Boehner Mum On Whether CIA Should Release Torture Report That Might Contradict Cheney
House GOP leader John Boehner has called on the Obama administration to release unspecified intelligence documents that supposedly will demonstrate that torture has been effective.
But Boehner won’t say whether the CIA should release a key classified report that is said to find no proof that torture foiled terror plots, according to his office.
The refusal to directly comment on that specific document will give critics fodder to charge that Republicans are calling for the release of cherry-picked classified info to buttress Dick Cheney’s claim that torture worked — and won’t demand a comprehensive release of info that might find otherwise, even if it’s directly relevant.
As I noted below, McClatchy reported recently that a 2004 report by the CIA inspector general found no conclusive proof that torture thwarted any specific imminent attacks — directly contradicting Cheney’s claim. The ACLU obtained a heavily redacted version of the document through litigation and is seeking a declassified one.
So who will call for the release of that report? I asked Boehner spokesperson Michael Steel if the Congressman would, and he emailed:
“Decisions about whether or not to release information regarding our bipartisan efforts to gather intelligence on the terrorist threat over the past eight years should be based on what’s best for our security, not cherry-picked for political purposes. The American people deserve to make their judgments based on the full set of facts.”
So Boehner is willing to oppose cherry-picking in general, but not willing to call for the release of a specific document that could go a long way towards settling the question of whether torture worked.
The homepage of this blog is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
As an on-again, off-again member of the ACLU, this issue and this posting suggest to me that it’s time to re-up (again). And perhaps make a substantial donation.
Greg is moving the goalposts.
Is the claim here that torture ‘works’ only if it prevents a specific imminent attack? Isn’t that rather narrowly defining the issue to suit only the purposes of the left?
I thought that the claim was that enhanced interrogation reveals important information “about the capabilities, methodologies, and mindsets of terrorists?” And further, that its use is sometimes appropriate when there is suspicion of an imminent attack.
We must not fall into the trap that we fell into with the Iraq War by permitting Dick Cheney and David Addington to use their pre-engineered intelligence. We have prior experience with Dick Cheney’s cherry-picked intelligence!
What’s that saying? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, duh, won’t get fooled again.
sbj, do you think members of Congress who want a full accounting should also ask for this document?
What SBJ is saying is that we can torture so long as we posit that there is “increased chatter” due to the fact that we are wiretapping the communications of every man, woman and child in this country.
Greg
.
I posted a comment for you on the other thread about Thiessen and how a Newsweek article refutes/debunks his information.
Greg Sargent asked sbj, “Do you think members of Congress who want a full accounting should also ask for this document?”
Umm, sure, go for it! My objection to your post, of course, made the point that you were trying to unfairly redefine the debate. You are now trying to move the goalposts in an attempt to obfuscate. Cheney and the rest are clearly asking whether enhanced interrogation was both reasonably thought to be legal at the time and whether it yielded valuable intelligence.
I answered yours so you should answer mine: Do you think the Obama admin should be investigated for using drones that have killed innocent civilians?
Where do you think this ends? Olson thinks this probe never ends, and the path you encourage inevitably leads to the man sitting in the White House right now:
“If it’s prosecutable because we waterboarded somebody or deprived him of sleep, what about sending a drone to blow him up without a trial or a hearing?” Olson asked. “What if the person we blew up was carrying a three-year old child?”
sbj
.
Olsen is an idiot. Whether rightly or wrongly, bombing people is not illegal in this country, torture is. Now until you can tell me how torturing somone isn’t against the Conventions Against Torture signed into law by Ronald Reagan, the wingnuts’ god, then you don’t have a leg to stand on. It is what it is.
So you don’t care about right and wrong?
I make no admission that we have knowingly tortured anyone. We did what we thought we could do within the boundaries of law – that has consistently been the Bush position.
“Assuring the world in one breath that “America does not torture” suspected terrorists, while in another ordering Hellfire missile strikes that can burn victims alive, is unsustainable from both policy and diplomatic perspectives. How does the U.S. president explain why one suspected terrorist leader held in Guantánamo gets a team of lawyers fighting for his day in court, while another is killed in his car along with his family?”
Why not justify that sgwhite . . .
It is immaterial whether torture works. It is morally wrong, and illegal. And the euphemism “enhanced interrogation” has been superseded by the Red Cross report and subsequent documents.
Why is anyone debating whether “it works”? We tortured. It is wrong. There’s nothing else to say except to ask when the investigation begins.
Torture is repugnantly offensive to Western values. Torture is ineffective, and sullies all who are involved. Torture is illegal, and all who were involved in torturing in my name should be held in the docket! -Kevo
sbj
.
There is right and wrong and then there is legal and illegal. Pro lifers think abortion is wrong, but its still legal. Again you can keep your head in the sand about waterboarding but John McCain himself said this weekend, before saying there shouldn’t be any investigations, that waterboarding is torture. Period. Full Stop. Torture is illegal, therefore people who broke the law should have to face justice. Now maybe you don’t believe in justice sbj. Maybe you don’t believe in than no man or woman is above the law. Maybe you don’t believe in American values.
.
I however do.
Greg, Greg, Greg.
.
Information which makes Republicans look bad is highly sensitive material that should never see the light of day because its release would harm America.
.
Information which supports Republicans’ self-serving claims should be immediately released in the spirit of democracy.
.
It’s that simple.
Sweet sanctimony!
You will only get the self-admitted who actually performed the enhanced interrogations but felt that they were torturing. The architects of the program will be protected because they relied on flawed legal reasoning. The lawyers will skate as the case would be extremely difficult to prove. You’d have to show that the lawyers’ opinions were objectively unreasonable, and that the lawyers did not exercise good faith in rendering the opinions. The released memos go a long way in showing the oppposite.
I’m not asking about pro-lifers opinions on whatever. The question to you is your personal opinion about shooting hellfire missiles at innocent children.
“To justify these targeted killings, the Obama team needs to acknowledge two things. First, that the threat from al Qaeda and its affiliates remains so dire that the United States needs to engage in practices that in some contexts would be war crimes. Second, that some of the former Bush administration’s most aggressive and controversial policies remain necessary in the conflict against al Qaeda.”
The preceding is what I believe.
sbj~
In light of how successful you consider the “Bush administration’s most aggressive and controversial policies” (ie. torture), can you please explain to us – where is Osama Bin Laden and why wasn’t the Bush administration able to capture him??? I mean, since KSM was the “mastermind” behind the 9/11 attacks and OBL took credit for the entire operation and Bush’s first priorty was to capture OBL “dead or alive” and KSM was waterboarded 183 times and torture, oh excuse me, enhanced interrogation techniques “work”, then why weren’t they able to capture OBL over the last seven years of the Bush administration?
Whether torure is effective is beside the point, and I don’t concede that it is. It is simply illegal, and the “legal” advice given by the Bush admin. OLC justifing it was clearly made in bad faith, despite the drivel posted above. Robbing someone at gunpoint is clearly effective at putting money in one’s pocket, but it cannot be condoned on the basis of “effectiveness”.
In addition to above, we learned without resorting to torture that OBL was planning to attack inside the US using airplanes. Despite this knowledge, the Bush admin. did nothing, with the president himself clearing brush and playing golf a month before the attacks. We now learn that detainees were killed in US custody, and that torture was used repeatedly on detainees in an attempt to get some evidence of a link between OLB and Iraq in order to justify the war. Sounds like war crimes to me and most reasonable people.
RJS~
Thank you for reminding all of us that the Bush administration received a specific warning about an attack on US soil using airplanes one month before 9/11, and as you said, did nothing to prevent or raise the level of awareness among the citizens of this Country.
Jenn D: You are being quite silly. I did not say anywhere that Bush’s enhanced interrogation procedures have been successful. I have stated a belief that we felt them necessary and legal.
How long does Obama get to capture Osama until you start hyperventilating? It’s been almost 100 days! I guess this proves that NOT torturing doesn’t work.
The more those who feel the torture was “necessary and legal” lay out their arguments, the more they sound just exactly the same as those who have defended torture elsewhere throughout history. It was neither necessary not legal and Bush and Cheney both knew it. Just like Iraq, it was a choice. In their mind they weren’t doing the necessary, they were being bold. They new it was illegal, but they had good reason to think they could get away with anything they wanted to.
If they felt their actions were defensible, why are they exposed as serial liars who mischaracterized pretty much every move they took in the war on terror? Just look at how they talked about torture when blaming “bad apples” for doing exactly what they now claim was necessary.
Bad faith argumentation is the default position for Bush/Cheney. They’re not war criminals by accident.
So Jenna, RJS, Bullsmith: How do you feel about your President when he orders Hellfire missile strikes on alleged terrorists that can burn victims alive? How do you feel about your President when he denies suspected terrorists any legal protections whatsoever when he orders them to be killed in their cars while traveling with their families? Why aren’t you outraged that your President engages in practices that in some contexts would be war crimes?
If I am some sort of deranged ghoul for defending the architects of enhanced interrogation – which, BTW, did not result in the deaths of anyone – what does your silence on these issues say about you?
Torture possibly is effective. Slavery was effective, too. Just because something MIGHT work, it doesn’t mean that it’s good.
Don’t fall into the trap of arguing the effectiveness of torture. It’s illegal, and that’s what matters. So many people are missing the point. The question isn’t whether or not torture saved lives (though I think torture apologists lose that argument, too). The question is whether or not the president and those in his administration are above the law. Oh, and sbj, “enhanced interrogation” most certainly did lead to deaths. I can provide you with cites if you wish.
“enhanced interrogation” most certainly did lead to deaths.”
It’s my understanding that the released memos deal with enhanced interrogation used on three persons with a doctor present. None of them died. It’s also my understanding that others have abused our approved interrogation procedures and that many have died while in our custody. Americans have been prosecuted for such incidents. I am speaking about enhanced interrogation covered by these memos for use with high-value detainees. So please do provide cites.
sbj:
I quote the Constitution Article 6:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
We signed the UN treaty against torture. Therefore it is on par with the Constitution. Thus specific acts are banned by the supreme law of the land (again quoting the Constitution). Claiming that they are legal (see Article I of the UN conventions on torture for a full disclosure of the indefinite “they”) is either denial, or stupidity.
SBJ, Thanks for bringing to our attention that the “enhanced interrogation” was only performed by licensed practitioners. I know I certainly wouldn’t want my torture done by an amateur.
However, seeing that the “enhanced interrogation” was done with such exquisitely refined medical finesse I’m surprised that, even against strict court order, the CIA nevertheless went ahead and destroyed the tapes. Just an oversight, I’m sure…
Or wait, I know what it was, those sneaky liberals in the CIA purposely destroyed these tapes, again, against stict court orders to the contrary, because they would have showed our medically licensed, board certified torturers playing backgammon having pillow fights and ordering out for Chinese food with these so called “detainees.” So instead, the sneaky liberals destroyed the torture, oops, “enhanced interrogation” tapes so that they could claim that horrible diabolical things had been done in these sessions by those mean, icky-wicky, right-wingers when in fact it was more like–in the immortal words of Rush Limbaugh, praise be unto him (PBUH)–it was just like some sort of crazy frat party!
I’m so glad there are “Real Americans” (TM) like yourself around to help me think through these big issues and see the real story!
Hey Webmaster,
It’s PLUMB LINE, not plum line. Please look it up.
First, the question is whether it was definable as torture or not while it was taking place. Second, was it legal at the time. Third, do terror suspects who fight without uniform and under no flag qualify under standard geneva bondage. It’s wrong to go back in time and redefine the terms but if there were truly illegal actions taken by that administration in an effort to save us all then they must have been willing to accept the consequences and it is our duty as Americans to see it through.
To suggest that torture does not work proves to me that you are living in your own little fantasy. If you had kidnapped my daughter and hid her away, I would slowly pull out your teeth (one at a time) until you told me where she is. If you really think you’d lie to me or just not tell me then come see me and you can put your money where your mouth is. I understand that torture is not 100% effective but it’s 100 times more effective than asking nicely.
As for the seperation between right and legal, sometimes it is right to do something illegal as long as you are willing to accept the punishment. To torture you in order to rescue my innocent child is right enough to be worth a life in prison, but to allow you to have your way with my daughter would be wrong, no matter how legal it is.
Lastly, to call yourselves “real Americans” is tant amount to calling George Bush a Great speaker. You support a president that considers the Constitution the fundimental flaw with this country. That document is what defines America and to attack it or offer to rewrite it (as Obama did) is pure treason.
OK flounder, let’s go over this again.
(a) if “the ends justify the means” is the defense, we might as well throw the rule of law away.
(b) if I kidnapped your child and you pulled my teeth out, yes, I would tell you what I knew. But if I hadn’t, I would tell you anything to make you stop. Could you tell the difference in the outcomes? In other words, how could you trust anything I told you? You are implicitly assuming that the “interrogators” “know” someone is guilty or not. How does one obtain such knowledge?
(c) as to whether the particular acts were defined as torture, read the United Nation Convention against Torture, Article I. the definitions are quite specific, and include acts committed in my name. Furthermore, these Conventions make no distinction between combatants and civilians, i.e. it is just as illegal to torture someone who took up arms against you as it is to torture your own civilians. Therefore combatant status neither grants nor releases any rights under the UN conventions. similarly, the Geneva conditions, while maintaining a difference between those of combatant and noncombatant status, affirms that those of either class are protected from torture for any reason, including that of extracting information.
What part of “law” do you people not understand?