However, the Attorney General's move to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing in the implementation of those policies has provoked a backlash from the Obama administration's critics. They claim this will threaten intelligence gathering operations and make our country more vulnerable to attack.
A former FBI counterterrorism official, Jack Cloonan, a career military intelligence officer recognized as one of the Defense Department's best interrogators, Col. Steve Kleinman, and the senior DoD interrogator who tracked down Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, Matthew Alexander, all say that argument is wrong.
Cloonan and Kleinman both interrogated suspects after 9/11. They both also say that the arguments we're seeing between Democrats and Republicans are political in nature. Their professional assessment is that we must examine what we've done since 9/11 in order to understand our true vulnerabilities and prevent the process from going off the rails in the future. From their interview with The Public Record:
"I respectfully disagree profoundly with the assessment that any effort to look back would make us more vulnerable, Kleinman said. "In fact, we have to look back to show our utmost vulnerabilities.
"I've had the honor of testifying before four committees of Congress and I am always astounded at the profound political partisan politics that surround this issue. I'm a professional interrogator I have 25 years of experience in this and I don't have any concern whatsoever that an investigation into how we conducted ourselves since 9/11 would in any way undermine our ability to continue gathering intelligence."
More or less, they argue that the only people who have anything to worry about from an investigation are the ones who acted unethically or improperly. Kleinman even goes so far as to say that the "true professionals" are actually privately in support of such an inquiry.
The three experts have written to Congress asking for the creation of an independent commission to examine both failures in the implementation and in the creation of the policy, as going after just those who carried out the orders does not necessarily do anything to prevent policymakers from going down this road again.
Furthermore, they categorically refute Dick Cheney's claim that these methods thwarted terrorist attacks and saved American lives. The article also notes that even former NSA and CIA director Gen. Hayden has backed off from such claims. The truth, all three say, is that these policies cost us far too much, in terms of opportunities squandered, intelligence tainted, and lives lost as terrorist attacks increased worldwide.
These guys have been in the field. They have seen our enemy first-hand. They've done the real work. I believe them when they say we got it wrong on this and we need to fix it. It is the rule of law and our respect for the rights of all human beings that separates us from the extremists. If we give those things up, then what are we fighting for?
That claim "It'll make us LESS safe" is really beginning to piss me off.
I wish someone at the DNC would be appointed to "handle" things like this. In fact, the democrats could really use a group like "the Plumbers", from the Watergate era, to fight with these people on their own terms. Now, I don't want to be one of those people to whom "the end justifies the means" becomes second nature. But I AM willing to "put a banana in their tailpipe."
Knowwhatimean?
The Bush Co. torture policy was about revenge not intelligence gathering. This is why those who know the truth and support the rule of law have no problem with a real investigation.
For these political hacks to scream it will make us less safe are merely using fear, yet again, to cover up their crimes.
The key as always is that when you torture you already know what you want to hear. True intelligence comes when investigators enter with an open mind and go the direction that the evidence leads. This is the difference between the past and presence. If I want a prisoner to say something specific then I can get that by torturing them. It doesn't make it true, but in Cheney Bizarroworld, that doesn't matter.
The Bush administration credo was anything, at any cost. Current those against torture and the probe are partially Bush partisans and partially those who won't want Obama in the White House, and will disagree with anything at this point. Those that say this will threaten future intelligence gathering are doing nothing but trying to throw up a smoke screen. He!!, we have been quite proficient in gathering intelligence for years without resorting to torture. Why do we have to do it now ?
A really significant problem in gathering information before 9/11 was inter-agency cooperation. i.e Turf Wars Force the agencies to work together and we increase efficiencies multi fold. If the FBI, CIA, don't play nice get someone in charge that will. Or, torture the agency heads. Maybe they need it more.
Of course the Presidents critics are saying this decision makes us less safe. They'll say that about every statement he makes, every decision he makes, and every bit of legislation he passes.
I'm sick of it. It's nothing but a power grab.
I was an intelligence officer when this was going on. As an analyst, I was not involved in these sorts of activities, but I certainly was ashamed of them when I found out like everyone else.
I was explicitly trained that we don't break American laws. We don't lie to Congress. We don't tell policymakers what they want to hear, we tell them what we know, what we think, and what we don't know.
Is the Constitution really that quaint? Was the oath that I gave to uphold it that empty? I don't think so, but that's what it feels like when I see people say that what our country did is okay because they were "just" terrorists. And it didn't even work, that's the kicker.
This isn't just some fuzzy moral exercise here. We didn't stop anything by it, and it's extremely likely that more Americans lost their lives because of it. And my patriotism is in question because I have the temerity to call this for what it is?
It's almost enough to make you want to hit the "reset" button and start all over again.
In all fairness, we didn't have much of a choice during the Bush administration. I think all of us accept that the CIA and NSA will sometimes behave in manners we wouldn't necessarily personally approve. Call it Jack Bauer syndrome. However, the FBI and Justice Department should be about upholding the law. It wasn't during that time. So, those agencies went unchecked.
Now, we have the opportunity to make things right. While any loss of life is tragic it's not even about that for me. It's about our place in the world. We are either a shining beacon on a hill or we're the biggest thug in the neighborhood. The time to choose is now.
Voice, because we don't have the cajones to make them stop --- we are simply too "nice"!
It turns my stomach to see what we have become since 9/11, and I mean as a body politic.
The subterfuge, obfuscation, manipulation ... at some point, are we going to stand up and say STOP? Why are we letting them get away with this?
The whole goal of terrorism is to get you to act out of fear. I'd say mission accomplished as far as the Bush administration is concerned. Wait a minute, didn't I see that on a banner somewhere?