by Frank James
One of the most memorable and chilling lines from today's Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on the treatment of detainees came when Sen. Carl Levin, the Democrat who chairs the committee, referred to the back-and-forth between U.S. government officials as they discussed interrogation techniques that could be used on detainees.
The line, from Jonathan Fredman, a senior Central Intelligence Agency lawyer at the time was: "If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong."
This led Levin to say, with enough introspection for everyone in the room:
How on earth did we get to the point where a senior U.S. government lawyer would say whether or not an interrogation technique is torture is, quote, "subject to perception," and that if, quote, "the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong?"
The Senate hearing's purpose was to examine how Pentagon lawyers trying to come up with acceptable interrogation techniques received help from U.S. military officials responsible for training American servicemembers on how to handle harsh interrogation techniques should they become prisoners of war.
Back in 2002, Pentagon officials wanted to see what they could learn and use from the military's "Survival Evasion Resistance and Escape" or SERE program which prepares U.S. servicemembers for what they might expect from the enemy if they're ever captured.
Pentagon officials were interested in using tougher interrogation techniques against detainees at Guantanamo, Cuba as well as in Iraq and Afghanistan. And this was despite concerns expressed by lawyers in the uniformed services who thought what Pentafon officials wanted to do crossed the line.
According to Levin:
Those techniques included the use of stress positions, keeping detainees naked, use of dogs, and hooding during interrogations.
There was a larger point to today's hearing, which included testimony from former Pentagon officials. When the Abu Ghraib prison scandal broke in 2003, the official story was that it was rogue soldiers and their officers responsible for the inhumane practices there.
But the reality is that there was an orchestrated effort in Washington to use the most abusive techniques possible against detainees in what critics view as a misguided effort to get useful intelligence from those in U.S. custody.
For instance, Levin singled out Rumsfeld for authorizing many of the stressful techniques that were eventually used on detainees.
Notwithstanding concerns raised by the military services, Department of Defense general counsel, Jim Haynes, sent a memo to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld on November 27, 2002 recommending that he approve all but three of the 18 techniques in the Gitmo request -- techniques like stress positions; removal of clothing; use of phobias, such as fear of dogs; and deprivation of light and auditory stimuli were all recommended for approval.
Five days later, on December 2, 2002, Secretary Rumsfeld signed Mr. Haynes' recommendation, adding the handwritten note, "I stand for eight to 10 hours a day, why is standing limited to four hours?" When Secretary Rumsfeld approved the use of abusive techniques against detainees he unleashed a virus which ultimately infected interrogation operations conducted by the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So it wasn't low-level functionaries who went off the reservation, according to Levin:
Were these actions the result of a, quote, "few bad apples" acting on their own? It would be a lot easier to accept if it were, but that's not the case. The truth is that senior officials in the U.S. government sought information on aggressive techniques, twisted the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorized their use against detainees. In the process, they damaged our ability to collect intelligence that could save lives.
The repulsion of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle for what the Pentagon did was undisguised. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said this:
Now the guidance that was provided during this period of time, I think will go down in history as some of the most irresponsible and short-sighted legal analysis ever provided to our nation's military intelligence communities. I do not believe the members of the administration who played a major role in developing interrogation policies were motivated by anything other than a desire to protect our nation. I know that to be true. That the men and women in questions felt America was under attack, and we were, and they were motivated to protect the nation. That to me is clear. And in that regard, their service is to be appreciated. However, if the administration had adhered to the letter and spirit of the law, our treaty obligations, and adequately consulted with Congress, I do not believe we would be here today.
The detainee-treatment issue will get a lot of attention this week on Capitol Hill. On Wednesday, a House Judiciary subcomittee will be holding a hearing similar to today's Senate version. Among those scheduled to appear that hearing are Douglas Feith, former undersecretary of Defense for policy and Lawrence Wilkerson, who was chief of staff to former Secretary of State Colin Powell.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
But if the detainee is released and kills American troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan Carl Levin would say they were doing it right. And, yes, that has actually happened.
Posted by: Jeff | June 17, 2008 2:48 PM
So, as long as they don't die, it's okay?!! What kind of logic is that, " military-industrial complex "-type of logic !! Our Founding Ancestors are spinning in their graves, their " child ", this great nation, America, was supposed to end all of that imperialistic, militaristic brutality. No, we have to perpetuate a means of interrogation that will ultimately be used on our captured citizens. It doesn't matter to those folks, they always make sure they are out of harm's way and not able to be captured. That unfortunate experience is left to the foot soldiers or downed airmen, who happened to be captured. They are at their capture's mercy, with all restraints being abrogated by our inhumane practices !! What folly, brought to by the Ridiculous Republicans and their Lying Machine !!
SUPPOR OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | June 17, 2008 3:02 PM
But if the detainee is released and kills American troops on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan Carl Levin would say they were doing it right. And, yes, that has actually happened.
Posted by: Jeff | June 17, 2008 2:48 PM
Prove it Jeff!
You can't and you know it, you're just repeating more of the same pro pre-emptive fear mongering that BushCo and McCain have used the last seven years.
And by the way, I hear there's talk among some of the establishment Republicans of replacing McCain with a better GOP candidate at their upcoming convention in Minneapolis.
I hope they don't do it, McCain is a horrible candidate, the Dems couldn't ask for a better opponent than him.
Posted by: John E | June 17, 2008 3:23 PM
Jeff,
Do you seriously believe that terrorist detainees released have subsequently killed more Americans than those who started trying to kill Americans subsequent to Bush invading Iraq and killing thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians? Is your argument that invading Iraq has cost fewer Americans their lives than releasing detainees has? Any when and where has "it actually happened"? Do you believe more Americans are killed by released terrorist detainees than angry Shites and Sunnis or terrorists who were never detained?
Posted by: osage | June 17, 2008 3:25 PM
Jeff,
Cite some sources please. Show us where this happened.
Posted by: jackson | June 17, 2008 3:39 PM
You can't and you know it, you're just repeating more of the same pro pre-emptive fear mongering that BushCo and McCain have used the last seven years.
And by the way, I hear there's talk among some of the establishment Republicans of replacing McCain with a better GOP candidate at their upcoming convention in Minneapolis.
I hope they don't do it, McCain is a horrible candidate, the Dems couldn't ask for a better opponent than him.
Posted by: John E | June 17, 2008 3:23 PM
Here is at least one of our "victimized" GITMO Detainees that are helping the DEM defeat effort..
Ahmad, Noor
According to the Pentagon, "Noor was released in July of 2003, and has since participated in fighting against US forces near Kandahar. After his release, Noor was identified as the person in an October 7, 2001, video interview with al-Jazeerah TV network, wherein he is identified as the “deputy defense minister of the Taliban.” In this interview, he described the defensive position of the mujahideen and claimed they had recently downed an airplane."
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/guantanamo/by-age/
Posted by: heartburn | June 17, 2008 3:49 PM
network, wherein he is identified as the “deputy defense minister of the Taliban.” In this interview, he described the defensive position of the mujahideen and claimed they had recently downed an airplane."
Posted by: heartburn | June 17, 2008 3:49 PM
HAHAHA! I knew I could depend on you to raise your hand and cite a useless debunked pro- Pentagon/ Miliatry Industial Complex report that supports BushCo's version of reality.
Well done.....NOT!
Posted by: John E | June 17, 2008 4:21 PM
Jeff, are you saying that they're doing it right if the detainee dies?
Posted by: Lois | June 17, 2008 4:36 PM
Republicans have made us no better than those we are fighting.
Posted by: Paul | June 17, 2008 5:26 PM
Free speech is still a right of all citizens in this country. If the Tribune staff or owner doesn't want to print some comments for whatever personal reasons (and I do know the reasons), I would suggest you close this blog and go back to your selective pundit journalism and your prejudicial reporting of the news
Pretend it's a free press, but CONTROL THE MEDIA AMD YOU CONTROL PUBLIC OPINION, RIGHT?
Posted by: the truth | June 17, 2008 8:14 PM
I am bewildered at how casually we have thrown off the mantle of world-leader in justice and honor. Who we have become? Abu Ghraieb and other undignified exposed incidents of murder and torture, we appear to have become no better than our opponents. Waterboarding is torture. TORTURE!!!
Posted by: Logic Prisoner | June 17, 2008 9:22 PM
"If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong." -Jonathan Fredman
So if the detainee screams in agony or loses an eye or a limb or two it ain't torture?
By that yardstick, where does that put the very-alive-and-well John McCain? Was he never tortured by the North Vietnamese?
Posted by: Stephen | June 17, 2008 10:56 PM
Well, Senator Levin, as new pseudo-citizens of their new country, what if they open up the Detroit Free Press and see that the Celtics took out the Pistons in six or that the Tigers came out of Florida smokin' cold. As new pseudo- citizens, aclimating into a new culture, maybe a few of them just go into shock, like whales on the beach. You are right though, no reason to treat our new pseudo-Americans shabbily. That just wouldn't be nice.
Posted by: Django Scott - Houston, Tx | June 17, 2008 11:53 PM
How sad we have reached the point where torture is acceptable under any circumstances. This is not the America I know The America I grew up with claimed the moral high ground. It seems now it is OK to torture anyone as long as they are a "terrorist". Using that definition anyone can be tortured. Even the "insurgents" fighting for independence in the colonies later known as the USA..
Posted by: Okie | June 18, 2008 12:20 AM
Levin is really making a partisan idiot of himself. Basically, he doesn't want America to win the war, so he tries to encumber the military with so many restrictions that it would be impossible to win.
The restrictions Levin and the Boumedienne opinion would now place on our troops, if applied in World War II, would have had us all speaking German.
Which is perhaps why Frank James, in the above article, makes sure not to quote any opposing views, since the opposing views, if presented, would wipe Levinism out.
Posted by: Bruce | June 18, 2008 12:32 AM
So Bruce and Jeff - Let me get this straight: If godless communists, Islamofacists, Palestinians, or other terrorists torture, it's abhorrent.
If the US Military and the CIA torture in the cause of furthering truth, justice and the American way, it's OK?
I just want to clearly understand where you guys stand on the issue.
I must say that I find it ironic that the right is always blathering about the "moral relativism" of those to the left of them . . . .
Posted by: Buster | June 18, 2008 11:06 AM