(Most) Everything that is Wrong with the Obama Administration's National Security Policies
In three headlines from today, August 24th, 2009
Let those sink in a bit...
Not only are all of these injurious to the National Security of the United States, they're not even consistent in terms of policy.
CIA Persecution
In the first, Obama's Attorney General is doing what Obama promised he would not do. Obama's DCI is not amused:
Message from the Director: Release of Material on Past Detention Practices
Today, as part of a number of Freedom of Information Act cases, the government is responding to court orders to release more documents related to the Agency's past detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists. The CIA materials include the 2004 report from our Office of Inspector General and two papers-one from 2004 and the other from 2005-that discuss the value of intelligence acquired from high-level detainees. The complete package is hundreds of pages long. The declassification process, a mandatory part of the proceedings, was conducted in accord with established FOIA guidelines.
This is in many ways an old story. The outlines of prior interrogation practices, and many of the details, are public already. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of September 11th, ended in January. For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do, and that is my responsibility as the current Director of the CIA.
My emphasis on the future comes with a clear recognition that our Agency takes seriously proper accountability for the past. As the intelligence service of a democracy, that's an important part of who we are. When it comes to past detention and interrogation practices, here are some facts to bear in mind on that point:
The CIA itself commissioned the Inspector General's review. The report, prepared five years ago, noted both the effectiveness of the interrogation program and concerns about how it had been run early on. Several Agency components, including the Office of General Counsel and the Directorate of Operations, disagreed with some of the findings and conclusions.
Indeed they did. John Hinderaker of PowerLine opines:
Having read the CIA report in its entirety, I am struck once again by how humane our treatment of captured terrorists was intended to be, and generally was. The handful of incidents highlighted by press accounts of the report came to light precisely because they were reported as deviations from the treatment of detainees that had been authorized by DOJ lawyers.
As a threshold matter, it is important to note that the allegations that have been reported in the press are just that--allegations, sometimes based on hearsay. The CIA's Inspector General singled out two incidents for special investigation, both of which involved the same debriefer--not a trained interrogator. As for the other allegations, the Inspector General's report says:
For all of the instances, the allegations were disputed or too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination regarding the facts. Thus, although these allegations are illustrative of the nature of the concerns held by individuals associated with the CTC Program and the need for clear guidance, they did not warrant separate investigations or administrative action.
The two incidents deemed most serious were the threatening of Abd Al-Nashiri with a loaded handgun and with a power drill. As noted above, these threats were made (but not carried out) by a debriefer who was not trained or authorized to use enhanced interrogation techniques (the CIA distinguishes between debriefers and interrogators.) This same debriefer also threatened Al-Nashiri by saying that "We could get your mother in here." It is worth noting that he said he wanted Al-Nashiri to infer, based on the debriefer's accent and the threat that he made, that he (the debriefer) was from a Middle Eastern security service that has the reputation of using such tactics. The implication was that Al-Nashiri was well aware that the Americans would do no such thing.
Releasing Enemy Combatants
In the Second, the Obama Administration is reported to have released an enemy combatant to return to one of the active theaters of combat:
The Obama administration reportedly has released a prisoner from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp accused of attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
According to Reuters, the administration released Mohammed Jawad to his home in Afghanistan.
Jawad had been accused of throwing a grenade in 2002 that injured two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter in Kabul. He has returned to his family, according to his lawyer.
Kirk Lippold, former USS Cole commander and fellow at Military Families United, criticized the decision in a statement Monday, calling it part of a "sadly familiar pattern."
"No coherent policy in the war on terror. No comprehensive plan in place to deal with the future of Guantanamo Bay detainees. No accountability for terrorists who harm our brave fighting forces," he said.
The Obama Administration had no reason under the terms of Geneva III to release an enemy combatant while hostilities are underway. Rather, the President had the duty to the men and women of the armed forces to keep such enemy combatants under lock and key.
Extraordinary Rendition to Continue
Our third headline is an Obama Administration hallmark: renege on a "moral imperative" from the campaign to continue a policy and program which Candidate Obama vilified the Bush Administration for.
The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.
“The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations…
“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.
Not, mind you, that the American Criminal Liberties Union has much room to speak after facilitating the identification of covert (not to be confused with Valerie Plame) operatives of the CIA...
Delinquent; thy name is Barrack.
- [Obama's Attorney General] Holder to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Terror Interrogations
- Guantanamo Detainee Released to Afghanistan
- Rendition of Terror Suspects to Continue Under Obama
Let those sink in a bit...
Not only are all of these injurious to the National Security of the United States, they're not even consistent in terms of policy.
CIA Persecution
In the first, Obama's Attorney General is doing what Obama promised he would not do. Obama's DCI is not amused:
Message from the Director: Release of Material on Past Detention Practices
Today, as part of a number of Freedom of Information Act cases, the government is responding to court orders to release more documents related to the Agency's past detention and interrogation of foreign terrorists. The CIA materials include the 2004 report from our Office of Inspector General and two papers-one from 2004 and the other from 2005-that discuss the value of intelligence acquired from high-level detainees. The complete package is hundreds of pages long. The declassification process, a mandatory part of the proceedings, was conducted in accord with established FOIA guidelines.
This is in many ways an old story. The outlines of prior interrogation practices, and many of the details, are public already. The use of enhanced interrogation techniques, begun when our country was responding to the horrors of September 11th, ended in January. For the CIA now, the challenge is not the battles of yesterday, but those of today and tomorrow. It is there that we must work to enhance the safety of our country. That is the job the American people want us to do, and that is my responsibility as the current Director of the CIA.
My emphasis on the future comes with a clear recognition that our Agency takes seriously proper accountability for the past. As the intelligence service of a democracy, that's an important part of who we are. When it comes to past detention and interrogation practices, here are some facts to bear in mind on that point:
The CIA itself commissioned the Inspector General's review. The report, prepared five years ago, noted both the effectiveness of the interrogation program and concerns about how it had been run early on. Several Agency components, including the Office of General Counsel and the Directorate of Operations, disagreed with some of the findings and conclusions.
Indeed they did. John Hinderaker of PowerLine opines:
Having read the CIA report in its entirety, I am struck once again by how humane our treatment of captured terrorists was intended to be, and generally was. The handful of incidents highlighted by press accounts of the report came to light precisely because they were reported as deviations from the treatment of detainees that had been authorized by DOJ lawyers.
As a threshold matter, it is important to note that the allegations that have been reported in the press are just that--allegations, sometimes based on hearsay. The CIA's Inspector General singled out two incidents for special investigation, both of which involved the same debriefer--not a trained interrogator. As for the other allegations, the Inspector General's report says:
For all of the instances, the allegations were disputed or too ambiguous to reach any authoritative determination regarding the facts. Thus, although these allegations are illustrative of the nature of the concerns held by individuals associated with the CTC Program and the need for clear guidance, they did not warrant separate investigations or administrative action.
The two incidents deemed most serious were the threatening of Abd Al-Nashiri with a loaded handgun and with a power drill. As noted above, these threats were made (but not carried out) by a debriefer who was not trained or authorized to use enhanced interrogation techniques (the CIA distinguishes between debriefers and interrogators.) This same debriefer also threatened Al-Nashiri by saying that "We could get your mother in here." It is worth noting that he said he wanted Al-Nashiri to infer, based on the debriefer's accent and the threat that he made, that he (the debriefer) was from a Middle Eastern security service that has the reputation of using such tactics. The implication was that Al-Nashiri was well aware that the Americans would do no such thing.
Releasing Enemy Combatants
In the Second, the Obama Administration is reported to have released an enemy combatant to return to one of the active theaters of combat:
The Obama administration reportedly has released a prisoner from the Guantanamo Bay detention camp accused of attacking U.S. troops in Afghanistan.
According to Reuters, the administration released Mohammed Jawad to his home in Afghanistan.
Jawad had been accused of throwing a grenade in 2002 that injured two U.S. soldiers and their interpreter in Kabul. He has returned to his family, according to his lawyer.
Kirk Lippold, former USS Cole commander and fellow at Military Families United, criticized the decision in a statement Monday, calling it part of a "sadly familiar pattern."
"No coherent policy in the war on terror. No comprehensive plan in place to deal with the future of Guantanamo Bay detainees. No accountability for terrorists who harm our brave fighting forces," he said.
The Obama Administration had no reason under the terms of Geneva III to release an enemy combatant while hostilities are underway. Rather, the President had the duty to the men and women of the armed forces to keep such enemy combatants under lock and key.
Extraordinary Rendition to Continue
Our third headline is an Obama Administration hallmark: renege on a "moral imperative" from the campaign to continue a policy and program which Candidate Obama vilified the Bush Administration for.
The administration officials, who announced the changes on condition that they not be identified, said that unlike the Bush administration, they would give the State Department a larger role in assuring that transferred detainees would not be abused.
“The emphasis will be on insuring that individuals will not face torture if they are sent over overseas,” said one administration official, adding that no detainees will be sent to countries that are known to conduct abusive interrogations…
“It is extremely disappointing that the Obama administration is continuing the Bush administration practice of relying on diplomatic assurances, which have been proven completely ineffective in preventing torture,” said Amrit Singh of the American Civil Liberties Union, who tracked rendition cases under President George W. Bush.
She cited the case of Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian sent in 2002 by the United States to Syria, which offered assurances against torture but beat Mr. Arar with electrical cable anyway.
Not, mind you, that the American Criminal Liberties Union has much room to speak after facilitating the identification of covert (not to be confused with Valerie Plame) operatives of the CIA...
Delinquent; thy name is Barrack.