After you’re done with Daphne’s piece about legal tests for President Obama’s abandonment of torture, don’t miss Jane Mayer’s interview with White House counsel Greg Craig about the backstory to last week’s executive orders. Craig tells Mayer that the advocates for the new reviews of detentions and interrogations policy who made the biggest impact on Obama were a team of retired flag officers who’ve met with Obama over the course of 2007. Their arguments about torture being "the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough," in the words of ret. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton — one of the ringleaders of 2006′s so-called Generals Revolt against Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, by the way — were compelling to a president taken with the idea of changing the terms of the foreign-policy debate, as were their arguments about torture’s potential blowback against U.S. troops who find themselves captured in the future.
The CIA, though? Not so much.
Across the Potomac River, at the C.I.A.’s headquarters in Langley, Virginia, however, there was considerably less jubilation. Top C.I.A. officials have argued for years that so-called "enhanced" interrogation techniques have yielded life-saving intelligence breakthroughs. "They disagree in some respect," admitted Craig. Among the hard questions Obama left open, in fact, is whether the C.I.A. will have to follow the same interrogation rules as the military. While the President has clearly put an end to cruel tactics, Craig said that Obama "is somewhat sympathetic to the spies’ argument that their mission and circumstances are different."
Is that hard question really that open, though? The executive order on interrogation talks about a uniform government-wide standard on interrogation. Additionally, though, Mark Hosenball at Newsweek writes that there’s confusion over whether Craig told the Senate Select Intelligence Committee that Obama can exempt himself from his executive orders — that is, order an off-the-books torture session. (As opposed to going Jack Bauer on some hapless detainee himself.)
If this question is in fact open, it would contradict the central promise of the executive orders, as well as an assurance that Dennis Blair made to the Senate intelligence committee during his confirmation hearing to become director of national intelligence. Clearly, then, this is something to watch for as the cabinet-level policy review takes shape. As well, tomorrow is Leon Panetta’s confirmation hearing to become CIA director. Watch to hear whether he thinks there should be one government-wide uniform standard on interrogations — and, if not, what the arguments against it are.



25 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About ATTACKERMAN
RSS/XML Feed
Just remember. Susan Crawford concluded that even acts which were individually permissible under the Army Manual can become torture based on their duration and combination.
Unless further clarification is issued the “uniform government-wide standard” could, in fact result in torture.
This, I think, is a little off. “All authorized” doesn’t mean “All in the Army Field Manual.” Remember that al-Qatani’s techniques weren’t all AFM techniques. A special interrogation regimen was designed for him, as the Senate Armed Services Committee recently confirmed.
Your broader point, though, is well taken.
It is funny hearing all of these what if scenarios floating around. I am not saying that absolutely President Obama will stick to his word, but at the very least if he goes back on it we will always have this quote to judge him by.
Oops, I did something wrong. The quote is
“First, I can say without exception or equivocation that the United States will not torture,”
A bunch of reporter-friends and I were talking about it. You’ve got in here the press’ natural cynicism and the fact that it’s better, career-wise, to be dubious of big pronouncements like this — when they run *against* hawkishness, that is — than it is to accept them. I’m trying to be fact-based, myself.
Spencer,
Thanks for the clarification. Crawford was speaking of techniques that were beyond the AFM. But, acceptable techniques, in combination or duration can add up to torture.
I totally agree with that, especially after all we have just gone through, some of which I am sure has yet to come to light. But I am more so speaking on the stories coming out about what he might do re the universal standards for interrogation. In practice I believe there is a chance that torture might happen, but its almost unthinkable to believe that after making that statement he will publicly refute himself by either not publishing a separate and different standard for the CIA or not asserting that they won’t have to adhere to the AFM without giving clarification to what that means. Shorter me, whatever happens I think the standard for the CIA almost has to be shown in the light of day because of his statement on the matter or he will lose a lot of the confidence and approval from the people that he enjoys right now.
it makes cheney’s “team b” cia lazy stupid and full of crap
back when nixon brokered the treaty of detante, cheney and rumsfeld did not want peace, (they area war criminals and profiteers)
to undermine that treaty they invented a fake cia, that “competitive information” cia invented fake data inventing fake threats
yup, they did this before under nixon before they did it in iraq
that’s right, they did the exact same thing before, deliberately inventing crap so they could have war
the “real cia” I cannot believe participated in this torture spence, it was the fake one by cheney, “team b”
I will accept there were “real” cia who signed on board the kabal but I don’t believe the professionals participated or if they did they were coerced into it by cheney and his sociopathic fraternity in the pnac
It all ties back to the warantless wiretapping and the country that infiltrated all US surveillance systems. The dots that connect number in the thousands:
http://bigdanblogger.blogspot……-2009.html
SPEW!! Time for a refill.
i didn’t see this on the senate intelligence committee schedule. is there somewhere else i should be looking? thanks.
Heh. That still leaves open the possibility of having the authoritarian dictators ot our good allies, Egypt or Saudi Arabia, for example, do it for us.
Oh, and if Obama doesn’t torture, how will he get the fake confessions he needs to justify some random military move he wants to make?
If they let the president have a computer, couldn’t he just type up whatever he wants and use that?
Perhaps Obama would be smart enough to phoney one up. As for W and Shooter, they needed a false confession by al-Libi to prove the connection between AQ & SH. I guess they thought that having a real person to pin it on made it more credible.
while i’m asking questions in the hopes that spencer will be back to reply….
spencer, it’s not clear to me – what assurance are you referring to here?
You know, maybe you’re right. Could be that Obama might be smart enough to do things differently.
Well, in all fairness, it is true that the mission and circumstances of CIA spies and military interrogators are different. And they likely need to approach their work differently. Not that that justifies the use of torture by either group.
ok, i just called the senate intelligence committee and was told that panetta’s hearing is not tomorrow. any info would be greatly appreciated, as i try to keep a list of hearings for those of us here (at fdl) who, like me, don’t have $$ for a cq.com subscription.
Please, can we stop referencing this: “C.I.A. officials have argued for years that so-called “enhanced” interrogation techniques have yielded life-saving intelligence breakthroughs” unless and until someone in the CIA actually comes forward with a shred of evidence to support these so called “life-saving intelligence breakthroughs”. And don’t give me the whole we can’t tell you for fear that AQ will learn what we do. The CIA and every other American intelligence agency selectively leaks what it wants, when it wants. Coming forward with a little meat to back up otherwise baseless claims is the least we can ask for — that, or just stop repeating the meme over and over and over again.
Cobernicus, you are absolutely correct. I have documented, furthermore, that only a few years back the Pentagon and various politicians, including John McCain, KNEW that the Army Field Manual as constituted included coercive and abusive techniques that would violate Geneva, at a minimum.
I have written up my evidence with an article that went up at AlterNet just yesterday (forgive the long title):
How the Press, the Pentagon, and Even Human Rights Groups Sold Us an Army Field Manual that (Still) Sanctions Torture
An earlier article as even more evidence to back up what I say:
How the U.S. Army’s Field Manual Codified Torture — and Still Does
Letting the military and the CIA and the Executive branch dictate the “facts” and the relevant discourse on this matter is doing a disservice to the country, and Spencer, I’m counting on you to get the truth out, and not take BS, even when it comes from Jane Mayer, for the real story.
I believe the executive order banned extraordinary renditions as well. I will look it up and confirm or deny
Ok they are going to study it so nothing is set in stone yet.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_…..rogations/
So, what do you think? Are we ever going to see a proper investigation of 911? Are we ever going to see that country, and others, exposed? Is the phony war on terror ever going to end? Why do you think FISA only grants immunity after 911?
An x -Guantanamo guard and two x -detainees are touring the UK together. Lots of information at these sites:
http://www.guantanamovoices.org/
http://www.cageprisoners.com/