Slashdot Mirror
Director Brennan: CIA Won't Waterboard Again, Even If Ordered By Future President (msnbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from MSNBC: CIA Director John Brennan told NBC News in an exclusive interview that his agency will not engage in harsh "enhanced interrogation" practices, including waterboarding, which critics call torture -- even if ordered to by a future president. "I will not agree to carry out some of these tactics and techniques I've heard bandied about because this institution needs to endure," Brennan said. The CIA used waterboarding and other techniques on terrorist suspects after the 9/11 attacks. But in January 2009, President Obama banned the practices in his first few days in office with an executive order. When asked specifically about waterboarding Brennan could not have been clearer. "Absolutely, I would not agree to having any CIA officer carrying out waterboarding again," he said. Donald Trump is a staunch supporter of torture, saying he would bring back waterboarding and "a hell of a lot worse" to retrieve information from potential terrorists. Ted Cruz says he would "not bring [waterboarding] back in any sort of widespread use" by rank and file soldiers and agents, but as President he would "use whatever enhanced interrogation methods to keep this country safe."
Because you told the world when you did it before right?
There is a kernel of truth in what you say - the US should live up to a HIGHER standard. Our founding documents say this country exists for the purpose of justice, freedom, and liberty.
That said, are you thinking that Al Quaeda was following the laws of war until after 9/11, that hijacking civilian airliners and crashing them into skyscrapers is okay? To claim that Al Quaeda won't follow the laws of war because the US may not have is of course a bit silly.
Refusing, rather than carrying out with some enthusiasm and taking pictures, such orders would be a bit of a change in practice; but in the noble land of theory; hasn't it always been the case that military agents are supposed to refuse to carry out unlawful orders(with the obvious practical limits imposed by the fact that most soldiers have access to legal opinion only to the extent that somebody told a JAG to write up a terse summary of the rules of engagement)?
My (admittedly layman's) understanding was that while actually having the issue come up is considered a bad sign(since something has obviously gone badly wrong on the executive or legislative side if the military is being issued unlawful orders); but that while disobeying lawful orders is somewhere between 'disciplinary problem' and 'coup d'etat', depending on how many people are involved and whether they are brought into line internally or not; it is no more a desired outcome for the military to execute an unlawful order than it is for the judiciary to rule according to an unconstitutional law; or the executive to act without legislatively granted authority.
The only real change here is that we have an actually-high-ranked-spook not weaseling around and claiming that waterboarding is just the sort of practical-joking fun that we all did when we joined a frat.
There are some traditions. Certain instruments of government are considered more independent of the Presidential administration than others, and thus the terms of their directors are intentionally not supposed to coincide with the Presidential terms.
I think that CIA, NASA, Federal Reserve, and FBI are in that category. Cabinet secretaries are, naturally, appointed by the President directly.
With respect to the current issue: CIA will not torture. But a contractor, or an agency of another government, will.
'Torture' doesn't work because it results in false confessions and bad data. Anything to make it stop.
But there are many 'enhanced interrogation techniques' that do, most of which have been redefined as 'torture'. Keeping someone awake for 4 days and playing good cop/bad cop works 100% of the time. They actually think the good cop is their friend by then, someone with no sleep for 4 days has the mental capacity of a toddler.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Plame's official CIA job title was "operations officer":
OOs clandestinely [emphasis mine] spot, assess, develop, recruit and handle human sources with access to vital intelligence.
[source].
What's more, she posed as a energy consultant when she traveled abroad. In other words Plame was what in the spy trade is called a "knock" -- No Official Cover. This means that unlike agents who pose as diplomats she was not covered by diplomatic immunity and was potentially liable to legal and other actions taken by target countries. The identities of NOC agents is one of the most sensitive pieces of information there is.
Robert Novak, the columnist who outed Plame, later started the meme that she was a mere analyst. This is a self-serving claim; had he believed that then he wouldn't be guilty of a felony under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Movak was in effect pleading stupidity because the biographic references he admitted using listed a front company as her employer rather than the CIA. In fact in the column in question he correctly identifies her as an "operative", not an "analyst" -- a distinction which he was well aware meant that her job was clandestine.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.