More Interrogation Documents And The "Fundamental Disservice"
Word came yesterday that House Democrats are still seeking more once-classified documents about the Bush Administration's harsh interrogation program--in this case, the May 2005 memo by a State Department lawyer contesting the legal reasoning of Justice Department lawyers. According to the author of the memo, Philip Zelikow, White House officials once attempted to "collect and destroy all copies of my memo."
As interesting as this memo will be, its substance will be relatively academic--a counterargument to controversial legal reasoning. It is likely to lack what is most needed: more information on what actually happened to the detainees and how effective the techniques were. The document I most want to read is the 2004 CIA Inspector General report, which apparently caused a significant uproar in the Bush Administration, since it concluded that the harsh techniques were of dubious effectiveness, that they were conducted under insufficient medical supervision and that they went far beyond the training techniques that the White House used to argue that the program did not involve torture.
The most galling misinformation in this latest round of debates over harsh interrogation is the claim by several Bush Administration defenders, including the greater Cheney clan, that what the CIA did to high-value detainees cannot be considered torture because these same techniques are used in training on U.S. Servicemen. A couple weeks ago, Liz Cheney, a former State Department official and second daughter, explained it this way on MSNBC:
Everything that was done in this program, as has been laid out and described before, are tactics that our own people go through in SERE training. And that our own people have gone through for many years. So it really does a fundamental disservice to those professionals who were conducting this very effective program--and to those people who approved the program in order to keep this nation safe and prevented attacks through the program--to call it torture.
Cheney's statement here, with respect to the nature of the "tactics," is false, according to snippets of the CIA IG report that were cited in the recently released 2005 Justice Department memos.
"Individuals undergoing SERE training are obviously in a very different situation from detainees undergoing interrogation; SERE trainees know it is part of a training program," wrote Steven Bradbury, the author of two of the 2005 Justice Department memos.
But here is the most important part, which should be read back to anyone who claims that the U.S. only employed those techniques that it was willing to use on its own soldiers. Citing the IG report, Bradbury wrote in 2005:
The waterboard technique . . . was different from the technique described in the DOJ opinion and used in the SERE training . . . At the SERE school . . . the subject's airflow is disrupted by the firm application of a damp cloth over the air passages; the interrogator applies a small amount of water to the cloth in a controlled manner. By contrast, the Agency interrogator . . . applied large volumes of water to a cloth that covered the detainee's mouth and nose. . . . OMS [The CIA Office of Medical Services] contends that the expertise of the SERE psychologist/interrogators on the waterboard was probably misrepresented at the time, as the SERE waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency usage as to make it almost irrelevant.
The ACLU has said that it continues to seek, in court, a significantly unredacted version of the CIA IG report.
-
1
It is likely to lack what is most needed: more information on what actually happened to the detainees and how effective the techniques were.
.
No, Michael, but it WILL drive a stake throught the heart of the argument presented by the last bunch that the guidance presented in supprt of the techniques was accepted as valid by all concerned. -
2
The fact that they apparently tried to erase the existence of the contra-memo is pretty damning too.
.
Sounds like a bunch that already knew what they wanted to do and didn't want ANYONE telling them (or anyone else that was listening) that they couldn't. -
3
Every bit of information and every memo is just another piece of the puzzle. The picture gets clearer and clearer as another piece is added. They're laying the groundwork for trials. They're coming sooner or later. We all know that.
-
4
sacredh,
.
As long as there are real trials and not some "truth commission" whose conclusion would be a "yes, they did bad things but these people aren't in govt any more so let's put this all behind us and move on" type of nonsense. -
5
"It is likely to lack what is most needed: more information on what actually happened to the detainees and how effective the techniques were."
.
We know enough about what happened to know that it doesn't matter in the slightest "how effective" it was. What is wrong with you? -
6
It is likely to lack what is most needed: more information on what actually happened to the detainees and how effective the techniques were.
.
I'm not even remotely interested in "how effective the techniques were". Even if the techniques were "effective" (a claim that, I might add, remains dubious at best), that's still vastly outweighed by the abuses committed under this program, the damage this program has done to our reputation at home and abroad, and the recruiting opportunity it has provided to our enemies. -
7
We know enough about what happened to know that it doesn't matter in the slightest "how effective" it was. What is wrong with you?
.
Where is Cincy??
.
Right now, we need his clarion call of "F**k you, Shearer, you worthless hack", the statement that kicked off many a Swampland discussion in the past after one of Michael's more egregious posts.
.
Anyone know where he is? We've missed him. -
8
Scherer
.
How effective these methods were only matters to mainstream media folks and pro torturists. Torture is illegal no matter how effective. Period. Full stop. What is truly needed is the IG Report which will confirm that what happened to these detainnees was in fact torture. Waterboarding in and of itself is torture. Funny how the media loves to quote John McCain when he is criticizing President Obama but this man said if you waterboarded even once its torture. John McCain specifically said that what Dick Cheney and the pro torturists have already acknowledged doing was torture. Torture is a crime. That's what it should and hopefully will come down to eventually. That you and others of your profession keep bringing up whether torture was efficient does a disservice to the memory of Ronald Reagan who signed into law the Conventions Against Torture. As you look through the Conventions Against Torture I ask that you try to find the section that says torture is ok as long as it works. When you find it let the rest of us know... -
9
It wasn't illegal according to Condiloozer Rice, though. Her "Nixon/Foster" moment with that 4th grader was a classic.
.
Of course, it's all the fault of the DOJ lawyers, wasn't it. Just like the CIA "misled" Bush on Saddams' WMD and all that.
.
They's eggspurts when it comes to duck, weave, and bob. Too bad that right hand shrivelled... -
10
F**k you, Shearer, you worthless hack.
.
TORTURE IS A CRIME. PERIOD. WHAT PART OF "CRIME" DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? -
11
I think the possibility is strong that there is going to be a truth commission and trials. The only thing I'm even concerned about is that the republicans finally will wise up and see the writing on the wall and go for a truth commission that grants immunity to those that should be standing trial.
-
12
FT: Tsk, tsk. My virgin ears have a trickle of blood trickling from them.
-
13
Sure, I'll pile on: What the heck does *effectiveness* have to do with torture? Heck, if it's so effective, why don't we just do more of it?
.
Why not just make it standard practice (again) in Iraq and Afghanistan? Maybe we should start torturing our own domestic criminals, too? Drug dealers? Petty thieves?
.
What do you say, Michael? If torture is deemed to be "effective," and if you can't even call torture what it is ("harsh interrogations" is a Bushworld word), then it seems like we might want to do more of it, not less. -
14
Filling Cinci's shoes takes a lot out of me.
-
15
There is a big difference between the question of whether these techniques constitute a violation of law and the question of what information these techniques produced. The questions should both be answered separately.
-
16
incandenza raises an interesting point.
.
I'm absolutely certain that Jim DeMint is hiding information from we, his constituents. Being states-rights folk down here in the Palmetto State, we reserve the right to convene a body of the people - posse commitatus - to investigate this matter. Why wouldn't we be allowed to use interrogation methods of proven effectivess? We can't just let Jim clam up until he feels like talking, can we? -
17
There is a big difference between the question of whether these techniques constitute a violation of law and the question of what information these techniques produced.
.
No, there isn't. Let's try this again.1. These techniques constitute a violation of law, therefore,
.
2. It makes no difference what their effectiveness may be. -
18
So, there's still a question in your mind if waterboarding constitutes "a violation of law," Michael? Even now that it's an established fact that waterboarding and other techniques were used? So let's get back to basics, shall we?
.
Is waterboarding torture? Is torture illegal?
.
I think you know the answers, Michael... so why pretend? If you don't know the answer, you might want to refer to the Geneva Conventions' Article 3, and the UN Convention on Torture. Let us know what you find out, okay? -
19
The questions should both be answered separately.
.
They cannot be and should not be answered seperately - evidence produced by torture is inadmissable in courts of law, IIRC.
.
I do really appreciate MS focusing attention on this topic. But we have every reason to believe that torture was not effective, and worse, the intent was never to produce good intelligence but rather false confessions to bolster the war in Iraq.
.
But we need to look harder to know for sure. -
20
I say if folks are that worried that prosecuting war crimes at a time when we are facing so many challenges, then let the Congressional committees investigate as long as they don't give anyone blanket immunity and wait until we've put these problems behind us then go for it. It's not as if the statute of limitations applies, we are still prosecuting nazis for god sake.
-
21
Scherer
.
Why no we need to know if they were effective? Seriously. Since you are engaging today answer that one question. What will knowing whether torture is effective or not do to help us? Or is it just your morbid curiosity? -
22
Michael-That's a serious mistake on your part. It does not matter how effective the torture was. If I broke into your house would it matter if I effectively stole everything you have?
-
23
There is a big difference between the question of whether these techniques constitute a violation of law and the question of what information these techniques produced.
.
Yes, there is a big difference between the two questions: the former is relevant, while the latter is not.
.
The questions should both be answered separately.
.
Why must both of these questions be answered? What purpose does it serve to know whether or not torture was effective, except to justify further such abuses? -
24
"There is a big difference between the question of whether these techniques constitute a violation of law and the question of what information these techniques produced. The questions should both be answered separately."
.
Sorry, but NO! What you are trying to do is produce an argument for not prosecuting. -
25
The rationalization of a criminal act does not affect the legality of the act. It's still a crime. It's still illegal. The effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the act has no bearing whatsoever on the commission of the crime. If the memos that were used to justify the torture are found to be illegal interpretations of the law themselves, the information gained has nothing to do with whether the act itself was legal. It's still a criminal act punishable by our laws.
- michaelscherer @alangrayson TIME told your story (http://bit.ly/cdG9qb), tho not how you would have told it, here: http://bit.ly/YSRHh - 2 hours ago
- michaelscherer RT @PElliottAP: Obama makes surprise visit to White House briefing room. Tune in. - 4 hours ago
- michaelscherer RT @ryssiebee: 92 magazine covers, 10 years, 2 minutes. http://bit.ly/5d7oCo - 7 hours ago
Most Popular »
- Undercover Boss Is Phony and Manipulative. But Don't Hold That Against It.
- NH Poll: Dems Face A Thumpin'
- NBC: There Was Never a Conan O'Brien
- Paul Ryan Won't Run For Prez In 2012
- Today's Health Care Checkup - GOP Plans Under the Spotlight
- CO Gov Poll: Hickenlooper +4
- Love At First Byte: Your Nerdy Valentine's Day Guide
- Do You Spend Less than $2,000 Annually on Internet, TV, Cell Phone Service, and Video Games?
- In The Spotlight, Paul Ryan Faces A Purity Test
- Barack Obama: Then vs. Now
- Asian Carp Battle: Foreign Fish Threaten Great Lakes
- Is the Bible Fact or Fiction? Archaeology's Discoveries
- Spain's Troubled Economy: Fears Over Euro Zone Outlook
- Kennewick Man, Archaeology Find: Who Discovered America?
- Al-Qaeda, Yemen, Wedding: Unlucky Name, Celebration
- Tea-Party Convention: Lessons on Palin and the Movement
- Venezuela: Chavez Protests at Ball Game Over Electricity
- Jim Frederick, Black Hearts in Iraq's Triangle of Death
- Why China Needs The U.S. -- And Vice Versa
- Marja: Operation Moshtarak Tests Obama's Afghan War Plan
Quotes of the Day »
RSS