Hot Topic: Is "Enhanced Interrogation" Justifiable?

(AP)

Former Vice President Dick Cheney told Fox News on Monday that the Obama administration should release CIA memos that, he says, will show "the success" of the CIA's use of so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" during the Bush administration.

Last week, the administration released previously top-secret CIA memos authorizing the use of tactics such as stripping prisoners nude, depriving them of sleep, slapping them, placing them in a cramped box filled with insects, and employing the process of simulated drowning known as waterboarding. Waterboarding is now considered by the government to be torture.

Cheney said he found the decision to release those memos – but not others that he says show the success of the use of the tactics – "a little bit disturbing." He said he has read classified memos "that lay out what we learned through the interrogation process and what the consequences were for the country," arguing that they should be made public so the country can have an "honest debate."

President Obama, who has banned the use of many of the methods outlined in the memos, initially indicated that his administration would not prosecute those involved in authorizing and applying the tactics. But facing pressure in the wake of the release of the memos, he indicated today that he is open to prosecution of those "who formulated those legal decisions," though not those who carried out the operations.

Cheney, who has been a persistent and vocal critic of the young Obama administration, offers a fundamentally different worldview than Mr. Obama. The former vice president's call for the release of more memos is essentially a push for evidence that the ends justify the means, no matter how bad the means may look.

The president, by contrast, argues that America must hold to an ethical standard higher than its enemies, even if it makes the job harder; the ends, to him, will never justify the tactics outlined in the CIA memos.

4957867"Sometimes it seems as if…we're operating with one hand tied behind our back" in striving to operate ethically, he told CIA employees yesterday. And yet, he suggested, it's worth it.

"What makes the United States special and what makes you special is precisely the fact that we are willing to uphold our values and our ideals even when it's hard, not just when it's easy; even when we are afraid and under threat, not just when it's expedient to do so," said the president.

That's a view that Cheney appears to see as na?ve; he has suggested that Mr. Obama's policies have made America less safe. Following such ethical considerations, he seems to think, means putting American lives at risk.

All this is not to say that these "enhanced" techniques are necessarily effective; many argue that the sort of treatment outlined in the CIA memos more often than not yields false confessions or bad information. One cannot necessarily operate on the premise that the further you go, the safer you can make the country – even if Jack Bauer's heroics (on Fox's "24") might suggest otherwise. Still, if you believe that such techniques can work – as Cheney, and many in the intelligence world, clearly do – then the debate becomes about whether or not you are willing to limit your potential effectiveness by reducing the tools at your disposal.

(AP Photo/Gerald Herbert)

Mr. Obama's decision to release the memos in the first place has been criticized by former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former CIA director Michael Hayden, independent Sen. Joe Lieberman and others; Mukasey and Hayden wrote in the Wall Street Journal that "its effect will be to invite the kind of institutional timidity and fear of recrimination that weakened intelligence gathering in the past, and that we came sorely to regret on Sept. 11, 2001."

The president rejects such arguments; to him, the American identity is tied to the fact that "we are willing to go back and correct [our] mistakes and keep our eye on those ideals and values that have been passed on generation to generation," as he said today. (The president has also pointed out that the techniques outlined in the memos had previously been disclosed, and thus, he argues, the release of the memos does not aide terrorists.)

In the broadest sense, the dispute centers on questions of idealism and pragmatism – and to what degree the two can be merged. The president believes America can be kept safe while operating at higher ethical standards than its enemies; the former vice president believes that it is sometimes necessary to use tactics that many find objectionable in order to protect the American way of life.

Where do you come down on the issue? Let us know both in the poll below and in comments.

82 Comments Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment

See all 82 Comments


by ilovpoop June 29, 2009 12:52 AM EDT: Maybe some of you may be willing to die for your values. But of those 3000+ people who died in 9/11? Do you believe every one of those people would put terrorists before themselves? I'm not saying that torture is acceptable, but given the circumstances, we're forced to use it. It's us or them. Law of Survival.

And for those cynics who believe that torture does not work... anybody notice any terrorist attacks since 9/11? Information gained through torture led to the capture of more terrorists. Solid evidence.; Reply to this comment


by j_mcdonald-2009 April 25, 2009 1:05 PM EDT: Jay Frank: "We know these methods provided the CIA with sufficient information to thwart a terrorist attack on Los Angeles.

We also know the information to thwart this attack would not have been obtained but for the use of these techniques."

Interrogator Ali Soufan: "It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.

We discovered, for example, that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. Abu Zubaydah also told us about Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty bomber. This experience fit what I had found throughout my counterterrorism career: traditional interrogation techniques are successful in identifying operatives, uncovering plots and saving lives.

There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn?t, or couldn?t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions ? all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process."

"It is difficult to quantify with confidence and precision the effectiveness of the program," Steven G. Bradbury, then the Justice Department's principal deputy assistant attorney general, wrote in a May 30, 2005, memo to CIA General Counsel John Rizzo.

When asked "Have any attacks on America been disrupted thanks to intelligence obtained through what the administration still calls ?enhanced techniques??", Bush's FBI director Mueller says in 2008: "I?m really reluctant to answer that,? then ?I don?t believe that has been the case.?

That's a hard call, Jay. I can believe you or I can believe the FBI director, internal CIA reports, and the interrogators that got the information you allude to. Let me think about that and get back to you...; Reply to this comment


by j_mcdonald-2009 April 25, 2009 11:20 AM EDT: ReallyMeanIt, are you dumb or just avoiding hungry's question?

If you were to torture such a person, what do you think would happen? Most likely, they'd warn you about an impending gas attack on Seatlle, or a nuke aimed at Norad, or some other such nonsense, hoping you'd waste time and energy chasing bogus leads. They would not tell you about the real plans.

At least, that's what USUALLY happens when you torture people. Ask McCain, ask the lead interrogator at Gitmo, ask the people who were tortured in Korea, read the transcripts of the confessions obtained in the Inquisition.

Torture DOES NOT WORK. It's a LOUSY way to get information, and usually produces FALSE information.

Other techniques (like the ones that helped us get al-Zakawri)
DO work. (For example, playing chess with captured Nazi officers turned out to be the most effective way of getting information from them. )

Got it? Jack Bauer is FICTION. The real world doesn't work that way. You can have your sadistic pleasure, or you can actually do something to save lives. But not both.

Sheesh...; Reply to this comment


by ReallyMeanIt April 23, 2009 11:38 PM EDT: Let's say that you arrest the head of an Al Queda cell who you believe has information about an iminent attack against the US homeland or other US facility. You sit down in front of the guy and ask him to tell you what he knows. He tells you to get screwed...in the name of Allah. Thousands of your fellow Americans could be killed. What do you do? How do you think the American public is going to react when they fnd out that you could have used "enhanced interrogation" techniques to extract the information and prevent this attack, but you did not because you wanted your actions to be politically correct?
Posted by brianp55 at 8:47 AM : Apr 22, 2009

Name ONE TIME when this scenario has EVER played out - just once.
Posted by hungry1968-15

hungry1968-15, lets see if we can dumb this down a bit so you can comprehend better.
How about on 9/10, you catched one of the hijacker with all of the incriminating evidence except for when it's going to happen. Can you lived with yourself after after 9/11 when you know you didn't do all that you could to save thousands of lives and prevents thousand of becoming orphans, widows, widowers?; Reply to this comment


by deecorrea April 23, 2009 2:43 PM EDT: I agree with the comment of prior information before 9/11 and it was ignored. What I believed happened, our goverment made many mistakes in protecting us then. So appears these extreme measures and the scare tacts for the Bush admin. into doing anything and everything. Of course we where lead to believe Iran had weapons or the ability to develop weapon that would be so destructive. Well where did that info come from? But who cares, it was alright for our goverment to go to war. Oh I forget , it's called an occupation, cause I was under the impression an act of congress is needed to declare war! Then came the act of all acts, our willingness to give up our own rights, oh wait we had no choice. The scare tacts of the Bush adminisation, what about prior to 9/11. So here is the point, as far as I'm concerned, the actions of the government at time, or Bush admin, said so many time as an excuse, where for the protection of America, whose America, so black and whiteyor with me or against me. Nothing else. So what if they broke international laws, , so what the admin should never be held up to the same standards. What do they got to hide?; Reply to this comment


by abbe91 April 23, 2009 5:51 AM EDT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKzLChQ1p7k; Reply to this comment


by abbe91 April 23, 2009 5:22 AM EDT: The next thing we'll know is why it didn't matter to the Bush administration that torture doesn't work for obtaining valuable information. According to interrogators themselves, the detainees will tell you want you want to hear, rather than what they know. Guess what the Bush administration wanted to hear at the time ... links between Al Qaeda and Iraq. That was probably one of the main reasons for torture.; Reply to this comment


by kansas1946 April 23, 2009 12:21 AM EDT: This is nuts. They still have their heads attached to their bodies...do they not? Then they were treated mercifully!
Posted by poeticaintit at 12:58 PM : Apr 22, 2009
************************************

LOL. Very funny.; Reply to this comment


by kansas1946 April 23, 2009 12:20 AM EDT: There is absolutely only one reason that people are tortured. It is because the people doing it enjoy it. No decent person would have anything to do with it, only a sadist that finds it pleasurable, and apparantly, there are plenty of those around.; Reply to this comment


by ianlou April 22, 2009 3:57 PM EDT: "The ends justify the means" says Cheney

Cheney learned this when he was cutting his teeth in the Nixon Administration.; Reply to this comment

See all 82 Comments

Report offensive content:

E-mail this comment to a friend.

Follow Political Hotsheet

CBS This Morning