Amid Queries, CIA Worries About Future

Washington Post: Intelligence Officials Privately Warn That New Rules May Hinder Interrogations

(Washingtonpost.com)  This story was written by Washington Post Staff Writer Walter Pincus, with contributions by Carrie Johnson.

---

Battered by recriminations over waterboarding and other harsh techniques sanctioned by the Bush administration, the CIA is girding itself for more public scrutiny and is questioning whether agency personnel can conduct interrogations effectively under rules set out for the U.S. military, according to senior intelligence officials.

Harsh interrogations were only one part of its clandestine activities against al Qaeda and other enemies, and agency members are worried that other operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan will come under review, the officials said.

CIA Director Leon Panetta said he has established a group at the agency to handle requests for documents by Congress, the prosecutors and any "truth commission." The agency is facing a dispute with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) over how much agency officials told congressional overseers about the harsh techniques.

The agency's defensiveness in part reflects a conviction that it is being forced to take the blame for actions approved by elected officials that have since fallen into disfavor. Former CIA director Michael V. Hayden said in an interview that CIA managers and operations officers have again been put "in a horrible position." Hayden recalled an officer asking, "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?"

Although President Obama has said no CIA officers will be prosecuted for their roles in harsh interrogations if they remained within Justice Department guidelines in effect at the time, agency personnel still face subpoenas and testimony under oath before criminal, civil and congressional bodies.

As part of an ongoing criminal inquiry into the CIA's destruction of videotapes depicting waterboarding, CIA personnel will appear before a grand jury this week, according to two sources familiar with the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the case is continuing. The Senate Intelligence Committee is pursuing its investigation into whether harsh interrogations, including waterboarding, brought forward worthwhile intelligence, as agency and Bush administration officials have maintained.

Officially, the agency says there is no distraction. "The agency's fight against al Qaeda and its allies continues undiminished," Paul Gimigliano, the acting head of CIA public affairs, said recently. "The job here, as always, is on getting the job done in accordance with the law." Top agency officials said the mood of concern that exists at headquarters is less apparent among personnel overseas.

The Obama administration's decisions to close the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, make public Justice Department memos sanctioning harsh interrogation, and ban techniques authorized by the Bush administration are affecting the agency's operations.

Agency officials said they will carry out any future debriefings or interrogations under provisions of the 2006 version of the Army Field Manual. They said they also will assist other agencies that conduct interrogations in order to assess the accuracy of the information obtained.

Under an executive order signed by Obama on Jan. 20, the Field Manual is "the law of the land. ... There is nothing outside it now," one intelligence official said. But according to several past agency and military officials, the Field Manual is sometimes so broad as to be unclear.

Its section on interrogation bans "violence, threats, or impermissible or unlawful physical contact," without specifying what is sanctioned. The manual also says an interrogator cannot threaten "the removal of protections afforded by law."

Present and past CIA officials maintain that other legal techniques exist beyond those mentioned in the Field Manual that should be available for use. Panetta has said he would go to the president for authority to use them if he believed it necessary.

For example, the "attention grasp," described as "grasping the individual with both hands, one hand on either side of the collar," is one of the 13 techniques employed in the past by the CIA and is listed in the Justice Department's May 10, 2005, memo. It is barred under the Field Manual. Unlike harsher techniques on the list, such as nudity, dietary control, sleep deprivation and waterboarding, CIA officials say they want the authority to use the attention grasp without going back to Washington for approval.

The CIA has also recommended to the presidential task force studying future rules for interrogation that the agency, FBI and Defense Department establish a joint interrogation training center so that all agencies understand the rules under which they operate.

The Field Manual, which was published in 2006, says that "direct approach" interrogation operations in World War II had a 90-percent effectiveness, and those in Vietnam, Kuwait and Iraq had a success rate of 95 percent. Afghanistan since 2002 and Iraq since 2003 are still being studied. "However," it adds, "unofficial studies indicate that in these operations, the direct approach has been dramatically less successful."

Another intelligence official, who also asked not to be identified, said waterboarding and other harsh techniques "were meant to get hardened terrorists to a point where they were willing to answer questions." That capability, the official said, "is now gone."

The special task force set up by Obama in January will determine whether the Field Manual interrogation guidelines are too narrow and whether "additional guidance is necessary for CIA," according to a White House statement. A report on that study is not expected before July.

[caldwellptr]

when it boils down to it there are no rules in a fight. They are there so the victorious can have judgment against the defeated. And remember History is written by the Victor.
Posted by quapawsix at 11:18 AM : May 19, 2009

This type of reasoning would mean that the United States already has its own Terrorism unit? We have, after all, had our own assasination teams .....

[egresor]

hayden didn't know the difference between torture and non-torture techniques and he was bush's head man at cia.

stupid is what stupid does. we knew bush was (and is) stupid, now we know hayden is too.
Posted by notmudroseii

the reason they picked him and gonzales is because they have no moral center and are willing to color the law however bush and cheney wanted.

they aren't stupid (except the cheney cabal toady bush) their calculating with an agenda.

[noloyalisti]

That's what happen when you blindly follow failed government like the Bushoccio Crime Family. Just like the Nazis. And people are shocked that the CIA lies. That is their very business.

[quapawsix]

Don't look so surprised this kind of activity has been going on since man decided there should be rules of engagement by the gentleman of the aristocracy in Europe. Then later expanded to what we are supposed to follow. The sad reality is that no one and I mean no one follows it to the letter and some disregard it completely and do what ever they want. Take a look at the crimes that are committed around the world all in the name of more money, more power, more land, more food, and setting up Democracies. And when it boils down to it there are no rules in a fight. They are there so the victorious can have judgment against the defeated. And remember History is written by the Victor.

[mjlewis6]

I wonder how much of the Geneva Conventions were done away with during the Korean Conflict, Viet Nam, Panama, Gulf War 1 and now....

Do we really have the rule of law when a former Vice President argues for torture?

Do we really have the moral side of this war when we can execute anyone in a convoy outside of the combat zone on the Arabian peninsula in Yemen with a predator aircraft?

Can we call anyone an actual POW when our forces capture someone and they are subject to rendition, detention, and treatment that we do not allow the International Red Cross access?

What is all of this called when people die not due to natural causes during detention?

As citizens of the United States, we have the Miranda Warning that is ORDERED by the US Supreme Court to prevent police powers from the kinds of illegal detention, treatment and sensory attack and sleep deprivation to get a suspect to admit to anything in order for the treatment to stop....to say nothing of lack of legal access to counsel...We have Miranda to stop the inhumane treatment of civilian prisoners...

How do we INSURE our leaders obey the Geneva Conventions on treatment of civilians and POWS which was signed BEFORE WOLD WAR II in the 1930's?

The funamental treatment of civilians and POWS is clearly stated and the role of the IRC is the primary witness to that treatment.

IT is a glaring truth we must face as Americans...we have been used by an administration as excuse for the commission of war crimes....we are LESS safe for the wonderful discovery of the crimes perpetrated by our own officials acting in concert and as conspiracy until it is very clear what they have been trying to avoid the public from learning. ....

It is torture. It is kidnapping. It is illegal to jail indefinitely civilians or anyone less than a POW. They are all responsible for their acts at the highest level....

[cs4466]

Before anyone attempts to defend members of the Bush administration for torture of suspects they should read U.S. Code: Title 18: Part 1: Chapter 113c: Sections 2340 for a specific definition of the act of torture:

(1) ?torture? means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control;
(2) ?severe mental pain or suffering? means the prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from?
(A) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering;
(B) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality;
(C) the threat of imminent death; or
(D) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind-altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality; and
(3) ?United States? means the several States of the United States, the District of Columbia, and the commonwealths, territories, and possessions of the United States.

Chapter 2340A states:

a) Offense.? Whoever outside the United States commits or attempts to commit torture shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both, and if death results to any person from conduct prohibited by this subsection, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.
(b) Jurisdiction.? There is jurisdiction over the activity prohibited in subsection (a) if?
(1) the alleged offender is a national of the United States; or
(2) the alleged offender is present in the United States, irrespective of the nationality of the victim or alleged offender.
(c) Conspiracy.? A person who conspires to commit an offense under this section shall be subject to the same penalties (other than the penalty of death) as the penalties prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.

Section 2340B, reads:

Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as precluding the application of State or local laws on the same subject, nor shall anything in this chapter be construed as creating any substantive or procedural right enforceable by law by any party in any civil proceeding.

It is past time for the Justice Department to issue arrest warrants for every member of the Bush administration who sat in on this meeting where it was authorized.

[brianbwb-2009]

Funny that for some reason, the CIA, as well as those who support the Bush klan's lie based war, cannot understand simple English, as signed into law by Reagan.

"Article 1

1. For the purposes of this Convention, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
2. This article is without prejudice to any international instrument or national legislation which does or may contain provisions of wider application.

Article 2

1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat or war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
3. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture. "

Or from even earlier documents, the third (GCIII) and fourth (GCIV) Geneva Conventions

"Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms... shall in all circumstances be treated humanely." The treaty also states that there must not be any "violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture" or "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment".

Those who "carried out the orders" cannot avoid blame, it is a well known part of international and US law, so if the "officer" quoted in the story was motivated to even ask the question "Will I be in trouble five years from now for what I agree to do today?", the answer is yes, because you agreed to do it, and you know full well it is illegal.