But make no mistakes about his non-objectivity.

For years, those directly involved were not able to openly speak out in defense of the program because of its secrecy (until President Obama released details of the OLC memos); so much of the narrative was shaped by the critics. The ones most knowledgeable are the ones intimately involved. Not all of them agreed with the CIA program; but others felt it did indeed save lives.

Mike Hayden became CIA director in 2006. He had not been around when the CIA program was created; and came in after it had been suspended. Yet he became a supporter. Mike McConnell also came on board late in the game and was no Bush loyalist. Yet after doing his research, he became a defender of the program.

By the description of the news articles linked above, it appears that Senate Republicans did not participate in the investigation; nor were some key CIA officials directly involved with the program interviewed or sought after for their point of view. So should we believe this Report is anything but partisan in its depiction?

What is at issue is whether the actual history should be revealed. Do we want to know the truth, or don’t we?

By all means, let’s hear it. But whose “truth” are we to believe, hmm?

Jose Rodriguez’ op-ed in WaPo:

Certain senators have proclaimed how devastating the findings are, saying the CIA’s program was unproductive, badly managed and misleadingly sold. Unlike the committee’s staff, I don’t have to examine the program through a rearview mirror. I was responsible for administering it, and I know that it produced critical intelligence that helped decimate al-Qaeda and save American lives.

The committee’s staff members started with a conclusion in 2009 and have chased supportive evidence ever since. They never spoke to me or other top CIA leaders involved in the program, or let us see the report. Without reviewing it, I cannot offer a detailed rebuttal. But there are things the public should consider.

The first is context. The detention and interrogation program was not built in a vacuum. It was created in the months after Sept. 11, 2001, when nearly 3,000 men, women and children were murdered. It was constructed shortly after Richard Reid narrowly missed bringing down an airliner with explosives hidden in his shoes. It continued while U.S. intelligence learned that rogue Pakistani scientists had met with Osama bin Laden to discuss the possibility of creating crude nuclear devices.

When we captured high-ranking al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida in 2002, we knew he could help us track down other terrorists and might provide information to allow us to stop another attack. Those who suggest we should have questioned him more gently have never felt the burden of protecting innocent lives.

Second is effectiveness. I don’t know what the committee thinks it found in the files, but I know what I saw in real time: a program that provided critical information about the operations and leadership of al-Qaeda. Intelligence work is like doing a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle without the picture on the box top and with millions of extra pieces. The committee staff started with the box top, the pieces in place, and pronounced the puzzle a snap.

The interrogation program was not flawless. But we identified and rectified our mistakes and, where appropriate, reported suspected wrongdoing to the Justice Department.

Third is authority. This program was approved at the highest levels of the government, judged legal by the Justice Department and regularly briefed to the leaders of our congressional oversight committees. There was never any effort to mislead the administration or Congress about the program. In 2006, then-CIA Director Michael Hayden expanded those fully briefed on the program to include all members of the intelligence oversight committees. It is a travesty that these efforts at transparency are now branded insufficient and misleading.

When portions of the report are released, I hope the CIA’s response, pointing out its flawed analysis, is also made public. But before anything is released, authorities must ensure that we don’t make the job of my successors, who are trying to prevent future terrorist attacks, any harder.

And you want to shut him up or dismiss him…why?

I have enough respect for both he and guys like Ali Soufan to take their opinions and perspectives seriously. Why can’t you?

Mike Hayden:

The motivations of Senate Intelligence Committee chairwoman Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) for compiling the report on the CIA’s interrogation and detention practices “may show deep, emotional feeling on the part of the senator,” he said, “but I don’t think it leads you to an objective report.”

Former deputy CIA director Michael Morell:

During an interview with Charlie Rose, Morell was asked about the report by Senate Intelligence Committee chairman Diane Feinstein alleging that no valuable information came from the CIA’s interrogation of captured al Qaeda leaders. Morell was prepared for the question, and had a brilliant and impassioned defense of the effectiveness and morality of the CIA’s actions. Here is part of what he said:

One of the interesting things, Charlie, is that some of the very people who are criticizing this program today were the ones who were briefed on it previously, and did not oppose it… The Department of Justice deemed that these techniques were legal … they deemed that these techniques were not torture. So it actually drives me crazy when people call it torture…. Calling it torture means that my officers tortured people. When my people used these techniques, the Department of Justice said this was not torture.

The effectiveness of this program has been questioned in terms of generating unique intelligence. I believe that the program was effective….

When we questioned Khalid Sheikh Mohammed about Abu Ahmed, the courier who eventually took us to bin Laden, he denied knowing Abu Ahmed. When he went back to his cell, we were monitoring him, and we heard him tell other detainees ‘Don’t say anything about the courier. Nobody say anything about the courier.’ That’s important information….

I’ve really studied this, and I believe the techniques were effective. I’ve looked at the information provided by detainees prior to the techniques and the information provided after the use of the techniques…. The information they provided prior to the techniques was limited, vague, not specific. After the techniques? Volumes of information, specific, actionable. There is a big difference.

So this is why this is not easy. The people who say it was not effective want this to be easy. Legal and effective. Then you get to the morality question. You get to the question of: is it okay to do these kinds of things to other human beings? And reasonable people can differ on that. And there is a reasonable debate to be had. But it’s very important, I think, for the American people to understand that when you have that debate about whether it’s ok to do this to other human beings, you also have to have the debate about the flip side of the coin Charlie, which is: if you don’t use these techniques Americans are going to die. What is the morality of that question?

This defense of the interrogation program is coming from a man being accused by some of protecting Barack Obama on Benghazi – so it cannot be dismissed as partisan.

Morell has read the entire 6,300 page report. He has read the CIA’s rebuttal. And has seen firsthand the intelligence the interrogation program produced. He knows it was effective.

And he hits the nail on the head in explaining why Feinstein and company are so desperate to call into question the effectiveness of the program. They know that if they concede that the interrogation program worked in keeping us safe, they lose the debate with the American people. But in trying to prove that point, they are – in the words of former CIA director Mike Hayden – becoming like “birthers” who deny that Obama is an American citizen and to 9/11 “truthers” who claim that 9/11 was a Bush administration plot.