Five Important Revelations From The CIA Inspector General Report
After years of delay, the CIA declassified a raft of documents Monday, with lots of detail about the Bush Administration's harsh treatment of detainees following the September 11 attacks. The biggest document, with the most new detail, is a 2004 report by the CIA Inspector General (CIA IG) that is highly critical of the CIA's enhanced interrogation program. Here are five new things you need to know about the disclosures:
1. The CIA IG concluded that the public had been misled about the interrogation program. While the report stops short of accusing any public official of lying, it makes clear that the public statements that the U.S. Government made about its conduct differed from what was actually happening, creating a liability for the CIA if the information ever got out. “The EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] used by the Agency under the CTC [Counterterrorist Center] Program are inconsistent with the public policy positions that the United States has taken regarding human rights,” the report reads. In particular, the IG notes that President Bush in June of 2003 issued a statement in observance of the “United Nations International Day In Support Of Victims of Torture.” The report quotes Bush's statement at length, including this assertion: “The United States is committed to the worldwide elimination of torture and we are leading this fight by example.” Later in the report, the IG writes: “Although the current detention and interrogation Program has been subject to DoJ [Department of Justice] legal review and Administration political approval, it diverges sharply from previous Agency policy and practice, rules that govern interrogations by U.S. military and law enforcement officers, statements of U.S. policy by the Department of State, and public statements by very senior U.S. officials, including the President.”
2. The CIA IG found that the CIA used waterboarding in a way that had not been approved by the Justice Department, calling into question the legality of the technique. In one passage, the IG notes that the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel had approved the waterboarding of detainees based on the assumption that the waterboarding would be similar to the practice used in a U.S. military training program. The IG quotes medical experts at the CIA asserting that the “the [U.S. military] waterboard experience is so different from the subsequent Agency use as to make it almost irrelevant.” An interrogator/psychologist who had helped to administer the program admitted the difference, saying the CIA use of waterboarding was “for real.” The differences included duration, frequency, the amount of water used, and the way air passages were obstructed.
3. The CIA IG repeatedly brought what it viewed as abuses or violations of law to the attention of Attorney General John Ashcroft and the Justice Department, without any positive result. After a review of the program determined that one detainee had been waterboarded “in a manner inconsistent with” the description of the technique in military training and in the Justice Department legal guidance, the matter was brought directly to Ashcroft by the CIA general counsel. According to the report, Ashcroft disagreed with the CIA IG assessment. Ashcroft responded by telling the CIA that he saw no problem with waterboarding one detainee 119 times, deciding that the “CIA is well within the scope of the DoJ opinion and the authority given to CIA by that opinion.” This is not the only difference of opinion between the Justice Department and the CIA IG. At another point, the IG reports to prosecutors that one CIA employee had threatened a detainee with a powerdrill and a handgun, both unauthorized techniques for which he did not seek approval. The Justice Department announced its decision not to prosecute this CIA employee on September 11, 2003, exactly two years after the attacks on New York and Washington D.C.
4. The CIA IG concluded that while high-value detainees did produce valuable intelligence, the measurement of the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques “is a more subjective process and not without some concern.” The CIA lists four reasons for this muddled view. First, “the Agency cannot determine with any certainty the totality of the intelligence the detainee actually possesses.” Second, “each detainee has different fears of and tolereace for” harsh techniques. Third, “the application of the same” harsh technique “by different interrogators may have different results.” The fourth reason that the effectiveness of harsh techniques could not be known objectively remains classified, and was redacted from the released document.
5. The initial harsh interrogation program, begun in 2002, was poorly managed, some interrogators were poorly trained and informed, and they used techniques that were substantially harsher than what had been approved by the White House and the Justice Department. “[T]he Agency—especially in the early months of the Program—failed to provide adequate staffing, guidance, and support to those involved with the detention and interrogation of detainees,” the report states. There were a number of episodes when people working for the CIA behaved outside of approved techniques. Perhaps the most serious case involved an Afghan citizen, who had been implicated in rocket attacks on U.S. military bases. Once captured, in June of 2003, the suspect was held at a military base. “During the four days the individual was detained, an Agency independent contractor, who was a paramilitary officer, is alleged to have severely beaten the detainee with a large metal flashlight and kicked him during interrogation sessions.” The detainee died in custody. The contractor, who had not been trained or authorized to conduct interrogations, received a relatively light punishment. He did not have his contract renewed by the CIA.
-
1
So now I'm forced to wonder. If this report paints John Ashcroft as being complacent (or complicit) in the face of repeated "simulated drownings" perhaps we should revisit whatever it was that he DID consider beyond the pale to the point of threatening resignation.
The mind reels.
MS:
Thanks for the coverage. This one area in particular where you seem to care strongly about what your doing.-
1.1
You are so gullible. Because your friends in the press merely suggest that Ashcroft had no qualms here, and was merrily, blithely traipsing down the path, that therefore that must be the plain truth.
.
I suspect that John Ashcroft's gut was in knots and his head ached long before this. Not because he thought it was wrong, but because he hated being the one making the decisions of where the line between right and wrong is, and he could never feel really sure that he had made the right decision.
.
Unlike just about everybody who posts to this blog.
-
-
2
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002340----000-.html
I know I'm in danger of sounding like a broken record but this is an important question. Since it is now being widely ackowleged that wielding a revolver and a power drill represents an illegal threat on a detainee's life, what possible leap of logic does it take to assert that waterboarding doesn't?
-
2.1
allow me to explain what is going on here ---
its not that threatening a detainee with a power drill is illegal, rather the problem is that is was not among the methods reviewed by Yoo/Busby, and thus not an officially approved form of torture. If someone had bothered to ask if they could threaten a prisoner with a drill, it doubtless would have been authorized. -
2.2
I think more to the point is one of following procedure and maintaining good order. This is, and has been for a very long time, a central tenet of military discipline.
Especially if you are going to push the line (as may be necessary at times), you MUST know that your interrogators are going to stop at the line you've established. A failure of discipline leads to the loss of control we saw at Abu Ghraib.
-
2.3
There is an important legal distinction here. (It can be argued later whether there is also a suitable moral distinction.) Intentionally inflicting injury -- even bruising -- fits the definition of torture. Verbally threatening such injury also is torture by definition. Waterboarding without comment does not do either of those two things.
Finally, there is enough information made public that the debate can be focused where it should have been from the beginning. And yet, still, the report (as presented here, at least) is made in terms which heavily imply denunciation of Bush and his administration, which apparently the CIA IG dare not (or will not) directly state.
Now why did the Obama administration delay the report for so long, except to prolong the ignorant and shrill debate? And will any of the bloggers retract any of their ignorant and baseless accusations? I doubt it.
-
-
3
"The contractor, who had not been trained or authorized to conduct interrogations, received a relatively light punishment. He did not have his contract renewed by the CIA."
Since the Bush administration typically rewarded criminality and incompetence with promotions, I'd say this was a rather harsh punishment.-
3.1
You mean sort of like promoting the agents responsible for the Ruby Ridge confrontation? or using chemical agents at Waco, Texas which are banned in international conflicts (i.e. wars)? or using military personal and equipment against United States citizens? Do you mean that sort of criminality?
.
Of course, if you thought that the Obama administration could easily come up with evidence of what you are charging the Bush administration of doing, why wouldn't they produce that evidence instead of these pathetically weak charges?
-
-
4
I'm sure the right will claim murdering prisoners is justified and accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being traitors, placing the country in peril to another 9/11 attack. Then they will walk across the hall and argue that the govt ought to stay out of health-care, because every civil servant is an incompetent Nazi.
-
4.1
Where do you get such a dark view of human nature? And how do you find such sinister assumptions about the thoughts and motivations of people you have never met? Could there be a little bit of psychological projection here? What do the depths of your own soul look like?
-
4.2
Actually, Derek is correct, PCWalt. He is not basing this on a dark view of human nature, just on his experience of the American Right over the last 20 years. The Right has performed exactly this kind of murderous hypocrisy in the last 24 hours. Sunday, the head of the Republican Party claimed that Democrats are attacking Medicare, and presented a pledge that Republicans would never cut Medicare. Monday, he went on TV and said Medicare had to be cut.
I said murderous, and I mean murderous. 18,000 Americans die every year from inadequate medical attention. That's 6 9/11's every year. And the Steele is making up any lie he can to make sure those 6 9/11's occur every year.
Republicans are objectively murderous. And what in your soul supports them?
-
4.3
So, dollared, if you do not spend all of the resources you humanly can, to prolong the lives of the folks in nursing homes and hospitals in your area -- if you take any more of your resources for your personal consumption than the minimum necessary for the preservation of your life -- you are guilty of their murder? Isn't that the natural conclusion from your post?
-
-
5
Maybe that was the whole point of the Bush administration! Proving that the government IS capable of Nazi tactics!
Genius! Pure genius! And here, the rest of us thought that George W Bush was too stupid even to eat a pretzel without nearly choking to death on it. Oh, wait--he was.
-
6
So essentially the CIA watched way too much "24" and thought they were all Jack Bauer...
-
7
# 6
Holder avoids touchy issue of Clinton-era renditions by avoiding Obama-era renditions, media too busy watching beach to consider war crimes by Biden and Hillary.
-
7.1
You know, hulabecile, that the old Soviet Union used to tell the same lies over and over and over.
Those of us who weren't brain damaged never believed them.
Nobody who's not brain damaged willever believe you.
You might as well go back to eating milk duds and performing unspeakable acts while watching torture scenes on your VCR.
-
-
8
Obviously, with only 95% of the pertinent material redacted for national security reasons, the Jihad Joes of the realm will be able to draw full conclusions about the evil Cheney-Bush years.
CHAVEZ ACCOMPANISTS.
-
9
ISn't this August release tantamount to a mass exposure of our CIA field operations?
Time for some fresh treason trials, Judge Starr!
-
10
It took the nation almost 30 years to rebuild some semblance of CIA field operations, after Carter and Church effectively gutted our human resources on the ground.
Clinton started the backtracking, with his insistence that an international Neighborhood Watch would suffice, instead of pre-emptive ACTION, including in Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan, and Afghanistan.
We got the USS Cole, Khobar Towers, African embassies, and 9-11 as a DIRECT result of relying on 1st Responderism as some sort of liberal world union excuse for national defense and defense of our friends.
Obama, the genius?
He'll DESTROY the entire system (which works well when supported by the responsible Exec and without flaming fickle public fanfare, 99.99% of the time), and in less than his single, sorry azz impeachable term.
Nice job, leftwits!
-
10.1
I am curious, where did you get that percentage? What study was done that supports it?
Last I looked, this article was about the CIA and the torture programs they did while under the direct orders of former President George W. Bush. Not President Obama.
If your displeased because President Obama has allowed this release, I fail to see why. This release does not actually reveal anything usefull to ongoing operations. After all, torture is illegal, unreliable, and has been discontinued.
It also appears that your position is that the United States has the right to invade any country we don't like, or a friendly nation does not like. I would like to hope that ALL Americans want to avoid sending our troops to fight and die unless it is truely called for. If you disagree, please see your local military recruiting office.
-
10.2
Please type louder. I can't hear you over the drone of the black helicopters. Moron.
-
-
11
They're coming to get you.
-
12
Knock knock.
-
13
Better grab your guns,, Hula. I just heard a bunch of police cruisers with Obama stickers pull up in front of your house.
-
13.1
Actually Ohiolib, Obama prefers using the Black Panthers to do his intimidation work for him. You know, like the ones outside the polling house in Philadelphia during the last election.
.
You can also add a dose of ACORN and SEIU "grassroots" protests to that group as well.
.
Possibly what the new "Green Jobs Czar", Van Jones is doing is setting up Obama's "intimidation squad". With Jones' background and involvement with Communist Organizations, being an avowed Communist and Black Nationalist, one would think Obama had left those old Jeremiah Wright skeletons back in Chicago.
.
People never seem to comprehend the power of the REAL people in this country! The Democrats are so stupid to think that the REAL Americans in this country will never allow someone like Barack HUSSEIN Obama completely destroy our Country.
.
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2FmMTliY2MwZDBiNGI1OGQ3YjZlOWE0Zjk4YzhmNTY=
.
http://www.ihatethemedia.com/obama-green-jobs-czar-is-admitted-communist
-
-
14
At first I read this:
.
“The EITs...used by the Agency under the CTC ...Program are inconsistent with the public policy positions that the United States has taken regarding human rights,”
.
as this:
“The EITs...used by the Agency under the CTC ...Program are consistent with the public policy positions that the United States has taken regarding human rights,”
.
which made the other four points rather confusing. -
15
So two days ago you wrote an infuriating post where you substituted the term "misleading" for basically saying Republicans were lying. It was in your post multiple times. Now the IG says "misled" and "lied" are not the same thing. Why?
-
16
Late to the game but yeah. Michael, you are giving this issue the time and space that it deserves, and doing an excellent job of it. Tip of the hat.
Your work here on this issue really, really beats the usual shallow, snarky, inside-the-beltway-politics stuff. I vote you continue on this path, there seems to be enough fodder for investigation and context to last awhile, even beyond the work of Shane and Mazetti (and Johnston), Greenwald, and Wheeler. You could blaze your own path here, if you were of that mind to.
And wouldn't it drive Mr. Hulagate to even more entertaining lunacy. It's win-win all around!
-
17
what possible leap of logic does it take to assert that waterboarding doesn't?
My hypothesis is with the release of these reports that putting a gun to someone's head in a mock execution is so clearly and completely within the terminology "threat of imminent death" in the statute that even beltway journalists can't parse that to cover for Cheney and Bush.
The bushies never got the chance to orwellize the acts themselves like they did with "waterboarding" which is orwellian for "suffocation by drowning" (the formal term used by International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)).
Look for some pushback by the bushies, and the beltway media will come together as one unified Village in their defense, within the week, I predict. I expect Chuck Todd and Marc Ambinder to lead the beltway hucksters to propagandize these acts and they are probably receiving their marching orders tonight. We can't, of course, have any more of this cable catnip nonsense.
-
18
does anyone know where rustydog went...is hula rustydog by another name?
-
18.1
Naw, rusty is a whole different flavor of batsh*t crazy.
-
18.2
Actually, rusty attempted to respond to a snarky comment I made at Hula above. Just scan up.
-
-
19
The fourth reason that the effectiveness of harsh techniques could not be known objectively remains classified, and was redacted on the released document.
Hmmm. Hard to imagine a legitimate reason for redacting part of the analysis. I'm going with one of the following:
"The fourth reason the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques cannot be measured is that the Agency is unable to determine what percentage of innocent detainees who provided false information in order to end harsh interrogation techniques would have provided true information if it was possessed."
Or
"The fourth reason the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques cannot be measured is that occasionally interrogators become psychologically consumed with the application of the harsh techniques and ignore partial or complete confessions by detainees."
Or
"The fourth reason the effectiveness of harsh interrogation techniques cannot be measured is that a detainee may expire while in custody before a full battery of techniques can be applied."
-
19.1
Could also be that the reason crosses into territory of ongoing classified operations/practices/procedures. When it comes to the government and censorship, you can never be sure that there is a logical or legitimate reason for the classifying.
-
19.2
1000 Words...in words, matey - nice!
.
Per'aps ye've stumbled aboard a new, entertainin' exercise in th' Swamp?
.
arrgh -
19.3
We'd be callin' it "Translate This!" I can be seein' it as a reg'lar feature...
.
arrgh -
19.4
WHAT? So you are imagining reasons that the CIA IG under Obama's administration is *protecting* the Bush administration? WHAT? You *really* don't know how much the CIA insiders hate the conservative presidents? (Even JFK's policies were too conservative for them.)
-
-
20
"There were a number of episodes when people working for the CIA behaved outside of approved techniques. Perhaps the most serious case involved an Afghan citizen, who had been implicated in rocket attacks on U.S. military bases. Once captured, in June of 2003, the suspect was held at a military base. “During the four days the individual was detained, an Agency independent contractor, who was a paramilitary officer, is alleged to have severely beaten the detainee with a large metal flashlight and kicked him during interrogation sessions.” The detainee died in custody."
Oh, hello there, Taxi To The Dark Side.
A lot of people have known about this for years. But I guess it's good that they're admitting it, finally.
-
20.1
Everyone should notice that you left off the two following sentences. And this is apparently about the most damning information that the Obama administration could bring up to publish, concerning the Bush administration, even *very* indirectly.
-
-
21
[...] Five Important Revelations from the CIA inspector general report (Time) [...]
-
22
After years of delay, the CIA declassified a raft of documents Monday,
_
I'm sorry, but this opening sentence is pathetic. Scherer makes it sound as if two successive administrations did not fight tooth and nail against this disclosure, that happened only because of the dedication and persistence of the ACLU.
_
Its well past time that mainstream media types like Scherer acknowledge the role played by groups like the ACLU -- and the abject failure of their own news organizations to back the ACLU's efforts. Scherer is acting as a leech here -- and while its better that he write about it than ignore it, he should admit that the credit goes to the ACLU. -
23
This is all so self righteous and hypocritical. This is war folks. You do what you can to win. No one dies from water boarding.....frightened that they will....is the point. Bombing in Iraq and Afghanistan can be interpreted as a form of terror.....innocent children, women and men are killed each day. Think about living in daily fear that your children or yourself could be gone today. Can most even say what this war is all about and if this is all worth the pain in lives and economically.
Mr Obama continues to open the door for he and his administration to be held accountable down the road. Torture is a scary thing both from the human side and the American values side. Those values appear to be a moving target and opportunistic on many occasions. If we follow these questions to a scholarly debate maybe, just maybe we would conclude we should declare ourselves as non waring nations...all for the right reasons of course.
-
23.1
MS:
I appreciate the reporting, but the presumptuous tone of telling us what "you need to know" is symptomatic of the worst of The Village.
-
23.2
What, exactly, are we at war with? Terrorism? Inhumanity? Injustice? How does condoning any kind of torture benefit humanity?
-
23.3
No one dies from water boarding.
Yes, and nobody ever dies in a car... until they crash. Nobody ever dies while being tortured... until the paramilitary interrogator beat the one Afghan suspect. Just because something isn't suppose to happen, doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Moreover, torture is unreliable. Is what the suspect saying true, or are they just saying it to stop the torture? Fear and pain are great motivators... to get away from the fear and stop the pain. Neither miraculously makes you more truthful.
Think about living in daily fear that your children or yourself could be gone today.
That is what the people of Iraq and Afghanistan are in now. We were attack seven years ago. As horrible as it was, it was a pinprick. Iraq and Afghanistan are war torn nations. Bombs, guns and grenades go off all the time. The fear for my safety does not grant me the right to kill/enslave/imprison/torture another.
To quote the late-great Ben Franklin; "Those who are willing to give up a little freedom for security, deserve neither."
-
23.4
This be th' new an' improved kattest, I be presumin'?
.
A pity a brain weren't included wi' th' makeover.
.
arrgh -
23.5
Finally somebody made a comment about the "reliability" part of the report. But, pip74205, note that even the Obama administration said *it did produce useful information*. Read the article again. The report does not question that useful information was obtained. It only questions how much.
-
-
24
[...] A particularly good breakdown of the implications of the memo can be found on TIME magazine’s blog. [...]
-
25
Dear traitorous friends on the Left,
Why is it exactly that you get so apoplectic when you hear that people in our government didn't roll out the red carpet for terrorists who want to kill all of us? I think the biggest problem is convincing people like all of you of what would have happened absent the techniques at issue. Let me ask you the most fundamentally simple question I can here. If you knew for certain that another 9-11 was averted because of knowledge gained ONLY after employing these harsh methods would you more likely say the following:
A. I am glad we averted disaster.
B. These people deserve the full rights of our constitution, period.
C. 9-11 part deux, bring it on.
D. Bush lied, people died (in my most whiniest voice possible).Sadly, I'll bet the majority of you will not, or psychologically cannot choose A. This is the greatest difference between us, it is easier for you to believe that Bush was flying one of the planes on 9-11, then to believe that Islamic fascists want bad things for us.
-
25.1
Why is it exactly that you get so apoplectic when you hear that people in our government didn't roll out the red carpet for terrorists who want to kill all of us
.
They didn't?
.
Transcript: Bin Laden determined to strike in US
.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/10/august6.memo/ -
25.2
I have yet to learn of a single instance in which the torture of enemy detainees led to action that saved American lives. It's easy to say that IF torture had saved lives, then we should be pleased with not only the end but the means. So, yes, I can choose A in an appropriate situation. But there is no reason to think that such an appropriate situation has ever existed. All that torture does is force the subject to agree to whatever the torturer wants him to agree to, true or false. Iran is providing an object lesson in such conduct even as I write this.
.
If a mugger had me at gunpoint and a police officer shot the mugger dead, I'd accept the action as necessary and thank the cop. (I'd also be quaking in my boots for several days afterwards.) But, Cheney's bluff notwithstanding, a single instance of a parallel situation involving the torture of detainees has yet to be established. Hypotheticals are cheap. Life is precious. And torturing people to no purpose accomplishes nothing but the torture itself. The "intelligence" gained from it is worthless.
.
Because our courts do not tolerate show trials, we can't even use coerced confessions to lock these people up. One reason we can't figure out to do with so many of these detainees is that the primary "evidence" we have against them is the product of torture and cannot be used.
.
There is no glory here, only different degrees of disgrace. -
25.3
You didn't actually read Michael's post did you, rightknight. Whatever you do, don't! Don't read what the CIA IG said about the torture program. You will automatically become a traitor to your country! Just by viewing this page you may already have been tainted by liberal disease. Also, never, never read Air Force JAG David Frakt's closing arguments at Gitmo in the case of Mohamed Jawad. Never! You will immediately be placed on the CIA's watch list, (and I hear they use enhanced interrogation techniques).
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/hrj/iss22-1/1-24.pdf
-
25.4
'traitorous friends on the Left'?
.
That's so Bush-era 2003...
.
I really wish you people would make up your minds. I mean, anyone not as mendacious or just batsh!t insane as your fellow travelers is labeled as Nazis stormtroopers or dirty tree huggers...never mind that those two things are mutually exclusive...
.
Then again, use of reason is not a strong point for the likes of you, is it?
-
- michaelscherer In meeting with Obama, Pres. Lee jokes about S Korea's military traditional outfits--"Difficult to fight in," he jokes - 1 week ago
- michaelscherer Helo over Seoul like Blade Runner. G Lightfoot sings, "Sometimes I think it's a shame when I get feelin better when I'm feelin no pain" - 1 week ago
- michaelscherer Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao meets Obama, quotes Confucious: "You can only get the new knowledge when you have the old knowledge." - 1 week ago
Most Popular »
- A Self-Inflicted Expectation Gap
- Happy Thanksgiving From The AppleGeeks
- Checkout Line Conundrums: Should You Get the Extended Warranty? What about the Store's Credit Card?
- The Six Greatest Fantasy Novels of All Time
- Gleeks and Shrieks: Fox Unveils Midseason, Glee Gone Until April
- 1,000 Words: Happy Thanksgiving Edition
- Blizzard: 'Who Knows' When Diablo III Will Ship
- FLO TV Personal TV: Being a Couch Potato Has Never Been Easier
- Rain: Pop Star, Bodybuilder, Ninja Assassin
- Second Helpings: Savoring a 2-Part Charlie Brown Thanksgiving
- The 00's: A Decade from Hell
- Helicopter Parents: The Backlash Against Overparenting
- The Gospel of Glee: Is It Anti-Christian?
- Obama's First Year Policies Need Time to Settle In
- A Brief History of Pie
- In a Cave, a Palestinian Farmer Fights Israeli Expansion
- Couple Crashes Obama's State Dinner
- A Brief History of U.S. Unemployment Rates
- How a Little Town in Peru Is Becoming a Hotspot
- When Thanksgiving Comes to Afghanistan
Quotes of the Day »
RSS