Obama to Ban Waterboarding -- Sort of...?

[Dutch]

President Bush has received endless criticism for allowing the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the key masterminds behind 9/11. But I found this article fascinating.

Sources: Obama ready to end harsh interrogations - Yahoo! News (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090117/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogations)

WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to prohibit the use of waterboarding and harsh interrogation techniques by ordering the CIA to follow military rules for questioning prisoners, according to two U.S. officials familiar with drafts of the plans. Still under debate is whether to include a loophole that would allow exceptions in extraordinary cases.

Later in the article is says...
The CIA also banned waterboarding in 2006...

But the Associated Press reports today that president-elect Obama is going to ban the use of waterboarding by the CIA. Confusing?

Well, the difference is that instead of this being banned at the lowly CIA level, it will be an executive order for the CIA to follow U.S. Army guidelines.

The 384-page Army manual, last updated in September 2006, is a publicly available document. It authorizes 19 interrogation methods used to question prisoners, including one allowing a detainee to be isolated from other inmates in some cases. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, which creates the sensation of drowning. Holder termed waterboarding a form of torture on Thursday.


Well, sort of an executive order...

The Army manual can be amended by the military. It is unclear whether the CIA would be held to the one published in 2006 or future versions.

But what if we need to interrogate another Khalid Sheik Mohammed? And when I say "interrogate", I actually mean, "Get information by any means neccessary to save lives". Well, in that case, there will be a new "secret loophole" to still allow waterboarding in certain situations. Which situations? That will be classified. What will be allowed? That will be classified.


For Obama, who repeatedly insisted during the 2008 presidential campaign and the transition period that "America doesn't torture," a classified loophole would allow him to follow through on his promise to end harsh interrogations while retaining a full range of presidential options in conducting the war against terrorism.

The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual, is designed to satisfy intelligence experts who fear that an outright ban of so-called enhanced interrogation techniques would limit the government in obtaining threat information that could save American lives. It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.


So, basically, in a nutshell. Nothing will change except the alledgedly "secretive Bush administration" that was rather public about waterboarding will be changed for the alledgedly "open Obama administration" that will be rather secretive about waterboarding.

But it is nice to see the AP reporting this as "good news".

[cartman]

You left out some key passages.

..., although the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding.

That would seem to undermine your entire "sort of" claim.

The proposed loophole, which could come in the form of a classified annex to the manual,...
Senate Democrats aren't likely to support a classified annex.

Sounds like this is far from a set in stone policy as well.

[Dutch]

..., although the intent is not to use that as an opening for possible use of waterboarding.

vs...

It would also preserve Obama's flexibility to authorize any interrogation tactics he might deem necessary for national security.


Senate Democrats approving this is unlikely? So....

Obama is still weighing whether to alter interrogation policy by executive order during his first days in office or working with Congress through legislation.

Looks like he's prepared to circumvent the Senate if neccessary.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Bill Clinton put it best a few months ago when he said that to legislate the use of torture as an official interrogation technique cannot happen. It needs to be the call of the interrogator, and that whoever it is better feel that what they do is entirely necessary. He even citited Jack Bauer. :)


"If you're the Jack Bauer person, you'll do whatever you do and you should be prepared to take the consequences"

"If you have any kind of a formal exception, people just drive a truck through it, and they'll say, 'Well, I thought it was covered by the exception.'"

"When Bauer goes out there on his own and is prepared to live with the consequences, it always seems to work better."

[Glengoyne]

I think that Cartman is right, in that this is far from determined. While Dutch's point does make me smile, all I see are tough choices for Obama on this one. If you essentially make interrogation ineffective, then when you REALLY need something, you are faced with breaking the law. If you leave the door open for extraordinary techniques, then your critics will say you are condoning torture.

I heard a radio interview on NPR that said that IF Obama declares the army manual to be the rule of law, then he will essentially be hoping that exigent circumstances do not arise. I don't think I like that option.

I think I'm starting to favor the "ban all torture, but leave a super secret loophole" option that Dutch mentioned.

This will be interesting to see where Obama stands on some issues that the Bush administration was criticised for. In my book...interrogation policy, the wiretapping policy, and the actions he takes in Iraq will be pretty telling with respect to how much "change" we will be seeing.

[Honolulu_Blue]

President Bush has received endless criticism for allowing the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, one of the key masterminds behind 9/11. But I found this article fascinating...

So it begins... And before the man's even been inaugurated.

Keep fighting the good fight, Dutch! Let's hope we have 8 more years of this!

[timmynausea]

I agree with Clinton: Jack Bauer should decide if and when we use torture. If possible, Chuck Norris could carry part of the load as well.

[cartman]

Here's where the incoming AG seems to stand on the issue.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/csTjpXD2LH8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/csTjpXD2LH8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>


CORNYN: I wanna just ask you a hypothetical. Earlier, you condemned the use of waterboarding. But you’re familiar with the ticking time bomb scenario, and I just wanna pose a hypothetical for you. Let’s say as Attorney General you find out that there are terrorists that have access to chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, and that you have a detainee who’s in possession of information that, if disclosed, would prevent those weapons from being detonated in the United States and thousands, maybe tens of thousands people being killed. You would still refuse to condone aggressive interrogation techniques like waterboarding to get that information, which would, under my hypothetical, save perhaps tens of thousands of lives.

HOLDER: Well, I think there are a couple of ways in which I’d look at that. One, I would not assume that because I say waterboarding should not be done that that’s the only tool, the only mechanism, that we have in our arsenal to try to get that information from that person as quickly as we could. I also think I’m not at all certain that waterboarding somebody, torturing somebody – whatever technique you want to use – is necessarily going to produce the results that we want. What I’ve heard from the experts is that people will say almost anything to avoid torture. They will give you whatever information they think you want to hear. And so, I’m not at all certain that given the time sensitivity that I assume we have in your hypothetical, that waterboarding that person would necessarily give us the result that we want. And I think we also have to understand that we have other things in our arsenal that we could use – other techniques that we could use that would, I think, perhaps the result that we want.

CORNYN: Well, of course, torture’s illegal under international treaties and under domestic laws, and I’ve heard people talk about torture in expansive ways, where things like sleep deprivation, other techniques that maybe you would employ as an alternative are considered torture to them as well. But under my hypothetical, if that were the only thing standing between you and deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, you would decline to use that interrogation technique in order to save those lives. Is that correct?

HOLDER: Again, I think your hypothetical assumes a premise that I’m not willing to concede.

CORNYN: I know you don’t like my hypothetical.

HOLDER: No, the hypothetical’s fine; the premise that underlies it I’m not willing to accept, and that is that waterboarding is the only way that I could get that information from those people.

CORNYN: Assume that it was.

HOLDER: [Laughs] Given the knowledge that I have about other techniques and what I’ve heard from retired admirals and generals and FBI agents, there are other ways in a timely fashion that you can get information out of people that is accurate and will produce useable intelligence. And so it’s hard for me to accept or to answer your hypothetical without accepting your premise. And in fact, I don’t think I can do that.

[…]

DURBIN: I listened to your opening statement and in three words, in three words, the world changed as far as I’m concerned, because you stated without hesitation that waterboarding is torture. I can’t tell you how many times Senator Whitehouse and I asked that of the current Attorney General and we could never, ever get a straight declarative sentence. I think it’s important — important for our country, important for our position in the world. And I understand Senator Cornyn’s questions. They are questions that anyone who watches Jack Bauer on “24″ would ask. And most Americans do, I have. But it’s a different scenario, and when we’re going to draw up values and principles and laws, we have to really be cognizant of the fact that you can always construct the scenario that will challenge the foundation of any legal principle. And I think it’s far better for us to stand by standards that have guided our nation for generations and return to them now with this new administration.

[Cap Ologist]

I agree with Clinton: Jack Bauer should decide if and when we use torture. If possible, Chuck Norris could carry part of the load as well.

Norris says he'll only help if Huckabee is elected.

[Glengoyne]

I wish the Jack Bauer option had been available when I posted in this thread.

[ISiddiqui]

I think I'm starting to favor the "ban all torture, but leave a super secret loophole" option that Dutch mentioned.

It seems that's the way its going to be. Ban all torture, but if definitely needed, the interrogator can do it. It won't be official policy, but that doesn't mean it won't ever happen in a "ticking time bomb" scenario.

[flere-imsaho]

I don't see the problem with banning it and, should a "ticking time bomb" scenario arise and other methods don't work (and experienced agents and interrogators have said again and again that this particular set of circumstances happens very, very rarely), you still have the option to give the interrogator a presidential pardon.

The key problem is that 24 (and everyone who cites it) vastly overstates the likelihood of "ticking time bomb" scenarios where other methods, or other intelligence, don't work or aren't available. I've posted, in previous threads, the statements of seasoned intelligence officials who have said this.

[Buccaneer]

I've posted, in previous threads, the statements of seasoned intelligence officials who have said this.

To you publically or privately? On the record or off the record? With or without security clearance?

[Glengoyne]

..

The key problem is that 24 (and everyone who cites it) vastly overstates the likelihood of "ticking time bomb" scenarios where other methods, or other intelligence, don't work or aren't available. I've posted, in previous threads, the statements of seasoned intelligence officials who have said this.

Based on the research I've conducted on the statements of seasoned intelligence officials portrayed on 24, This kind of thing can happen as often as 4 times in a 24 hour period.

[M GO BLUE!!!]

Isn't waterboarding that half-surfboard thing that you rent that is tethered to your arm?

[SportsDino]

No torture, no exceptions. If you take away the toys of torture and one of these magical scenarios comes up, then the interrogator mans up and says "I'm willing to go to jail to get the information". State sanctioned torture of any kind always ends up as a slippery slope where it gets applied in situations we all know it is not necessary for.

[flere-imsaho]

To you publically or privately? On the record or off the record? With or without security clearance?

Agents from every intelligence branch, including interrogators, are on the record over the past 8 years (or so) with these statements. I've posted these statements in previous threads we've had on this topic. These statements I've linked have been from published sources, such as newspapers and newsmagazines (and their websites).

[Buccaneer]

Agents from every intelligence branch, including interrogators, are on the record over the past 8 years (or so) with these statements. I've posted these statements in previous threads we've had on this topic. These statements I've linked have been from published sources, such as newspapers and newsmagazines (and their websites).

Then I would suggest reading about top secret intelligence operations from during and soon after WW2 that appear in published sources, such as newspapers and magazines.

[flere-imsaho]

Then I would suggest reading about top secret intelligence operations from during and soon after WW2 that appear in published sources, such as newspapers and magazines.

And this is more relevant than accounts from interrogators and agents working during the timeframe of the past 8 years why?

Look, I have my opinion, and I base my opinion on the statements given about torture by intelligence practitioners over the past 8 years or so. You or anyone else can disagree but I will continue to contend that the use of torture in a 24-style situation simply doesn't reflect reality and the use of torture in Jack Bauer-style methods simply isn't as effective in the real world, if it is at all, really.

But we've been through all of this before, in multiple threads, so I'm not interested in re-hashing the debate by digging up sources again. I've spent enough time doing that already. So you, or anyone else, is free to disagree, but that's my position, and I feel my position is well-supported.

[Buccaneer]

The only point is that statements made by individuals or agencies in the know in published sources may or may not be accurate, for a reason. Usually we have to wait 25 years for certain information to be de-classified to find more of the truth. History has shown us that, not only WW2 and the Cold War, but even going back to Civil War and Washington's intelligence operations during the Revolutionary War.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, maybe you're right and in 25 years we'll find out that waterboarding KSM got us actionable intelligence that stopped another 3 9/11s. I doubt it, though.

[Dutch]

Well, maybe you're right and in 25 years we'll find out that waterboarding KSM got us actionable intelligence that stopped another 3 9/11s. I doubt it, though.

You are right, who knows? I'm certainly no expert either. But the point of this thread is that Obama thinks it could be of some value, that it's use should never grace the front page of the New York Times (when and if it happens), and the AP mis-represented Obama's position.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Isn't waterboarding that half-surfboard thing that you rent that is tethered to your arm?
I think so. So why are people trying to ban it? Because it wasn't accurately represented in either game in the California Games series?