What Obama’s Intel Chief Really Believes About Torture…
The stakes in the torture debate just shot up dramatically with the revelation last night that Obama’s intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, wrote a memo saying torture had yielded some “high value information.”
Make no mistake: This memo will become a major feature of the Bushies’ ongoing campaign to shift the debate onto the narrow question of whether torture “worked” in hopes of salvaging their reputations in the wake of the torture memo revelations.
So here’s the question: Will the media clearly report Blair’s actual views about torture?
Blair released a statement late yesterday in which he clearly stated that there is no way of knowing whether means other than torture would have obtained the same info. More important, he said the damage done to us by torture “far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to our national security.” Blair has outlined these views elsewhere.
CNN managed to run an entire article about the Blair memo that didn’t even mention his statement. The Associated Press falsely claimed that Blair’s statement “backed away from what appeared to be an endorsement of the techniques’ effectiveness.”
This is really not complicated: Blair believes that some valuable info was collected via torture, but that torture is not essential to our security and has done far more harm than good. The Washington Post got Blair’s views right in its headline: “Intelligence Chief Says Methods Hurt U.S.”
That’s what Blair believes. The effort to obscure and twist this plain fact is going to be very intense today.
Update: It’s starting already.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Legitimately one can question why he included those words in his statement though. He created a situation where the pro-torture crowd could use his words to justify what happened. I can’t imagine why he would do such a thing, I really can’t. And now its going to be almost impossible to put that genie back in the bottle unless the memos that supposedly show the fruits of torturing are released. He has effectively enabled the pro-torture crowd to now turn the debate from a legal issue to a question of efficiency. If I am broke robbing people might work to get me money but its still illegal.
Why don’t we look at the statement in its entirety? The bottom line is that this is a highly subjective issue, and President Obama’s intelligence chief is saying that certain methods yielded valuable information. Would other methods have yielded similarly valuable information? It’s all about context and the situation at hand.
—
Unclassified
Director of National Intelligence
Washington, DC 20511
Apr 16 2009
Dear Colleagues:
Today is a difficult one for those of us who serve the country in its intelligence services. An article on the front page of The New York Times claims that the National Security Agency has been collecting information that violates the privacy and civil liberties of American citizens. The release of documents from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) spells out in detail harsh interrogation techniques used by CIA officers on suspected al Qaida terrorists.
As the leader of the Intelligence Community, I am trying to put these issues into perspective. We cannot undo the events of the past; we must understand them and turn this understanding to advantage as we move into the future.
It is important to remember the context of these past events. All of us remember the horror of 9/11. For months afterwards we did not have a clear understanding of the enemy we were dealing with, and our every effort focused on preventing further attacks that would kill more Americans. It was during these months that the CIA was struggling to obtain critical information from captured al Qaida leaders, and requested permission to use harsher interrogation methods. The OLC memos make clear that senior legal officials judged the harsher methods to be legal, and that senior policymakers authorized their use. High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country. As the OLC memos demonstrate, from 2002 through 2006 when the use of these techniques ended, the leadership of the CIA repeatedly reported their activities both to Execute Branch policymakers and to members of Congress, and received permission to continue to use the techniques.
Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at that time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.
Even in 2009 there are organizations plotting to kill Americans using terror tactics, and although the memories of 9/11 are becoming distant, we in the intelligence services must stop them. One of our most effective tools in discovering groups planning to attack us are their communications, and it is the job of the NSA to intercept them. The NSA does this vital work under legislation that was passed by the Congress. The NSA actions are subject to oversight by my office and by the Justice Department under court-approved safeguards; when the intercepts are conducted against Americans, it is with individual court orders. Under these authorities the officers of the National Security Agency collect large amounts of international telecommunications, and under strict rules review and analyze some of them. These intercepts have played a vital role in many successes we have had in thwarting terrorist attacks since 9/11. On occasion, NSA has made mistakes and intercepted the wrong communications. The numbers of these mistakes are very small in terms of our overall collection efforts, but each one is investigated, Congress and the courts notified, corrective measures taken, and improvements are put in place to prevent reoccurrences.
As a young Navy officer during the Vietnam years, I experienced public scorn for those of us who served in the Armed Forces during an unpopular war. Challenging and debating the wisdom and policies linked to wars and warfighting is important and legitimate; however, disrespect for those who have serve honorably within legal guidelines is not. I remember well the pain of those of us who served our country even when the policies we were carrying out were unpopular or could be second-guessed.
We in the Intelligence Community should not be subjected to similar pain. Let the debate focus on the law and our national security. Let us be thankful that we have public servants who seek to do the difficult work of protecting our country under the explicit assurance that their actions are both necessary and legal.
There will almost certainly be more media articles about the actions of intelligence agencies in the past, and as we do our vital work of protecting the country we will make mistakes that will also be reported. What we must do is make it absolutely clear to the American people that our ethos is to act legally, in as transparent a manner as we can, and in a way that they would be proud of if we could tell them the full story.
It is my job, and the job of our national leaders, to ensure that the work done by the Intelligence Community is appreciated and supported. You can be assured the President knows this and is supporting us. It is your responsibility to continue the difficult, often dangerous and vital work you are doing every day.
Sincerely,
//Original Signed//
Dennis C. Blair
Unclassified
I was watching AC 360 last night when Ed Henry reported this… the first that thought that popped in my mind was: “The republicans are going to have a field day with this.”
I’m at work now, but I’m pretty sure Joe Scumbag is getting a head start on Morning Joe right now.
These people are so predictable… and I think that Dems should be on guard today. The media isn’t going to stop these false accusations… they are simply going to do what they always do… give the Repubs a platform on their shows to lie, and not question them or follow up on their BS.
LeAnn
.
Joe Scarborough definitely hit on it but even he didn’t flog it the way I thought he would. I think some on the right might be waking up to the fact that being labeled pro torture is not a political winner for them. I personally think the Dems should use the words pro torture the way the religious right uses pro abortion.
Didn’t expect anything else, did you? Did you think they’d just lie down and confess and ask for forgiveness?
Of course they will seize on anything and everything that they think will justify what they did. See, I happen to think this public discussion is about as healthy as it gets when it comes to this situation. If no one is ever prosecuted, I still think that revealing the extent of this was the most damaging thing Obama could have done to the preceding administration. They will forever live in infamy and shame over it – whether they act that way now or not. They will.
Why is this exclusively a political issue for everyone? Why is it so hard to take DNI Blair’s statement that, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country,” at face value?
das
.
Because it will be used as a political argument and justification for torture which is not what his statement was about at all. Besides that his words will be twisted to infer that he is saying something that he didn’t actually say, ie that torture works and it saves lives.
Paul Begala made a great point on CNN. We executed Japanese soldiers that used Water boarding techniques on American POWs. Why is no one else making this argument?
Tena
.
Cheney et al have draped themselves in the flag and are claiming they did what they had to do to protect the country. Yesterday Joe Scarborough and others made the claim that torture was the reason we weren’t hit again for the 8 years after 9-11. (Anthrax always goes down the memory hole). These people aren’t living in shame, they are proudly beating their chests for torturing. And if there are no prosecutions it will be framed that what they did was righteous and if, God forbid,we are hit again you can bet that they will claim it was because we no longer torture. Thats the argument as it stands and the MSM is legitimizing that argument.
DJShay
.
Because the dirty little secret is that many in the MSM also believe that we should torture in certain circumstances. Chris Matthews has said as much.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1893015,00.html?xid=rss-topstories
.
@sgwhite: Then what they are really saying is that it’s ok for other countries to use the same techniques on our Soldiers if captured. Idiots.
“Why is this exclusively a political issue for everyone? Why is it so hard to take DNI Blair’s statement that, “High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaida organization that was attacking this country,” at face value?”
Well here’s how I feel about that – I don’t care if they work. The Ends never never never never never never never never justify the means.
Personally, I don’t consider my safety more important than the moral values and the ethics this country was founded on and has followed and stood for over the years. You know, Americans have died for these ideals. Turns out, I’m willing to. I’d rather die in a terrorist attack than torture prisoners of the United States. It’s just that simple – I love this country and what I love the most is our Rule of Law.
It’s worth taking the risk of dying to preserve it – you anti-American nonpatriot.
DJShay
.
Nah they avoid that by saying al Qaida already does worse to our soldiers and they bring up Daniel Pearl. They act as if we are only talking about al Qaida here when at the least every Arab Muslim nation has to take these standards to apply to them also.
Weak post Greg. Blair said torture worked and he is not sure that the information could have been gleaned any other way. More importantly, he said he did not find fault with those who enacted the torture policy despite it being a war crime and against US law.
This is pathetic spin of a post.
The fact is Blair should resign.
das
.
See Armando’s comment that makes my point. No where in the statement did Blair say or infer that he wasn’t sure that the information could have been gleaned any other way. Nor did he offer a legal opinion one way or the other. But hey Armando said it so it must be in there…..somewhere.
Well look – the risk of dying on American soil from a terrorist attack is so minimal that it hardly exists. Every American has roughly a 1 in 80,000 chance of dying as the result of a terrorist attack on American soil. You are 19 times more likely to die from a lightning strike. You are about 5 times more likely to hit the state lottery jackpot.
The threat was overstated to start with, though I believe the intel was insane right after 9/11 – I have no reason to think it wouldn’t be. Every America-hating group in the world was probably making threats by then.
But the actual threat to you and me is so very minimal that it hardly justifies this kind of reaction, if there was some kind of justification which I maintain there is not ever.
Not ever.
Jesus. We are not in the middle ages. We are not the Spanish Inquisition. This isn’t Chile or India or Pakistan. It’s the United States of America and we stand for something – namely, civilization as exemplified in the Rule of Law.
Dammit.
sgwhite
It is in Blair’s statement.
As for whether he offered a legal opinion, what do you think “I can’t find fault” means? Clearly he shoulkd be able to find fault with war crimes?
What in blazes are you talking about?
Armando,
Here are the two things that Blair believes:
1) torture revealed some high value info;
2) but despite that fact, torture still does more harm than good.
are those two statements really mutually exclusive?is that what you’re saying? if so, that’s pretty lame
g
From Greg’s link to ABC:
“The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means.”
And from the text of a memo, it appears Blair is whitewashing the illegality of NSA warrantless wiretapping. Amazing/
he has to go.
Two points Geg:
Number 1 – torture has proven to be ineffective because of the UNRELIABILITY of the information gleaned. To flatly say it “yielded high value information” without contextualizing that you have no way of distinguishing it from the unreliable information is borderline dishonesty from Blair.
Number 2 – how can you ignore the fact that Blair said he could not find fault with those who enacted the torture policy?
That you ignore these two salient points is completely lame and makes your post unvarnished spin.
The point is Blair is wrong and unfit to serve if he believes what he wrote.
The bottom line is Blair proves Powerline right – for Blair the use of torture is just a “policy difference.”
How did you miss that?
“Number 1 – torture has proven to be ineffective because of the UNRELIABILITY of the information gleaned. ”
What difference does it make whether or not it is efficacious? It’s illegal regardless and immoral regardless. And anti-American, regardless of whether or not it works.
I thought talking about whether it “works” was totally beside the point. This is a moral and legal issue, not a policy or practical issue.”
And that’s what I read Blair as saying – it might work in some instances, but it doesn’t matter if it “works” it’s wrong; illegal, immoral and wrong.
“How did you miss that?”
I think you are totally misreading Blair and Obama – and there’s nothing new about that.
Tena:
I did not mention Obama and in fact wrote a post last night noting that blair and Obama have utterly contradictory views on the subject.
Further, you write “And that’s what I read Blair as saying – it might work in some instances, but it doesn’t matter if it “works” it’s wrong; illegal, immoral and wrong.”
Problem is Blair did not write that. Nor does it address my critque – that you actually do not know those instances when it works, because of its unreliability. But truth be told, blair didnot say that it produced unreliable information. You and I did. Therein lies the problem.
As for talking about whether it works, that was Blair, not me. I am responded to his take on whether it works. It doesn’t.
Here’s a pdf of the memo and more about it:
http://tinyurl.com/d3d3q9
Hillary just basically called Cheney a liar in front of a House Comittee in which Dana Rohrbacher (R CA) asked her if she agreed that memos regarding the effectiveness of torture should be released.http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0409/Clinton_knocks_Cheney.html#comments
CNN & Jake Tapper today are creating stories claiming that Blair is walking away from admonishing torture and Tapper ran a blog post today saying that this memo says that Blair thinks “torture works”. I am not certain if I believe that the press is that daft or if they are intentionally trying to make this into a story of greater conflict.
SG – In response to das’s question about just taking Blair’s statement at face value, you say this: “Because it will be used as a political argument and justification for torture which is not what his statement was about at all. Besides that his words will be twisted to infer that he is saying something that he didn’t actually say, ie that torture works and it saves lives.” I’m wondering if you think officials should censor what they say for fear that they’ll give talking points/ammunition to the right. I personally would rather have a broader discussion in which people say what they believe to be true and journalists/bloggers/the rest of us call out those who misuse or misrepresent what they say. I’m tired of having to play some game with rules designed by the crazies. Let’s take them on with a little more confidence. I don’t think we should be frightened of what Blair said. It’s not an endorsement of torture but the opposite.
If in fact the Obama team believed that harsh methods resulted in meaningful cooperation, they wouldn’t be working this hard to convince people who were complicit in the Bush administration’s crimes, lies, and mismanagement that they respect their seriousness and plan to make sure they don’t face any consequences.
The boss just told the people who tortured that they did good work. What he said in a press release later on means very little next to that.
Two things: First this was a leaked private memo from a government official. He should be able to state what he actually feels and not constrain himself do to some hazy concern for people twisting his words for political reasons. So, the DNI can’t state a fact if torture elicited some useful info, even if he concludes that the policy was wrong overall? Demanding his head for it?
That is why we need something like a truth-commission, to get all this stuff out in the public and debated to know where everyone really stands and why. Maybe we could even suss out some useful ways forward that might bring some of the not-so-crazies from the brink. Ending all discussion and attacking anyone who might pose reasonable questions is not a way to change minds. I thought we were the side that supported diplomacy. I guess only when it comes to foreign challenges, not domestic political ones.
And for the person claiming
So I guess most of you who post here have trouble sleeping at night just knowing that a guy from an extremist group that plotted to kill as many Americans as possible (yes possibly you too there in the starbucks while I’m working) was subjected to a few days of torture to get “valuable information” in an attempt to prevent what we all know is very likely to have happened again….. I guess the real question is, I wander what it was like being in one of those towers as they crumbled to a big pile of rubble?? Or the plane that slammed down to the ground with so many yous and mes in it trying to live their lives as peacefully as possible?? I could care less what they do to the enemy if its an honest attempt to keep my family safe…. AND YES thats what happened.. poor guy… I bet he can hold his breath a lot longer now..
CONGRESS KNEW AND APPROVED THESE TECHNIQUES ACCORDING TO BLAIRE
Interesting that the blogger says let’s look at what DNI really believes then doesn’t quote but rather paraphrases (inaccurately.) What DNI really believes was so damaging to the Administration it made him retract it from the published memo. When the “most transparent Administration ever” covers things up, of course his opposition will attack. Who’s stupid enough to think they wouldn’t? Oops, never mind…
A hypothetical scenerio for you anti torturers. Your child has been taken and you catch the kidnapper. He then tells you that your child has 3 hours to live and then he will run out of air. The kidnapper then laughs in your face. Are you going to politely question him for 3 hours or are you gong to question him for a while and then try to beat it out him. Anyone who who says they would be polite must not have children. I believe that all of us would give in and beat (torture) someone given the right circumstances.