Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAn Anti-Torture Memorandum for President Obama
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals
for Sanity
SUBJECT: Torture
This memorandum is VIPS' first attempt to inform you on a major intelligence issue, as we did your predecessor; thus, some background might be helpful. Five former CIA officers established Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) in January 2003, when we saw our profession being corrupted to justify an attack on Iraq. Since then, our numbers have grown to 70 intelligence professionals, mostly retired, who have served in virtually all U.S. civilian and military intelligence agencies.
In our first Memorandum for the President (George W. Bush), dated February 5, 2002, we provided a same-day commentary on Colin Powell's U.N. speech. We warned the president that "an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future [and that] far from eliminating the [terrorist] threat, it would enhance it exponentially."
We strongly urged the former president to widen the discussion on Iraq "beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic." VIPS' second pre-war Memorandum for the President was titled, "Forgery, Hyperbole, Half-Truth: A Problem"-a reference to the bogus intelligence we saw being ginned up to "justify" war.
President Bush ignored our warning and the warnings of other informed individuals and groups. The corporate media uncritically echoed the Bush administration's misuse and misrepresentation of the intelligence, despite the questions raised-including those raised by our unique movement. (It was the first time an alumni group of intelligence officials had formed expressly to chronicle and to halt the corruption of intelligence.)
The cheerleading for war had begun-a war that would fit the post-WWII Nuremberg Tribunal's description of a "war of aggression." Nuremberg defined such a war as "the supreme international crime, differing from other war crimes only in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."
Torture: An Accumulated Evil
Torture is one of those accumulated evils. Violating domestic laws like the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 is another. You were right to unceremoniously jettison former CIA director Michael Hayden, who betrayed the thousands of NSA professionals who, until he directed that domestic law could be ignored, had adhered scrupulously to the 1978 FISA law as NSA's "First Commandment"-Thou Shalt Not Eavesdrop on Americans Without a Court Warrant.
In contrast, we believe you were badly misguided in giving a prominent White House post to former CIA director George Tenet's protégé John Brennan, who has publicly defended "extraordinary rendition" in full knowledge that its purpose was torture. Brennan also had complicit knowledge of the lengths to which Tenet conspired with the Department of Justice to distort history and the law in drafting opinions that attempted to "justify" torture.
With all due respect, Mr. President, it would be another mistake for you to believe what you are hearing from the likes of Brennan and Hayden and the journalists they have fed and domesticated. Please do not be deceived into thinking that most intelligence officials, past and present, condone torture-still less that they are angry that you have put a stop to such techniques. We are referring, of course, to what President Bush called "an alternative set of procedures" involving cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment that violates domestic and international law. We focus on torture in the VIPS statement that follows these introductory remarks.
The Senate Armed Services Committee recently concluded that it was President Bush himself who, by Executive Memorandum of February 7, 2002 exempting al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Geneva protections, "opened the door" to the abuse that ensued. You need to know that the vast majority of intelligence professionals deplore "extraordinary rendition" and the other torture procedures that were subsequently ordered by senior Bush administration officials.
Sadly, President Bush was not the first chief executive to find a small cabal of superpatriots, amateur thugs, and contractors to do his administration's bidding. But never before in this country were lawless thugs given such free rein. The congressional "oversight" committees looked the other way.
Tenet and his acolytes successfully ingratiated themselves with President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and the faux lawyers who devised what actually amounts to a very porous "legal" shield for those who carried out the torture. It was a shield designed for and applied exclusively to those "just following orders" at the CIA black sites, and not for the low-ranking soldiers doing similar things at Abu Ghraib.
Some of the latter have done time in prison; one is still there. It would appear that some are less equal than others. And, to this day, the organizers and apologists for torture have managed to escape the consequences of their actions.
No doubt you appreciate better than anyone that the official Department of Justice memoranda you insisted be released last week are a national disgrace. Worse still are the first-hand accounts by young soldiers at Guantanamo of perversions like "rape by instrumentality." You should be aware that this was a practice adamantly defended by former White House lawyers when Congress attempted to draft legislation expressly prohibiting it. Asked to explain their objection, Bush administration lawyers acknowledged that they were worried that such legislation might subject practitioners to prosecution under state and federal criminal statutes.
* * *
Statement of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity on Torture
Interrogation Abuses and Those Responsible Must Be Fully Exposed
Inasmuch as we have gone on record as strongly opposed to torture, both on moral and practical grounds, from the first public awareness that the Bush administration had decided to violate international and domestic law, treaty provisions, and American tradition;
As former intelligence officials we understand that unless intelligence is "actionable"-accurate, specific, and timely enough to be acted upon with some confidence-it is ineffective. Equally important, we acknowledge our responsibility to expose fallacious reasoning regarding the utility of torture in acquiring actionable intelligence. This issue comes to the fore especially in the celebrated, but specious "ticking time-bomb hypothetical"-a regular feature of Jack Bauer TV fiction.
The fact that the exploits of Jack Bauer have injected a dangerous level of fiction and fear among impressionable viewers, and have misled not only interrogators at Guantanamo but also the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, Silvestre Reyes-not to mention Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia-leaves no doubt that such illusionary scenarios need to be addressed by professionals with real-life experience.
Inasmuch as the recently released legal memos that comprised part of the "golden shield" constructed by Bush Administration lawyers do shed some light but also provide inadequate information on "harsh interrogation tactics," and that the memos sow confusion regarding which officials were responsible for institutionalizing those methods-not to mention whether they were actually effective, as former vice president Cheney continues to insist;
Inasmuch as it has come to light that two detainees were waterboarded at least 266 times, throwing strong doubt on various rationalizations regarding the effectiveness of waterboarding in providing timely actionable intelligence (in a "ticking time-bomb" scenario, for example);
Whereas CIA Director Leon Panetta has insisted that the "harsh interrogation tactics that some officials have declared to be torture" (the circumlocution now in vogue in the corporate media) might again be used in a future "ticking time-bomb hypothetical;"
Whereas, when the torture technique of waterboarding, a practice with antecedents in the Spanish Inquisition was applied by Japanese troops in WWII to American and British prisoners-Japanese officers were later tried and executed;
Whereas there has been no better system devised- despite some shortcomings-to ascertain the truth of potential wrongdoing than the criminal investigative and judicial adversary process, which provides the right to attorney and right to jury and is governed by judicial rules which attempt to ensure fairness;
Whereas we recognize that the criminal justice process serves the important goal of stopping and deterring criminal actions and cannot be dismissed as merely "retribution;"
Whereas 92 videotapes showing application and results of the "harsh interrogation tactics that some officials have declared to be torture" have already been destroyed, and there is understandable concern that other evidence is being destroyed as the days go by;
Whereas other civilian and military intelligence professionals have also gone on record (see attached Annex) with respect to how torture tactics are not only ineffective in terms of getting reliable, actionable intelligence but have fueled recruitment by Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups to the point that, arguably, more U.S. troops have been killed by terrorists bent on revenge for torture than the 3,000 civilians killed on 9/11;
Whereas the false confessions that were elicited by the torture of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, for example, were used by the president, vice president, and the secretary of state (at the U.N.) to claim that proof existed of operational ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, and whereas such false confessions also diverted limited investigative resources to pursue bogus leads;
We of VIPS call for a full, truthful, and public fact-finding process to begin without delay. We ask that you give careful consideration to Senator Carl Levin's suggestion that the attorney general appoint retired judges with solid reputations for integrity to begin the process. Another viable possibility would be the appointment of an independent "blue-ribbon commission," perhaps modeled on the Church Committee of the mid-Seventies, to assess any illegal or improper activities and make recommendations for reform in government operations against terrorism.
We commend the administration for releasing the Department of Justice memos attempting to legalize torture. We believe the remaining relevant information must be released promptly so that the citizenry can make informed judgments about what was done in our name and, if warranted, an independent prosecutor can be appointed without unnecessary delay. We believe strongly that any judgments regarding amnesty, forgiveness, or pardon can only be made on the basis of a fully developed, public record-and not used as some sort of political bargaining chip. Finally, we firmly oppose the notion that anyone can arrogate a right to ignore the Nuremburg Tribunal's rejection of "only-following-orders" as an acceptable defense.
(signatories are listed alphabetically with former intelligence affiliations)
Gene Betit, US Army, DIA, Arlington, VA
Ray Close, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Princeton, NJ
Phil Giraldi, National Clandestine Service (CIA), Purcellville, VA
Larry Johnson, CIA & Department of State, Bethesda, MD
Pat Lang, US Army (Special Forces), DIA, Alexandria, VA
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council, Linden, VA
Tom Maertens, Department of State, Mankato, MN
Ray McGovern, US Army, CIA, Arlington, VA
Sam Provance, US Army (Abu Ghraib), Greenville, SC
Coleen Rowley, FBI, Apple Valley, MN
Greg Theilmann, Department of State & Senate Intel. Committee staff, Arlington, VA
Ann Wright, US Army, Department of State, Honolulu, HI
*****
Annex
We list below other experienced intelligence personnel, who have spoken out publicly about the inefficacy and counter productiveness of torture:
FBI: Ali Soufan, Dan Coleman, Jack Cloonan
CIA: John Helgerson (former Inspector General), Bob Baer, Haviland Smith
Military: Navy General Counsel
Alberto J. Mora; Major General Antonio Taguba (who probed Abu Ghraib
and concluded that Bush officials committed war crimes: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/
Links
FBI
Ali Soufan Op-Ed Contributor;
My Tortured Decision; Reclaiming America's Soul - NYTimes.com
Apr 23, 2009 www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/
Soufan was an F.B.I. supervisory special agent from 1997 to 2005.
Dan Coleman; The Torture Memos
Are Not Just Sick, They're Full of Lies:
Coleman was with the FBI; says "I can
give you two reasons why Cheney wants more torture memos..." www.alternet.org/rights/.../
Jack Cloonan: How to Break a Terrorist
Foreign Policy: FPTV
Cloonan is a veteran FBI interrogator
who spent 25 years as an FBI special agent and interrogated members
of al Qaeda
www.foreignpolicy.com/extras/
CIA
CIA IG John Helgerson: CIA
official: no proof harsh techniques stopped terror attacks Washington
- The CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive
proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped. www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/
Ray Close (VIPS) and Haviland Smith, both are retired CIA Station Chiefs who served in various senior positions in the Operations Directorate, including in Europe, the Middle East and (Smith) as Chief of the Counterterrorism Staff.
Two former top CIA officials on
the efficacy of torture, by Stephen Soldz
http://www.opednews.com/
Military
Former Navy General Counsel Alberto J.
Mora: Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are
‘first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq.'
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/
Air Force Col Steven Kleinman, senior
intelligence officer:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/
Senate-Testimony-Col-
Malcolm Nance: Why the Bush torture
architects must be prosecuted
Nance is a former military intelligence
officer and the Founding Director of the International Counterterrorism
Center for Excellence at Hudson N.Y. and author of "The Terrorist
Recognition Handbook - A Practitioner's Manual for Predicting and Identifying
Terrorist Activity."
www.nydailynews.com/opinions/.
Former U.S. Interrogator Matthew Alexander
(pseudonym) author of Torture Policy Has Led to More Deaths than
9/11 Attacks
"I'm Still Tortured by What
I Saw in Iraq"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/
Sunday, November 30, 2008.
Also
on http://www.harpers.org/
http://www.alternet.org/
22 Comments so far
Show AllI am overwhelmed by the messages that are put forth on this site.
I sit comfortably in my Country of Canada, but am not limited by the boundaries of my mind.
We all have families, friends, and wonderful members of our society, that are scattered across this vast world. I will bring forth a few of these matters, among the committees in my community, that appear to have nothing better than to do, than to write about the troubles, our City's swan population have, as I
reach out for the truth that affects our mass. As we celebrate our Mother's Day, lest we recall the children that those have bore who have suffered immeasureable pain, suffering, and anguish, however justified or not. I may never comprehend, but I will continue to become informed, and perhaps make a difference in what may lay ahead.
My Sincere Regret to those that have suffered, that I have not been aware of.
I am Canadian, I proudly stand as a human being among you all.
With Sincere Appreciation,
I.Hutter
"I have conservative relatives and acquaintances who will, and who will go further and claim that Islamic terrorists deserve nothing less than to be tortured."
And I'm willing to bet that those same relatives of yours believe that anyone our government tells them is a terrorist must, in fact, be a terrorist, and therefore deserves to be tortured.
This would be a fun experiment: have Obama declare that the government will pay a bounty of $10,000 to any member of Congress who turns in another member as a terrorist - no proof needed, just like in Iraq, etc. How long do you think it would take until there were only two or three of them left (now much wealthier)?
Better yet, try the same thing in the neighborhoods your relatives live in, then once they're behind bars, ask them if they believe that they, as terrorists, should be tortured.
Good one John. Problem is D.C. would get even worse because all the bad congresspeople would turn in the two good ones.
Very important article that should be widely published. I'm saving it on my computer. Especially important is the willingness of the VIPS members to publicly identify themselves and others from government positions who agree with them.
Leon Panetta, quoted in the article as insisting that "harsh interrogation tactics that some officials have declared to be torture" might be used in a "ticking time-bomb hypothetical," touches a vital point. The one weakness of the VIPS position is that it too readily dismisses the "ticking time-bomb hypothetical." Not many who attend daily to Common Dreams.org will see that as a weakness, but I have conservative relatives and acquaintances who will, and who will go further and claim that Islamic terrorists deserve nothing less than to be tortured. Such persons, despite being in the minority, gained ascendance during the Bush years, and we must insure that this never happens again. To do so requires admitting that there could, indeed, be a scenario in which the choice would be between applying "harsh interrogation tactics that some officials have declared to be torture" and foregoing information that could thwart a terrorist operation. As I've said many times, Cheney et al. haven't come up with convincing evidence that a ticking bomb situation actually occurred since the laws against torture were rationalized away, and to that extent I disagree with the president's position (he said the other day that vital information was obtained, but could have been obtained without harsh techniques).
If a real ticking bomb situation faced U.S. officers who held a terrorism suspect, I doubt they would rely upon methods not involving harsh tactics. I propose that persons all the way up the chain of command be informed, in accordance with the president's affirmation of the anti-torture laws, that if they ever choose the harsh tactics, they will be prosecuted. The officials should know that if they become heroes for stopping a terrorist operation, they may have to celebrate behind bars. The threat of prosecution will cause them to be mighty damn sure that what they're doing is actually going to work before they do it.
For anyone who has trouble accepting the possibility of the "ticking bomb" situation, please consider the events in Germany in 2002 in which police threatened to inflict severe pain on a suspected child kidnapper unless he revealed the location of the child (http://books.google.com/books?id=RSvAKgxEhuwC&pg=PA230&lpg=PA230&dq=germany+kidnapper+torture+police&s...). The child could have been saved with information actually obtained by this threat, but when the police found him, he was deceased. A police official, who was mildly reprimanded for ordering the harsh tactic, declared that it would have been immoral not to threaten the prisoner. I find it hard to disagree.
Finally, as I've argued previously, we need a ticking bomb escape clause in the laws against torture. The German experience again offers some guidance on this. But the exception must be internationally recognized, especially by Muslim dominated countries. Pending that perhaps distant or unlikely development, we need to strictly enforce the laws against torture.
manning120, your "ticking bomb escape clause in the laws against torture" is a specious argument. You get better information by guile, dishonesty and non-torturing methods from smart interrogators than you will ever get from torture by goons.
Torture is good for bad data and confessions; that's all.
Assuming, and it's a very big assumption that reality does not reflect, you were somehow able to extract information in this one ticking bomb instance, then the use of torture will only increase the number of terrorists and ticking bombs in the future -and by orders of magnitude.
It's a net loss scenario embraced only by the ideological Right Wing, breathless Jack Bauer notwithstanding.
"Finally, as I've argued previously, we need a ticking bomb escape clause in the laws against torture."
Any exception to a strict prohibition against torture will be exploited by those who want to torture. You would lose more than you would gain.
Alexander who located Zadawi?( the master bomber in Iraq) in a coupleof months after the army tried for a couple of years said he would not use torture , because of all its defects even if his mother was on the "bus with the ticking bomb"
It is only the ignorant sadistic fools who use torture.
Agreed. It's sadism. That ticking bomb excuse, which I first saw put forth by Dershowitz, is beyond nonsense, beyond criminal.
We are moving O, now we push for Treason prosecution of Bush et. al.
If you haven't already done so, check out the Rice video. Rice is saying that she is not guilty of torture because she was only following Bush's instructions to waterboard the detainees.
She also says she didn't authorize waterboarding, her signature on the documents only means that she passed on the president's authorization to waterboard them, to the justice dept.
If you were looking for it, here it is, her Frost - Nixon moment.
This is where Elizabeth dela Vega was right on the money...if there was a prosecution going on right now, you know exactly how Rice would respond "I'm sorry but I can't talk about that because of the ongoing investigation". And note too that she's really just positioning herself against Bush/Cheney. So they're starting to turn against each other...which is good.
Got a URL?
Kane Jeeves, has anybody in the US tried this thought experiment:
The US president declares the members of congress "enemy combatants" as he has done to other Americans.
The US president, as he has declared himself able to do, orders congress, and anyone associated with them, to be killed.
His orders are caried out because, as Rice says, orders from the president are, by definition, legal.
What happens the next day, after all, certain "techniques" were "mistakenly" used (in this case machine-gunning was the technique),
...but their use has been "discontinued" (after congress members were shot).
Mistakes were made, and we need to look forward not backward?
If we are not to be complicit in torture done in our name we need an independent prosecutor to investigate and try the perpetrators.
If we are not to be complicit in torture done in our name we need an independent prosecutor to investigate and try the perpetrators.
Could it be that we must forgive and forget and "move forward", since too many eminent political operatives would be condemned in a torture investigation, and we might be left with too few eminences to rule us?
This is the sort of thing that folks should line to their blogs and social networking pages, as it needs to get traction beyond the confines of this particular corner of the Internet. What makes it very powerful is that it comes from those whom actually know of what they speak, thus making them a powerful counter voice to blathering of the Cardinal Richelieu of American politics, Dick Cheney, on the subject of the "effectiveness" of torture.
Here's a better idea. Tell Congress and the White House to abolish the FBI, CIA, and NSA. There's nothing useful those agencies have done other than aiding terrorists and mistaking the innocent as "terrorists" and they are a complete waste of taxpayer money.
A very good message for our President to think about. Prosecution is overdue, starting at the top, not the bottom,as has been the case. If we cannot have justice concerning the rich and powerful and their misdeeds, then we might as well give up on our beloved America. Killing and ruining others never seemed to bother the Bush and Cheney adninistration, so maybe it should be their turn to answer for what they have done and why they drug our nation down in the muck of torturing people. As newbie said, other administrations have done some of that, but did not brag about how smart it was and thumb their noses at the rest of the world.
barackstar, here's some pretty heady stuff from some seemingly qualified individuals on the matter. just in case you're unfamiliar with their names, you might check wikipedia for a breakdown.
and after that, take into serious consideration what they suggest. that's if you can get over your enchantment of the first one hundred days.
"an invasion of Iraq would ensure overflowing recruitment centers for terrorists into the indefinite future [and that] far from eliminating the [terrorist] threat, it would enhance it exponentially."
I believe this was by design. How else to justify our massive military budget and dismantling of our civil liberties if the populace is not kept cowering in fear over some horrible enemy?
As far as the torture issue is concerned, what about the SOA? What about the billions of dollars in military aid that has flowed through the years (and continues to do so) to regimes for which torture and murder were/are the status quo? The Bush administration is cerainly guilty of many crimes relating to torture, but EVERY administration as far back as I can remember is neck deep in the blood of the tortured, maimed, and murdered throughout the world.
Newbie, I agree with your comment but I would extend that part about it being by design. Oil, power and a permanent presence in the region were the reasons for invading Iraq (and Afghanistan for presence and strategic power).
Nobody, not even someone as catatonically stupid as GWB -since those around him weren't all completely stupid -nobody would invade Iraq, disband the Iraq army and then tell them they would be detained no longer.
As all Grade 1 coup aficionados know, the two first things you have to do in any takeover is gain control of the military and turn them to work for you and secondly control communications, as in local radio and TV stations. Once that is accomplished you've pretty much got it made, but letting the miltary run off by themselves with no pay is a guaranteed recipe for disaster. They only know how to do one thing.
Add to this the way in which a birthplace of civilisation was looted and destroyed completely (much like the Taliban's approach) and it is obvious that, by design, Iraq was supposed to be a theatre of constant "insurgency" such that a permanent presence was required. So sorry, we obviously can't leave.
I suspect a low Iraq boil rather than a raging inferno was the original design but, like the Boa Constrictor that throttles a prey that turns out too large for consumption, letting go is never an option.
Speaking of deja vu, British PM Gordon Brown now says the tiny minority of Taliban in Pakistan are a threat to Britain's security. Just like Saddam was a threat with his long range missiles and WMD warheads perhaps? Except the Taliban have no missiles, air force or heavy weaponry and Punjabis have no use for Talibanism.
How then anyone can be expected to believe this nonsense stretches credulity but if it worked once there is no reason to suspect it won't work again what with those gullible masses and guidance by their carefully tutored MSM.
Expect a steady escalation in NW Pakistan and a general destabilising of the country as a whole in the coming year. And perhaps an eventual US presence in some form.