By Cliff Montgomery – June 15th, 2015
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) prepares top-notch reports on major political issues for U.S. Congressional members and committees. In February, CRS released a short yet exceptional review of perhaps the best-known Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report in recent memory – the SSCI study of the infamous Detention and Interrogation (D&I) Program run by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from 2001 to 2007.
The CRS discovered that a number of top U.S. officials maintained deep reservations about the CIA’s use of torture techniques on individuals detained by the government after the events of September 11th, 2001.
A CIA Special Review released in 2003 by the Agency’s Inspector General admitted that the D&I Program “diverges sharply from previous Agency policy and practice, rules that govern interrogations by U.S. military and law enforcement officers, statements of U.S. policy by the Department of State, and public statements by very senior U.S. officials, including the President.”
And there’s more…
“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) followed a ‘rapport-based’ approach and did not allow its agents to participate in joint interrogations of detainees held by other agencies if EITs [Enhanced Interrogation Techniques] were used,” declared the CRS study.
The CRS report adds that top FBI officials believed that the Bureau‘s agents should abstain from employing such techniques because “(1) EITs not as effective at developing accurate information, (2) EIT derived intelligence not admissible in any court, and (3) EITS would help Al Qaeda spread negative views of the United States.”
Below, offers a number of quotes from this fascinating CRS report:
“Much of the controversy over the recently released Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) Study of the Central Intelligence Agency’s (CIA’s) Detention and Interrogation (D&I) Program (SSCI Study) has focused on the CIA’s use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs) on certain detainees.
“Background information on what, when, why and how EITs were used (and what restrictions currently apply) provides context for this examination of current perspectives on the use of EITs by U.S. government agencies.”
Perspectives on EITs and Values
“Did the CIA’s use of EITs run counter to American values and morals? Those who believe they did violate American ideals suggest that the United States lost some of its ‘moral high ground’ and damaged its image. President Barrack Obama stated, ‘These techniques did significant damage to America’s standing in the world and made it harder to pursue our interests with allies and partners.’
“Some say it has damaged our ability to use ‘smart power.’ According to Dr. Joseph Nye (the professor who coined the term):
‘Smart power is the combination of hard and soft power. Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments. Opinion polls show a serious decline in American attractiveness in Europe, Latin America and, most dramatically, the Muslim world. The resources that produce soft power for a country include its culture (when it is attractive to others), its values (when they are attractive and not undercut by inconsistent practices) and policies (when they are seen as inclusive and legitimate).’
“Some support for Nye’s perspective arguably may be found in international media reports from countries frequently at odds with U.S. policies, such as China, Iran, North Korea and Russia, and by organizations such as the United Nations (U.N.). A number of accounts accuse the United States of hypocrisy in casting itself as the standard-bearer of democracy and human rights.
“Additionally, the U.N.’s Special Rapporteur on torture stated that the United States’ use of torture has ‘created a set-back in the global battle against the practice.’
“In remarks on the Senate floor, Senator Feinstein stated:
‘It’s really about American values and morals. It’s about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, our rule of law. These values exist regardless of the circumstances in which we find ourselves. They exist in peacetime and in wartime. And if we cast aside these values when convenient, we have failed to live by the very precepts that make our nation a great one.’
“This perspective is supported by a number of others—most notably, perhaps, by Senator John McCain, a former prisoner of war (POW) who was himself subject to torture. In a speech on the Senate floor, McCain rejected the ‘ends justify means’ argument and stated:
‘I know the use of torture compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies—our belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not only joined, but for the most part authored.’
“A number of individuals have argued that the SSCI Study should not have been released publicly because it provided damaging information that may be used against the United States in the future. That perspective was countered by those who suggested that the SSCI Study offered concrete evidence of democracy at work. In this view, it may enhance the United States’ image abroad because it demonstrates efforts to investigate wrong doing and take corrective measures.
“In a message to the Intelligence Community workforce, Director of National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper stated:
‘I don’t believe that any other nation would go to the lengths the United States does to bare its soul, admit mistakes when they are made and learn from those mistakes. Certainly, no one can imagine such an effort by any of the adversaries we face today.’ ”
Perspectives on EITs and Effectiveness
“Were the EITs effective in producing valuable intelligence, not otherwise obtainable through standard interrogation techniques? The IG Special Review [a Special Review of the CIA’s EIT program in 2003 conducted by the CIA Inspector General (IG)] defined standard interrogation practices as ‘effective’ because they (1) enabled the identification and capture of other terrorists, (2) warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States, (3) helped to verify (‘vet’) information from other detainees, and (4) provided information about Al Qaeda operations.
“Labeling EITs ‘effective’ seems to have rested on a higher standard—on their ability to provide (1) information beyond what had been offered willingly before the EITs, and (2) accurate, actionable intelligence on imminent threats. [But] neither the IG Special Review (in 2003) nor the SSCI Study found sufficient evidence to suggestthat the use of EITs met the higher standard of effectiveness.
“The IG Special Review did suggest efforts be made to measure the effectiveness of EITs but noted that doing so would be ‘challenging’ for a number of reasons. The SSCI Study acknowledged the value of standard techniques but argued that not enough evidence was provided in CIA documents to support the continued use of EITs.
“Senator McCain questioned the effectiveness of EITs when he stated:
‘I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.’
“The SSCI Minority Views and comments offered by a group of former CIA directors supported the CIA’s contention that EITs were effective at producing valuable, actionable intelligence ‘that saved lives.’
“However, CIA Director John Brennan offered the following caveat:
‘We have not concluded that it was the use of EITs within that program that allowed us to obtain useful information from detainees subjected to them. The cause and effect relationship between the use of EITs and useful information subsequently provided by the detainee is, in my view, unknowable.’ ”
