July 22, 2009 2:14 PM

CIA Harsh Interrogation Methods Revealed

By
CBSNews
(AP)  President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost "our moral bearings" with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods "is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don't want to prejudge that," Mr. Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Mr. Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government's efforts to cope with terrorism.

The president had said earlier that he didn't want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.

The vexing issue of how terrorism-era detainees held by the United States were interrogated has presented Mr. Obama with a quandary, both political and pragmatic. He harshly criticized these practices as the campaigning Democratic presidential candidate, and still feels pressure from his party's liberal wing to come down hard on it, even after the fact. But he also is being criticized by Republicans, including people as high-ranking as former Vice President Dick Cheney, who say the Bush administration doesn't get enough credit for keeping the country from a second 9/11-style attack.

Worsening Mr. Obama's dilemma: Now that he is president, he has to worry even more about the fallout of a release of government interrogation memoranda since he now oversees the entire national security establishment, including the entire spy apparatus.

Cheney said in a Fox News Channel interview that the U.S. government gained valuable intelligence from its aggressive interrogations. This came after conservatives roundly criticized Mr. Obama for releasing the internal Bush administration memos, saying that action was not in the U.S. national security interests.

The new administration's stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been somewhat murky. "There are a host of very complicated issues involved," Mr. Obama said Tuesday.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for "those who devised policy." Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

The president took a question on the volatile subject for the first time since he ordered the Justice Department to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government's first full accounting of the CIA's use of waterboarding - a form of simulated drowning - and other harsh methods criticized as torture. The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions. (You can read the memos here)

Far from putting the matter in the past, the move has resulted in Mr. Obama being buffeted by increased pressure from both sides.

Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized Mr. Obama's decision, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.

The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.

Mr. Obama banned all such techniques days after taking office. But members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror under former President George W. Bush. Lawsuits have been brought, seeking the same information.

Mr. Obama said an investigation might be acceptable "outside of the typical hearing process" and with the participation of "independent participants who are above reproach." This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

"That would probably be a more sensible approach to take," Mr. Obama said. "I'm not saying that it should be done, I'm saying that if you've got a choice."

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Mr. Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."


AP
Add a Comment See all 259 Comments
by mcnumerator April 22, 2009 6:44 PM EDT
I find it interesting that when Americans see our soldiers, tortured and abused they get upset, and rightly so. The country doing the abuse of course could care less. Now that we allegedly have done some abuse, is it the country these people are from that is upset, or, again is it these same Americans standing up for the terrorists that are doing and/or attempting to do terrible things to Americans.
Our government is sending a strange signal these days. I would like our president to inspire me not apologize for what he personally thinks is wrong with the US.
Lastly,

"The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

"As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back," Mr. Obama said. "I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations."

Give us a break, any stick will do to beat a dog and in this case he is using Sec State Clinton and Mr Levin to do his so called work that he thinks we should "not revisit" Are we fools, has any administration not used these types of tactics to obscure their true agendas from Americans? He says what he wants to happen to keep his numbers high and hope for re-election, but what he is really saying is lets make the other party look bad so in case I don't do a good job we can fall back on this and hope to get re-elected. I'm so tired of the Government's BS. I think it maybe it might be time to move to a grown up country and reverse immigrate. This country is definitely heading south.
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ April 18, 2009 4:13 PM EDT
Or for you bleeding hearts out there,
Get them hooked on crack, load them up for months, Then cut them off, cold turkey until we get some real info!
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ April 18, 2009 4:11 PM EDT
First take blood samples of all detainees.
Then put them on the national donors list.
Next inform them that they can keep more vital organs if they give fruitful info.
No info from them, Well lets just say one f our own citizens can have a better life.
Think of it as a way for the detainees to be able to give back to thier american friends
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ April 18, 2009 4:06 PM EDT
I would rather be at gitmo then any prison in the US!
Reply to this comment
by Trust_me_ April 18, 2009 4:04 PM EDT
Torture is not being practiced right anymore.
Reply to this comment
by Aldymac April 18, 2009 2:29 PM EDT
I had a friend who was a prisoner of war for three months in the I Corps of Viet Nam, he had a head wound that was taken care of by other Americans who were prisoners also.That was the only care he got, he and the others were beaten on a regular basis and the only food they got was what they could get from the jungle as they were forced to march through it to keep ahead of American units persuing them. From what he told me, the the NVA never did follow the Geneva Convention rules, we were schooled on those rules before we got into the combat zone, the terrorists never recognised anything other than what they believe to guide them.
To treat those people with kindness is only going to make them more vicous and they will think they have won and don't have to be accountable to anyone for what they do to people. All you bleeding heart liberals ought to just sit down and imagine that someone is cutting your head off, put every emotion you can think of into the thought, even imagine the blood squirting up your throught and out your mouth and imagine the nice thoughts you will have for these people who are doing this to you.
Now, does that make you feel better about going easy on those poor terrorists? That is the kindness they will give you. Enjoy
Reply to this comment
by whosaid1 April 18, 2009 11:03 AM EDT
Well, I see the debate (?) continues.....I have given it some thought and it SEEMS to me that with the exception of the extreme opinions on BOTH sides...here are two "camps"....those that have experienced the horror of war and understand the stress involved in having people try to kill you....and, those who have not experienced War. Having served in our military for over 30 years (Combat Arms) I think I can speak with some understanding of those that served (yes there are no absolutes and there will be some who did served who will have different opinions). However, most of us who did serve, and have "combat" experience very likely experienced situations where "detainees"...placed in "stressful situations" provided information about their "units" that saved American lives. Based on the definition of torture in this article....those "stressful situations" I speak of, would be considered TORTURE. Sleep deprivation,...a slap to the face...a THREAT of serious bodily harm...very often provided the information to avoid an attack or ambush. I don?t recall any situation, I was personally involved in, where "serious thought" was given to KILLING or seriously injuring the detainees. Most often just the thought that they MIGHT be executed or injured resulted in the desired result. Now I know that many who comment on this blog have never been exposed to the stress of War and think that this "barbaric action" is just that...BARBARIC and unnecessary. I personally think that is a NAIVE view...But that's ok...that?s what?s great about this country that many of us have chosen to defend...we can all have our opinions.
Reply to this comment
by opedanderson April 18, 2009 9:27 AM EDT
Hypocrisy.

We are all high and mighty against nations that use torture, until we see it as necessary to use it ourselves.

Welcome to the Banana Republic of America.
Reply to this comment
by formrusmcsgt April 18, 2009 8:45 AM EDT
Sounds like Israel as well.
Posted by hungry1968-15 at 5:44 AM : Apr 18, 2009

Of course.
Reply to this comment
by hungry1968-15 April 18, 2009 8:44 AM EDT
Good morning, hungry.

Religion is the basis for their Manifest Destiny mindset.
Posted by formrusmcsgt at 5:40 AM : Apr 18, 2009




Sounds like Israel as well.
Reply to this comment
See all 259 Comments
.
Scroll Left
Scroll Right More »
CBS News on Facebook