Dennis Blair, national intelligence director, had the correct message:
"We do not need these techniques to keep America safe," said Mr. Blair, who added: “The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means. The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweighed whatever benefit they gave us, and they are not essential to our national security.”
Punching a member of a person's family, breaking their nose in the process, is against the law, even if it is deemed necessary, or shown to be useful, in getting information about ongoing crimes in which the lives of others are at stake in some fashion.
The fact something "worked," which is deemed by some alleged intelligent sorts as compelling news, is of limited value here. Certain actions are just plain off the table because they are deemed against the law, against the law in significant part because they are inhumane. The fact, as discussed in news stories, the techniques also are of questionable merit, and have pragmatic difficulties involving foreign policy and so forth, likewise suggest how their "benefit" is outweighed by their costs. The simplistic mind-set that avoids the fact is dangerous.*
One aspect, raised now after the cow has left the barn, is how the misguided priorities -- the debatable logic underlining why such total secrecy is/was so dangerous -- showed “a perfect storm of ignorance and enthusiasm." Again, simplistic mind-sets fail to admit to this even now, as shown on Katie Couric's news broadcast last night where one regular analyst spoke about differences in "policy" that are unlike trying to go after "bribery" or the like. Criminal negligence is not just a matter of "policy," nor is the promotion and actual acts of torture and inhumane treatment. And, it is not just a matter of partisan differences. Stop with the BS. Yet another example came out recently:
Philip D. Zelikow, who worked on interrogation issues as counselor to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in 2005 and 2006, said the flawed decision-making badly served Mr. Bush and the country.
Yet another member of the "left," I guess. But, wasn't Congress informed? Not in any real sense of the word. A few members, in some fashion, were informed. In secret. Without the ability to get analysis from experts or staff to help them decide the right path to do. As one such congressional expert on the field in question noted (per a NYT article cited in "Today's Papers" over at Slate, also the source of the opening quote):
"The very programs that are among the most risky and controversial, and that therefore should get the greatest congressional oversight,” she said, "in fact get the least."
One thing I don't quite understand is that members of Congress, pursuant to the Constitution, have a right to "speech and debate" in Congress, and cannot be questioned in any other place. Thus, when a member released parts of the Pentagon Papers in this fashion, even though they were secret, Mike Gravel could not be prosecuted. As the Supreme Court noted:
The Speech or Debate Clause was designed to assure a co-equal branch of the government wide freedom of speech, debate, and deliberation without intimidation or threats from the Executive Branch. It thus protects Members against prosecutions that directly impinge upon or threaten the legislative process. We have no doubt that Senator Gravel may not be made to answer either in terms of questions or in terms of defending himself from prosecution -- for the events that occurred at the subcommittee meeting.
Given that some of the matters at hand involved possible war crimes, at some point, it is unclear why various members of Congress felt compelled to continually hold back discussing such matters, even in general terms. Philip D. Zelikow's appearance on Rachel Maddow last night was powerful, including RM asking him why he did not resign. Failure of will, really, a belief that the system suggests certain things need not be done. So, Powell didn't resign to protest the decision to invade Iraq. Members of Congress had similar failures of will. But, congressional enabling does not take others more directly involved off the hook, obviously. This includes not only regarding the policy but for the half-assed way they went about -- over years, not just the days after 9/11 -- to carry it out.
It shames those who -- everyday -- make hard calls, often under very stressful conditions, with honor and care to suggest they could be left off the hook because of the times, that their heart was in the right place, or any other reason. Hopefully, we will live and learn a bit.
---
* We can repeat (no weasel words!) this until it truly sticks, since we knew something was wrong for a long time:
This is what happens when we stop demanding minimal competence in our Presidents; when we start caring more about who we would rather have a beer with than, oh, who would be most likely to seek out the best advice and listen to all sides of an argument before making an important decision, or whose judgment we can trust. We end up with people who toss aside our most fundamental values because someone who has never conducted an interrogation before thinks it might be a good idea, and no one bothers to do the basic background research on what he proposes.
-- Hilzoy
Another thing -- the release of the memoranda etc. apparently is stressing them out. Why should we care that much? They are being stressed out because it has become clear that they were involved in badly carried out mistreatment and torture of prisoners. The fact they might have, uh, had their hearts in the right place when they did it does not help me much.
Again, the utility of it all is very questionable. And, if they have to over-compensate somewhat, look what happened when they were not so restrained. We need to upset that apple cart! This article, for instance, suggests SERE training as currently done is counterproductive.