National Security, Round 2

As was to be expected there was a backlash to the release of the CIA Report, specifically from a dozen former high ranking CIA officials and Senator Saxby Chambliss and five other ranking Republicans. The site is ciasavedlives.com.  It is their right to defend themselves, but I believe they are sailing a dangerous course.

Their first rebuttal is not to deny that it was torture, but rather that it was not illegal torture.  They claim they repeatedly consulted the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel before using brutal methods of interrogation.  They discussed the program with "The Gang of Eight"-a group of Congressional leaders who were apparently supportive of it. They further assert that the President, the National Security Council and the Attorney General all approved it.

Unfortunately for them, and for the government leaders the legal opinions which assured the agency that their requests for enhanced interrogation techniques were indeed lawful, were later discredited and withdrawn.

The problem here is that it goes beyond the "I was following orders" refrain of extermination camp guards,  It is dealing with the creation of those orders, at the highest levels of the CIA and more disturbingly of the Government.

Their second swipe at the report is to claim that the information gained through torture was instrumental in locating Osama bin Laden.

Given that bin Laden was essentially living next to the headquarters of the Pakistan Military Academy in Bilal Town which should have made him easier to find then if he were holed up in the mountains somewhere a lot more forensic evidence of the interrogations and the information achieved would have to be published to back up the claim.

Disclosure of that information would probably fall foul of National Security fears so it is likely to remain confidential, and admittedly, probably should.  The interrogators were following orders.  The information in their site only says they were able to get information on bin Laden's location through detainees.

The links on the website referencing the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) and highlighting the use of information gained from detainees emanate in the main from the office of the then President G W Bush so it is not surprising that in their releases they support the program both within as well as outside Guantanamo.

They do not explicitly say how that information was achieved so either every detainee was subjected to EIT-which I am not sure the CIA would like to admit, or we are still left in the dark as to the explicit method used to achieve the information.

It is always a difficult decision for a Commander-in-Chief to declare war.  But there are rules of warfare. There are rules governing the treatment of  enemy captives.  Making decisions as to how far to go when protecting (American) lives should be easier.

Even if one were to go so far as to say that it is a bizarre concept that there are strict rules of engagement in an exercise which at its core is to kill the other guys, the rules do exist and it is only rational for us to expect our leaders to adhere to them.

All of the legal shenanigans to get around the basic tenet that torture is illegal flies in the face of this expectation. But I don't hold the CIA (solely) responsible.  One of the most admirable aspects of our government is that we have a series of checks and balances.

Given the fact that the CIA completely missed the buildup to 9/11 it is understandable they would be willing to go to great lengths to try and prevent further attacks.  It is the government's responsibility, its duty to defend the ideals and basic tenets upon which our government stands.

The government failed miserably.

The dissenters are fighting to clear their names...they were either CIA officials, or part of that government.

They would do better to admit wrongdoing, and suggest that others, regardless of political affiliation who are in the same position should do the same.

Then we could move on.