The CIA's Torturers and
the Leaders Who Approved Their Actions Must
Face the Law
Even the most junior level intelligence
officers know that torture is both unethical
and illegal. So why didn’t our political
leaders?
By Chelsea E Manning
March
11, 2015 "ICH"
- "The
Guardian" -
Successful
intelligence gathering through interrogation
and other forms of human interaction by
conventional means can be – and more often
than not are – very successful. But, even
though interrogation by less conventional
methods might get glorified in popular
culture – in television dramas like Law and
Order: Criminal Intent, 24 and The Closer
and movies like Zero Dark Thirty – torture
and the mistreatment of detainees in the
custody of intelligence personnel is, was
and shall continue to be unethical and
morally wrong. Under US law, torture and
mistreatment of detainees is also very
illegal.Even the
most junior level intelligence officials
know that this is, and has been, the case
for decades.
Yet, despite such
knowledge, in response to the horrific
attacks on the US in New York, Virginia and
over Pennsylvania on 9/11, the US developed
and applied techniques (now public knowledge
due to the recent US Senate report commonly
referred to as the Senate
Torture Report) that sought to inflict
severe mental pain and suffering, or the
threat of pain and suffering, on detainees
in the custody of the CIA and portions of
the Department of Defense. These programs
were administered by officers acting under
the color of law.
According to numerous
public reports, including the Senate Torture
Report, these programs were authorized at
the highest levels of government, and
carried out in far-flung foreign places to
avoid domestic detection and to muddy the
issues of custody status and jurisdiction.
This clearly shows a premeditated and
intentional conspiracy to knowingly violate
US law, and to avoid any oversight and
criminal liability.
The actions by CIA
officers – both the ones discussed in the
Senate Torture Report and the ones that
might have not yet come to light – have
gravely damaged the credibility of the US
intelligence community for decades to come.
More worringly, they also may have prevented
the US from being able to quickly and
effectively prosecute the very terrorists
who these officers sought to help fight
against. This is evident by the unending
stalemate in the military commissions taking
place at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In my experience working
as an intelligence analyst with my own pool
of sources numbering close to 100, by far
the most effective forms of human
intelligence collection are rapport-building
and direct questioning. As outrageously
counter-intuitive as this might seem, the
most hardened terrorists and criminals are
often extremely willing to brag about the
terrible things they’ve done, the unlikely
places that they have been hiding, the
important people that they know and deal
with and the plans they have been working on
for the future. Not only do these captured
terrorists – even the hardened ones – sing,
they often like to sing loudly and proudly.
But, I am also wary of such embellishments.
And, even if detainees are
not as cooperative, then the most legal
coercive interrogation techniques often used
by conventional law enforcement are just as
effective against terrorists as they have
been in typical murder and kidnapping
investigations. Torture then – at least in
my experience – has never been a part of the
big picture of intelligence collection. It
seems that smart and conventional methods
are sufficient.
But regardless of whether
these techniques were ineffective and
counterproductive, the techniques outlined
in the Senate torture report were far
outside the boundaries of what is acceptable
for the US intelligence community. Their
supposed effectiveness is irrelevant to the
fact that torture is wrong.
It is important to hold
the officers, supervisors and, to a lesser
extent, the politicians involved in creating
and executing these programs, accountable.
To let their horrific actions go unanswered
would send an awful message to the world: it
is wrong to torture and mistreat people,
except when those doing it have the supposed
blessing of the law and with the permission
of high-ranking supervisors and politicians.
Even after internal
reports by inspectors general and
investigation by the criminal division of
the US Department of Justice – a department
that had a moral, ethical and more
importantly legal obligation to investigate
and charge the officers involved under
criminal statutes – the government declined
to commit itself to criminal charges against
those who either committed or authorized
acts of torture.
Now, even though the
possibility of holding the officers,
supervisors and politicians involved
accountable before the US courts may be
passing in America, this should not be the
end of the road. For example, the German
Code of Crimes against International Law
allows for the prosecution of individuals
and crimes outside the territory of Germany
by the German Federal Public Prosecutor.
Such charges are now being requested by the
European Center of Constitutional and Human
Rights – though, currently, they name select
high ranking officials. If such charges are
actually filed, the German government could
request for the extradition of these
officers for trial.
The extradition treaty
between the US and Germany outlines the
offenses under which the extradition can
occur as: those that are “punishable under
the laws” of both nations; those that are
punishable by “deprivation of liberty for a
maximum period exceeding one year”; and for
“attempts to commit, conspiracy to commit,
or participation in” such offenses. Torture
is clearly defined as one of these offenses.
And, while the treaty precludes extradition
for offenses that are deemed as “a political
offense”, it also excludes “murder or other
wilful crime, punishable under the laws of
both [nations] with a penalty of at least
one year”. Torture, then, is not deemed a
political offense.
However, while the treaty
does not bind either nation to extradite its
own citizens – making automatic extradition
impossible – under the law, the US Secretary
of State has the power to order the
surrender of any US citizen whose
extradition has been requested. I believe
that if such a request should come before
the Secretary of State, then he (or she) is
morally and ethically obligated to grant it
or risk further degrading the credibility of
the US before the rest of the world and
implicitly endorsing other countries that
still use torture as a political weapon
against their own citizens.
© 2015 Guardian News and
Media Limited