“I think it might not have happened without us.”

Over the weekend, both the New York Times and the Salt Lake City Tribune looked more closely at the gentlemen who surrounded President Obama during last week’s executive orders signing ceremony.

The New York Times:
Other than Mr. Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the faces in the Oval Office on Thursday morning were not well known. But none of them were likely to be hit with attacks that they were soft on terrorists. Mr. Obama was surrounded by retired admirals and generals who came forward only after they had shaken off the reticence of most military people toward active politics.

“Our message,” said General James Cullen, “is that we are your flank protection.”

In fact, the generals and admirals flanking President Obama are members of a larger group of retired flag officers who have been working with Human Rights First since 2004, speaking out on these issues. During the 2008 presidential primaries, the group sought meetings with every candidate, and met with many of them, including Barack Obama and Joe Biden. Their purpose was to show that following humane procedures would not weaken the country’s defense, but strengthen it – and President Obama took their message to heart.

The Salt Lake City Tribune also featured a piece about the group and its origins:

"It's important to note that we didn't get into this project because we thought it was unfair that the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay were not being given a choice between strawberry or pistachio ice cream," said David Irvine, a Republican attorney and retired Army brigadier general from Utah who spent two decades teaching soldiers how to interrogate war prisoners.

"It really came down," he said, "to what was the smartest way to protect the nation and strengthen our national security."

As the group slowly came together, it was clear that they all agreed on one thing: "This policy of coercive interrogation and abuse of prisoners was completely wrongheaded," Irvine said. "It did more damage than anyone could possibly imagine."

In a meeting just prior to the signing ceremony, 16 members of the group sat with President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. During the long presidential campaign, Obama and Biden had met with a never-ending parade of people concerned about scores of important issues. But Biden told the group both he and the president recalled their meetings with the retired officers as pivotal.

"I can't say enough about how gratifying it was to hear that," said retired Brig. Gen. James Cullen, former chief judge on the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals.

Irvine, who couldn't get to Washington on such short notice, said there was little the new president could have done to make him more proud.

"This was really speedy action that should send a powerful worldwide message that we're serious about going down the path of recovering American values and leadership," he said.

Charlie Otstott, [a former Army lieutenant general] said Obama deserves credit for recognizing that the problems needed to be addressed without delay.

"He's a constitutional lawyer and I think he had the right instincts," Otstott said. "But even with the right instincts, I think it might not have happened without us."

General Cullen: Standing Behind a Ban on Torture

Our friend Brigadier General James Cullen has a terrific piece up on the Huffington Post. Here it is in its entirety:

Standing just behind President Obama in the Oval Office, I watched last week as the new President signed his name to three Executive Orders that will put our country in a stronger position to fight Al Qaeda.

I was one of 16 retired Generals and Admirals the White House invited to a signing ceremony of orders that ban torture, close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, and end the CIA's use of secret prisons.

Just before the signing ceremony, sitting in the Roosevelt Room, our group spoke to President Obama and Vice President Biden about the impact his action would have on national security. The President spoke - without notes - for several minutes about why he thought that signing these orders was the right thing to do.

As Rear Admiral John Hutson told the New York Times afterwards, "President Obama gets it." He had an impressive understanding of the nuance and arguments (on both sides) relating to interrogation policy.

He noted that he would be criticized if the United States faced another terrorist attack. Yet, he said he was convinced that a clear anti-torture policy would make us safer. General Paul Kern - a four-star General who co-led an investigation into abuses at Abu Ghraib - told the President that our group of Generals and Admirals was there to support him precisely because humane interrogation tactics will put us in a stronger position to achieve our national security objectives.

When I first learned of the abuses at Abu Ghraib I never thought it would take a new administration and several executive orders to put a stop to practices that were so obviously wrong and not in the United States' interest.

In 2004, I started to talk to other military officers about abuses - not just at Abu Ghraib but in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay and other parts of Iraq too. The officers I spoke to were universally opposed to the use of Gestapo tactics to get detainees to
talk.

History has shown repeatedly that torture does not work. It produces poor information; it weakens the morale of the forces that employ it; and it turns local populations against you. Though we were united in our opposition, we did not have a forum to express our concerns.

In December of 2004, Human Rights First, a New York City-based human rights group, organized an extraordinary, closed-door meeting of retired Generals and Admirals to discuss the use of torture. The meeting brought together dozens of retired officers including a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, four star generals and other prominent military leaders.

In my 27-year career, I had only met once with another four-star General. Now I was sitting in a room with several of them and all of us were opposed to the use of torture.

In the years that followed we worked with Human Rights First, lobbying the administration and Congress. We expanded our group as we encountered more and more Generals and Admirals who were willing to be outspoken about the need to ban torture.

During the 2008 Presidential primaries we offered to meet with every candidate for an off-the-record discussion of the issue. When we met with Senator Biden, he joked, "as someone who lived through the 60's I never thought I would see the day when a group of Generals was working closely with a human rights group!"

On the day of the signing of the Executive Orders, Vice President Biden told us that both he and the President had discussed the meetings they had with our group and concluded that they were among the most "memorable" and "important" meetings of the primary campaign.

Just before we left the Roosevelt Room - where the long oval shaped table is shiny but pock-marked from the nervous scratching of generations of White House staffers - President Obama spoke to us about the awesome responsibility he felt as Commander-in-Chief in making decisions that could affect the lives of millions of Americans. General Kern told him that as military officers we understood what it was like to have to make decisions when lives hung in the balance.

We walked a few feet from the windowless Roosevelt Room to the Oval Office where the President sat down behind his desk as the press was ushered into the room. As the press snapped pictures and cameras rolled, the President explained to the press who we were.

"The individuals who are standing behind me represent flag officers who came to both Joe and myself, and all the candidates, and made a passionate plea that we restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great, even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism," the President said. "They've made an extraordinary impression on me. They are outstanding Americans, who have fought and defended this country, and for them to fight on behalf of our constitutional ideals and values, I think, is exceptional, so I wanted to make sure that they were here to witness the signing of this executive order."

He took out his pen, signed the document before him and said, "there you go." Like that the President undid some of the worst excesses of the Bush administration.

There will be grumblings in some quarters but I, like so many of my fellow military officers, am confident that the move will help restore the United States stature in the world. And I am certain this day will be remembered as a turning point in the struggle with Al Qaeda.

I am proud to have been there.

James P. Cullen is a retired Brigadier General in the United States Army Reserve Judge Advocate General's Corps and last served as the Chief Judge (IMA) of the U.S. Army Court of Criminal Appeals. He currently practices law in New York City.

General Maddox on CNN: “This nation has values, and our policies will be consistent with our values.”

Check out this video featuring General David Maddox on the Rick Sanchez show on CNN discussing President Obama’s intent to close Guantanamo.

Admiral Guter on Tavis Smiley: President Obama will be "a formidable Commander-in-Chief"

Former U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Don Guter appeared on the Tavis Smiley show on PBS on Monday, Janurary 26 2009. Admiral Guter is a member of HRF's coalition of military leaders; he met with President Obama and his legal team to discuss torture and Guantanamo during and after the presidential campaign, and attended the signing ceremony for the executive order closing the controversial detention camp. Admiral Don Guter served in the U.S. Navy for 32 years. Watch the video here.

Some highlights from the interview:

GUTER: As you know, Human Rights First is the organization that got us all together because we were kind of single voices out there trying to get our message across and Human Rights First pulled us all together as a group and gave us a strong voice to talk about these issues.
...
SMILEY:How do you respond to conservatives - I know you've heard this a thousand times - who made the case that terrorism is not a pretty thing, it's not an easy thing? You're an admiral, so you know this, and that getting the kind of information we need doesn't come easily and it may not be pretty to get that information. You respond to those critics in what way?

GUTER: Well, first of all, I think you have to understand that the group of admirals and generals that form to address these issues, it wasn't just the 14 or 16 that you've seen in various pictures. This was 50 admirals and generals approximately and it included a former commandante of the Marine Corps and it included some other four-star admirals and generals.

So this is a very experienced group of people. It also included a former deputy head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. It included psychologists, it included lawyers, it included - I call them straight stick war fighters. So a lot of expertise went into these
opinions.

The second thing I think I would emphasize is that we have a good track record using approved interrogation techniques complying with Geneva conventions and our expert interrogators have told us time and again and it's been in the media, so I know that the public has at least had some exposure to it, that the best thing you can do is to try to gain the confidence of these folks.

Because, yes, you can use harsh techniques and, yes, you can get a detainee or whoever's being interrogated, you can get them to say pretty much anything you want them to say, but that's one of the problems.

What we're after is good, actionable intelligence. You run the risk of not getting accurate and actionable intelligence when your techniques are so harsh that the person is going to say anything they have to say to make those techniques stop.

So we think the better course and the better long-term course for the United States in terms of how we're viewed and whether we live up to our ideals and our values is to only use the techniques that have been approved by Geneva conventions.

You know, I commented one time on another interview that I did not think that the idea was for us to become them. Then I think we've already lost the war of ideas, and that's really what this is about. It's a war of ideas and it's not gonna be over quickly.

Behind the Executive Orders: An Unlikely Alliance Between Human Rights First and Retired Military Leaders

In his first interview as White House Counsel, Greg Craig told Jane Mayer about the role that the meeting President Obama had with retired military leaders during the primary election campaign– a meeting organized by Human Rights First – played in correcting key interrogation and detention policies.

Sitting at a spotless conference table in a undecorated West Wing corner office up a narrow flight of stairs from the Oval Office, Craig, who is sixty-three, seemed boyish and energized. He explained that Obama’s bold legal moves were the result of a “painstaking” process that started in Iowa, before the first presidential caucus. It was there that then-candidate Obama met with a handful of former high-ranking military officers who opposed the Bush Administration’s legalization of abusive interrogations. Sickened by the photographs of Abu Ghraib and disheartened by what they regarded as the illegal and dangerous degradation of military standards, the officers had formed an unlikely alliance with the legal advocacy group Human Rights First, and had begun lobbying the candidates of both parties to close the loopholes Bush had opened for torture.

Obama was “very excited” that day in Iowa, one participant in the off-the-record meeting recalled, “because he had just gotten polls showing that he was ahead,” but he didn’t seem particularly “comfortable” with the military delegation. The group of military men, which included retired four-star Generals Dave Maddox and Joseph Hoar, lectured Obama about the importance of being Commander-in-Chief. In particular, they warned him that every word he uttered would be taken as an order by the highest-ranking officers as well as the lowliest private. Any wiggle room for abusive interrogations, they emphasized, would be construed as permission.

Obama “asked smart questions, but didn’t seem inspired by it. He totally understood the effect that Abu Ghraib had on America’s reputation,” said the participant. But in general, “he was very businesslike. He didn’t flatter the officers,” as most of the other candidates had. In addition, Obama’s staff, the participant said, approached the meeting with the retired officers with less urgency than some of the other campaigns. “But,” in retrospect, the participant said, “it started an education process.”

Last month, several members of the same group met with both Craig, who by then was slated to become Obama’s top legal adviser, and Attorney General-designate Eric Holder. The two future Obama Administration lawyers were particularly taken with a retired four-star Marine General and conservative Republican named Charles “Chuck” Krulak. Krulak insisted that ending the Bush Administration’s coercive interrogation and detention regime was “right for America and right for the world,” a participant recalled, and promised that if the Obama Administration did what he described as “the right thing,” which he acknowledged wouldn’t be politically easy, he would personally “fly cover” for them.

Last week, as Obama signed the executive order, sixteen retired generals and flag officers from the same group did just that. Told on Monday that they were needed at the White House, they flew to the capital from as far away as California, a phalanx of square-jawed certified patriots providing cover to Obama’s announcement.

Shortly before the signing ceremony, Craig said, Obama met with the officers in the Roosevelt Room, along with Vice President Biden and several other top administration officials. “It was hugely important to the president to have the input from these military people,” Craig said, “not only because of their proven concern for protecting the American people—they’d dedicated their lives to it—but also because some had their own experience they could speak from.” Two of the officers had sons serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. One of them, retired Major General Paul Eaton, stressed that, as he put it later that day, “torture is the tool of the lazy, the stupid, and the pseudo-tough. It’s also perhaps the greatest recruiting tool that the terrorists have.” The feeling in the room, as retired Rear Admiral John Hutson later put it, “was joy, perhaps, that the country was getting back on track.”

Two Wrongs Don't Make a Right: Releasing Detainees Requires a Risk Management Approach

A New York Times article today reports that a former Guantanamo detainee, Said Ali al-Shihri, became the deputy leader of al Qaeda in Yemen following his release to a Saudi rehabilitation program in 2007. The story, which broke just one day after President Obama issued an Executive Order establishing a one-year deadline for closing Guantanamo, sparked further debate about what to do with remaining detainees in the NYT "Room for Debate" blog. National security court and administrative detention proponents cited the story as further evidence of the need for such frameworks. But our colleague, Deborah Colson, argued that the story instead serves as another example of Guantanamo's damage as a terrorism recruiting tool and that a risk management approach is more effective:

What’s Needed: Risk Management

Today’s report about a former Guantánamo detainee turned al Qaeda leader is sure to become a rallying cry for those who question President Obama’s decision to close Guantánamo and persist in believing that all Guantánamo detainees are dangerous terrorists.

But keeping Guantánamo open would undoubtedly pose a greater risk to our national security than shutting it down. Coercive interrogations, prolonged detention without trial and flawed military commissions at Guantánamo have only nurtured the recuperative power of al Qaeda, increasing rather than decreasing the danger to the United States.

Recently, the Center for Strategic International Studies reported that West Point researchers have uncovered scores of references to Guantánamo by al Qaeda leaders, as far back as 2002 and as recently as January 2008.

Historically, overbroad detention practices have only served to alienate and radicalize communities and undermine the work of law enforcement. As the Army’s Counterinsurgency Manual states, in order to gain the popular support it needs to confront insurgency threats, the United States must send an unequivocal message that it is committed to upholding the law and basic principles of human rights. President Obama’s executive order closing Guantánamo does just that.

Some remaining Guantánamo detainees will be prosecuted. Releasing others will require an assumption of risk, but those risks can be managed and must be weighed against the dangers posed by their continued detention. A risk management program should include individualized risk assessments of prisoners selected for repatriation and resettlement; security assurances from receiving countries, including assurances to lawfully monitor returned detainees’ activities; investment in reintegration programs; and investment in law enforcement training to assist other countries in monitoring suspects and prosecuting criminal activity.

Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton on Olbermann: "It's been a blockbuster day"

Major General Paul Eaton, who met with President Obama yesterday and stood behind him as he signed the executive orders, spoke with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC.

Media Round-Up: Executive Orders and Retired Military Leaders

Bloomberg.com: Major General Paul Eaton, told reporters in a conference call yesterday that the Abu Ghraib scandal “immediately undermined me, my moral authority” as he worked in Iraq with eight other nations to build up Iraqi security forces. “It created a far more dangerous environment for every soldier, every marine we had in Iraq,” Eaton said.
(“Hooded Abu Ghraib Inmate Can Step Off That Box Now”)

Guardian: A group of 16 retired admirals and generals, in a meeting organised by Human Rights First, said the move would restore America's moral authority in the world, and strengthen its national security. "President Obama has rejected the false choice between national security and our ideals," they said. (“Obama shuts network of CIA 'ghost prisons'”)

Wall Street Journal: The Bush administration, he said, had posed "a false choice between our safety and our ideals." Mr. Obama was supported by retired generals and admirals who for years had lobbied to end harsh interrogation measures. Elisa Massimino, executive director of Human Rights First, said Mr. Obama "effectively is tearing down al Qaeda's prime recruiting poster." (“Obama Closes Detention Network, President Orders Guantanamo Shut, Sets Up Prisoner Reviews, Bans Secret CIA Prisons”)

Miami Herald: Human Rights First Executive Director Elissa Massimino called the measures "the kind of bold action that is required to repair America's reputation.”
“The Bush administration's misguided embrace of indefinite detention, torture and unjust military commissions has greatly damaged America's international image, fueled terrorist recruitment and undermined international cooperation in counterterrorism.” (“Obama moves to close Guantánamo camps within a year”)

New York Times: John D. Hutson, a retired admiral and law school dean, was at the signing ceremony “He really gets it,” Mr. Hutson said of Mr. Obama in an interview a few minutes after the ceremony. “He acknowledged that this isn’t easy. But he is absolutely dedicated to getting us back on track as a nation. This is the right thing to do morally, diplomatically, militarily and Constitutionally. But it also makes us safer.” (“Obama Orders Secret Prisons and Detention Camps Closed”)

Washington Post: One of the officers, retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul D. Eaton, said taking the moral high ground on interrogation would help protect U.S. troops in the future. He said the use of torture was "for the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough" and called it a "recruiting tool for terrorists." (“Obama Reverses Bush Policies On Detention and Interrogation”)

Boston Globe: Obama signed the orders after meeting with 16 retired military officers, who he said pleaded with him to stand up for human rights and American values in combating terrorism. "They made an extraordinary impression on me," said Obama, as they stood behind him and applauded.
Human Rights First issued a statement on behalf of the retired military officers. “President Obama’s actions today will restore the moral authority and strengthen the national security of the United States. It is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States never sanction the use of interrogation methods that we would find unacceptable if inflicted by an enemy against captured Americans." (“Obama orders Guantanamo Bay closed, bans torture”)

Talk Radio News Service: “There was certainly among us, the sixteen retired generals that were there, a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction and joy, perhaps, that the country was getting back on track with regards to the issues that we feel so strongly about.” Admiral John D. Hutson (“President Obama’s Guantanamo decisions bring joy to Human Rights Leaders”)

Univision: "Es un gran primer paso, pero es sólo un primer paso", consideró Gabor Rona, director internacional de Human Rights First. (“Obama firmará orden para cerrar Guantánamo en un año”)

ABC News: Ret. Admiral John Hutson disagrees, calling torture a "method of choice for the lazy, the stupid and the pseudo-tough."
"It is absolutely clear that the best way to get actionable intelligence is not by the use of harsh interrogation," Hutson said. "But through other kinds of tactics, rapport-building kind of things." (“Obama Order to Shut Gitmo, CIA Detention Centers”)

Professional Interrogators Laud Obama for Closing an Unconscionable Period in Our History

Our colleague David Danzig has a great post up today on Huffington Post with experienced interrogators lauding President Obama’s executive orders for refocusing U.S. intelligence operations on techniques that are effective.

"[The order] closes an unconscionable period in our history, in which those who knew least, professed to know most about interrogations," said Joe Navarro, a former special agent and supervisor with the FBI.

"Some die-hards on the right -- who have never interrogated anyone -- are already arguing that forcing interrogations to be conducted within army field manual guidelines is a step backward and will result in 'coddling' dangerous terrorists," retired Colonel Stuart Herrington, who served for more than 30 years as a military intelligence officer, said soon after the order was signed. "This is a common, but uninformed view. Experienced, well-trained, professional interrogators know that interrogation is an art. It is a battle of wits, not muscle. It is a challenge that can be accomplished within the military guidelines without resorting to brutality."

The way interrogation works is largely misunderstood by the general public and some senior policy makers, according to Navarro, Herrington and other intelligence professionals.

"Interrogation is not like a faucet that you can turn on - and the harder you turn, the more information will pour out," explains Herrington, who conducted a classified review of detention and interrogation practices in Iraq for the U.S. Army.

It’s really worth reading the whole thing.

Obama: These retired military leaders "are outstanding Americans, who have fought and defended this country"

As President Obama signed the first executive order this morning, he explained who the officers standing around him were, and the role they have played in fighting for the rule of law:

“The individuals who are standing behind me represent flag officers who came to both Joe and myself, and all the candidates, and made a passionate plea that we restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great, even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism. They’ve made an extraordinary impression on me. They are outstanding Americans, who have fought and defended this country, and for them to fight on behalf of our constitutional ideals and values, I think, is exceptional, so I wanted to make sure that they were here to witness the signing of this executive order.”

As the President mentions, in December 2007, Human Rights First hosted a series of meetings in Des Moines, Iowa, during which seven presidential candidates from both parties (including Obama and Biden) met with fifteen retired military leaders. Members of the group also traveled to key states in the presidential campaign because of their commitment to ensuring that the next commander-in-chief understand the fundamental importance of prisoner treatment issues to our national security. In December 2008, during the transition, HRF convened a group of retired generals and admirals to discuss the Bush Administration's interrogation and detention policies with some of the President-elect's top legal advisors, including Eric Holder, Obama's pick to be attorney general, and Greg Craig, incoming White House counsel.

The message from the retired military leaders was certainly well received - they made an "extraordinary impression" - and today President Obama signaled an abrupt departure from the Bush Administration's polices of torture, unjust trials, and prolonged detention without criminal charge by issuing the three executive orders.

Retired Military Leaders Laud Executive Orders on Guantanamo and Prisoner Treatment

During a conference call with reporters this afternoon, retired military leaders with whom HRF has been working expressed confidence in the new administration’s commitment to human rights:

“There was a sense, I think, of satisfaction but also very much determination; determination that this was the right thing to do and that we would be consistent with this going forward” said retired Admiral John Hutson.

“There was certainly among us, the sixteen retired generals that were there, a sense of accomplishment and satisfaction and joy, perhaps, that the country was getting back on track with regards to the issues that we feel so strongly about.”

The retired Admiral went on to laud Obama’s executive orders regarding Guantanamo and the treatment of prisoners, pointing to the advantages of due process in civilian courts. The delegation noted the use of Guantanamo torture as “recruiting posters” for Al-Qaeda, the counterproductive nature of torture, and the tone of discipline that will be set by changing these practices.

Human Rights First has been working to advance prisoner treatment qualities, and has been active in legislative and public debates about torture over the last several years. They see the three executive orders which Obama signed today as congruent with their goals, and a definitive step in the right direction.

Retired Admiral Lee Gunn reminded reporters of the tone of President Obama’s meeting: “There will be substatial conversation… about what happens looking back… But at the moment, and it strikes me as being completely appropriate, the focus is on moving forward.”

Admiral Hutson: "This isn't easy... But it also makes us safer."

Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, pictured just behind President Obama's chair above, was quoted in the New York Times on today's executive orders:

“He really gets it,” Mr. Hutson said of Mr. Obama in an interview a few minutes after the ceremony. “He acknowledged that this isn’t easy. But he is absolutely dedicated to getting us back on track as a nation. This is the right thing to do morally, diplomatically, militarily and Constitutionally. But it also makes us safer.”

"President Obama has rejected the false choice between national security and our ideals. Our Nation will be stronger and safer for it."

HRF’s coalition of retired military leaders who met with the President this morning, and stood behind him as he signed the orders, have issued a statement:

"President Obama's actions today will restore the moral authority and strengthen the national security of the United States. It is vital to the safety of our men and women in uniform that the United States never sanction the use of interrogation methods that we would find unacceptable if inflicted by an enemy against captured Americans.

We commend President Obama for acting quickly through these executive orders to enforce a single standard of humane treatment for all U.S. intelligence interrogations. As Commander in Chief, he has provided clarity throughout the military chain of command.

By unequivocally rejecting torture and other cruel and inhumane treatment, shutting down secret prisons, providing Red Cross access to prisoners in U.S. custody, rejecting the legal opinions that facilitated and excused torture, and announcing the closure of the Guantanamo Bay prison, President Obama has rejected the false choice between national security and our ideals. Our Nation will be stronger and safer for it."

General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Robert G. Gard Jr., USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General William L. Nash, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)

Photo: Obama Surrounded By Retired Military Leaders

In his first Oval Office signing ceremony, Obama was surrounded by retired senior military leaders. He described them as outstanding Americans who have defended the country — and its ideals. Before the ceremony, the President had met with the following Generals and Admirals:

GENERAL PAUL J. KERN, USA (RET.)
GENERAL DAVID M. MADDOX, USA (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL ROBERT G. GARD JR., USA (RET.)
VICE ADMIRAL LEE F. GUNN, USN (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL CLAUDIA J. KENNEDY, USA (RET.)
VICE ADMIRAL ALBERT H. KONETZNI JR., USN (RET.)
LIEUTENANT GENERAL CHARLES OTSTOTT, USA (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL PAUL EATON, USA (RET.)
REAR ADMIRAL DON GUTER, USN (RET.)
REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. HUTSON, USN (RET.)
MAJOR GENERAL WILLIAM L. NASH, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL DAVID M. BRAHMS, USMC (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES P. CULLEN, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL JOHN H. JOHNS, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL RICHARD O’MEARA, USA (RET.)
BRIGADIER GENERAL MURRAY G. SAGSVEEN, USA (RET.)

Human Rights First joined forces with retired military leaders to ensure that U.S. interrogation policy complies with American laws, values, and interests. This group of retired admirals and generals believes it is critical to America’s security that the United States adhere to effective, lawful, and humane standards for interrogating all prisoners in U.S. custody. Some members of the group are pictured above, as President Obama signed executive orders directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons, ordering the closing of the Guantanamo within a year, and requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects.

Video: Surrounded By Retired Military Leaders, Obama Signs Executive Orders

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Orders Gitmo Closed Within One Year, Requires Single Standard in Interrogations

Surrounded by a group of retired military leaders who have worked with HRF over the last several years on these issues, President Obama signed three executive orders and a presidential directive:

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama began overhauling U.S. treatment of terror suspects Thursday, signing orders to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, review military war crimes trials and ban the harshest interrogation methods.

"We intend to win this fight. We're going to win it on our terms," Obama said as he signed three executive orders and a presidential directive in the Oval Office. Obama explained each order before he put his pen to them and occasionally solicited input from White House counsel Greg Craig to make sure he was describing them correctly.

With his action, Obama started changing how the United States prosecutes and questions al-Qaida, Taliban or other foreign fighters who pose a threat to Americans — and overhauling America's image abroad, battered by accusations of the use of torture and the indefinite detention of suspects at the Guantanamo prison in Cuba.

"The message that we are sending the world is that the United States intends to prosecute the ongoing struggle against violence and terrorism and we are going to do so vigilantly and we are going to do so effectively and we are going to do so in a manner that is consistent with our values and our ideals," the president said.

The centerpiece order would close the much-maligned Guantanamo facility within a year, a complicated process with many unanswered questions that was nonetheless a key campaign promise of Obama's. The administration already has suspended trials for terrorist suspects at Guantanamo for 120 days pending a review of the military tribunals.

In the other actions, Obama:

- Created a task force that would have 30 days to recommend policies on handling terror suspects who are detained in the future. Specifically, the group would look at where those detainees should be housed since Guantanamo is closing.

- Required all U.S. personnel to follow the U.S. Army Field Manual while interrogating detainees. The manual explicitly prohibits threats, coercion, physical abuse and waterboarding, a technique that creates the sensation of drowning and has been termed a form of torture by critics. However, a Capitol Hill aide says that the administration also is planning a study of more aggressive interrogation methods that could be added to the Army manual — which would create a significant loophole to Obama's action Thursday.

"We believe that the Army Field Manual reflects the best judgment of our military, that we can abide by a rule that says we don't torture, but that we can still effectively obtain the intelligence that we need," Obama said. He said his action reflects an understanding that "we are willing to observe core standards of conduct, not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

- Directed the Justice Department to review the case of Qatar native Ali al-Marri, who is the only enemy combatant currently being held on U.S. soil. The review will look at whether al-Marri has the right to sue the government for his freedom, a right the Supreme Court already has given to Guantanamo detainees. The directive will ask the high court for a stay in al-Marri's appeals case while the review is ongoing. The government says al-Marri is an al-Qaida sleeper agent.

An estimated 245 men are being held at the U.S. naval base in Cuba, most of whom have been detained for years without being charged with a crime. Among the sticky issues the Obama administration has to resolve are where to put those detainees — whether back in their home countries or at other federal detention centers — and how to prosecute some of them for war crimes.

In his first Oval Office signing ceremony, Obama was surrounded by retired senior military leaders. He described them as outstanding Americans who have defended the country — and its ideals.

Obama to Shut Guantanamo Site and C.I.A. Prisons

Big news today:

WASHINGTON — President Obama is expected to sign executive orders Thursday directing the Central Intelligence Agency to shut what remains of its network of secret prisons and ordering the closing of the Guantánamo detention camp within a year, government officials said.

The orders, which would be the first steps in undoing detention policies of former President George W. Bush, would rewrite American rules for the detention of terrorism suspects. They would require an immediate review of the 245 detainees still held at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, to determine if they should be transferred, released or prosecuted.

And the orders would bring to an end a Central Intelligence Agency program that kept terrorism suspects in secret custody for months or years, a practice that has brought fierce criticism from foreign governments and human rights activists. They will also prohibit the C.I.A. from using coercive interrogation methods, requiring the agency to follow the same rules used by the military in interrogating terrorism suspects, government officials said.

Read more here, and stay tuned.

Majority of Americans Oppose the Use of Torture

A majority of Americans in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll oppose the use of torture in terrorism investigations, backing Barack Obama's pledge that "under my administration, the United States does not torture." Overall, 58 percent support the prohibition Obama declared before taking office. (See below the results of the poll.) The politics of torture and the issue of closing Guantanamo are linked, after last week’s plain declaration by Bush Administration official Susan Crawford, that "We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani," a Saudi national held there. With Obama's order to suspend judicial proceedings against terrorism suspects being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba today, and a draft executive order circulating that would close Guantanamo within a year, it is heartening to see public opinion on the side of the rule of law.

As President Obama said in yesterday’s Inaugural Address:

We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our founding fathers faced with perils that we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations. Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience's sake.

Here is the poll question and results:

Q. Obama has said that under his administration the United States will not use torture as part of the U.S. campaign against terrorism, no matter what the circumstance. Do you support this position not to use torture, or do you think there are cases in which the United States should consider torture against terrorism
suspects?

Support not using torture / There are cases to consider torture / No opinion

All: 58 / 40 / 2

Democrats: 71 / 28 / 2

Republicans: 42 / 55 / 3

Independents: 56 / 43 / 2

Men: 49 / 50 / 1

Women: 65 / 31 / 3

Dem Men: 65 / 33 / 2

Dem Women: 75 / 23 / 1

GOP Men: 34 / 65 / 1

GOP Women: 50 / 45 / 6

Ind Men: 45 / 55 / *

Ind Women: 66 / 31 / 3

Liberal: 72 / 27 / 1

Moderate: 57 / 42 / 1

Conservative: 47 / 50 / 3

Obama draft order calls for closing Guantanamo Bay

Read the whole thing:

Obama draft order calls for closing Guantanamo Bay
By DAVID ESPO, The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 21, 2009; 12:44 PM

WASHINGTON -- The new Obama administration circulated a draft executive order Wednesday that calls for closing the controversial detention center at Guantanamo Bay within a year and halting any war crimes trials in the meantime.

Closing the facility in Cuba "would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice," read the draft prepared for the new president's signature.

While some of the detainees currently held at Guantanamo would be released, others would be transferred elsewhere and later put on trial under terms to be determined.

It was not known when Obama intended to issue the order. He has been a longtime critic of the Bush administration's decision to maintain the detention facility, which was opened after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

The Associated Press obtained a copy of the draft.

There are an estimated 245 detainees currently held at Guantanamo, out of some 800 who were sent there during the Bush administration. The order circulated as the judge in one war crimes case agreed to Obama's request to suspend proceedings pending a 120-day review.

Army Col. Stephen Henley issued the ruling Wednesday after a brief hearing at the U.S. base in Cuba.

The defendants opposed the delay. All have said they want to plead guilty to charges that carry a potential death sentence.

It was not immediately clear whether the request to halt proceedings was designed as a precursor to a more extensive executive order.

The draft order calls for a systematic review of the cases of each of the detainees, to determine which among them can be released and which cannot.

"It is in the interests of the United States to review whether and how such individuals can and should be prosecuted," it says.

The facility at Guantanamo Bay has long been criticized by critics of the former Bush administration at home, as well as by other governments overseas, as a black eye for the United States. The administration established it early in the war on terror, contending that those held there were not entitled to the customary rights that prisoners in he United States enjoy, or to the protections of the Geneva Conventions that cover war prisoners.

The draft order notes that some of those held at the site have been there for more than six years, and most for at least four years.

The draft states that "the detention facilities at Guantanamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than one year from the date of this order."

At the Pentagon, military leaders were preparing for the order that spokesman Bryan Whitman said would begin a "comprehensive review of policies and procedures related to detainee activities."

"The president has clearly made his intentions well known," Whitman said. "And he has taken the first steps with respect to his direction to order a pause to military commission proceedings."

President Obama Must End Illegal Military Commissions

Our colleague Gabor Rona is down at Guantanamo this week, in his words “on a trip that should not occur, to a destination that should not exist, to witness events that should not happen.” On an American Constitution Society blog, Gabor calls on President Obama to immediately suspend the military commissions, something that can be accomplished with little more than the time and strength it takes to say it, and the effects would be both practical and symbolic:

“Of all the illegal, counterproductive and just plain irrational architecture that the Bush administration has designed to combat terrorism, nothing is easier to bring to a screeching halt, and there is no better way to signal a break with the past than to suspend the military commissions.”

Time is of the essence; in just a few days the military commissions are slated to begin trying a child soldier for the first time in modern American history, contrary to the tenets of international law and common decency. An immediate announcement by President Obama

“to suspend military commissions would be powerful evidence that he meant what he said in his application for the job that the majority of voters hired him to accomplish – to bring change to America. The message would be clear not only to all Americans, but the entire world, that he will act decisively to fulfill his stated commitment to end these illegal proceedings, to transfer the cases that should be prosecuted to the federal criminal justice system where they belong, and to begin the long march of returning his country to the rule of American and international law.”

“There is nothing complicated about this issue” Rachel Maddow and Charles Kaiser on Torture

On Wednesday, Rachel Maddow and Charles Kaiser discussed the deeply flawed Newsweek cover article that justifies "enhanced interrogation" and calls on Obama to continue Bush's policies. At about 8:35, Kaiser mentions the December meetings HRF organized between the group of retired military leaders and key members of the transition team, pointing out that calls for an end to torture and abusive interrogations are not partisan. Listen to the piece here.

And read Charles Kaiser’s post on the article in Full Court Press at the Columbia Journalism Review here:

For the record, this is the truth about the torture authorized at the very top of the Bush administration. There is no evidence that it ever produced any useful information, except for the uncorroborated boasts of Cheney and his henchmen. There are more than forty retired Admirals and Generals who have lobbied Congressmen and Senators continuously because they know that these methods are not only immoral and illegal but also completely counter-productive. And every experienced Army interrogator agrees that non-coercive methods produce more reliable information than the ones Cheney plucked from the “dark side” in a criminally misguided effort to protect America.

Eric Holder: “No one is above the law.”

In his confirmation hearing today, Attorney General nominee Eric Holder said clearly that he believes waterboarding is torture, and that other countries would be violating international law if they waterboarded U.S. citizens.


He also said that Guantanamo will be closed, and added that he and Barack Obama are disturbed by what they've heard about harsh interrogation techniques. He referenced the meeting HRF organized in December with retired military leaders, who told him that abusive interrogation techniques do not produce good intelligence.

“More than 100 international terrorism cases have been prosecuted in the federal courts.”

Our colleague Deborah Colson weighs in on a New York Times blog on how the administration’s admission of torture might affect closing Guantanamo and the prosecution of detainees. She rejects proposals for the creation of a new “national security court” and reaffirms the capacity of federal criminal courts for handling terrorism cases.

Susan Crawford, who declined to refer Mohammed al-Qahtani’s case for prosecution on grounds of torture, says she did so despite her certainty that Mr. Qahtani is “a muscle hijacker” who “would’ve been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in 2001.” Yet because his admissions were made as a result of torture, her conclusions are not necessarily based on reliable evidence. That is why she refused to refer his case for prosecution.

Nonetheless, her statements will undoubtedly be held up by a group of scholars who speculate there are dangerous people — in Guantánamo and around the world — who cannot be prosecuted, but pose a risk to our national security and must be detained.

Many of these scholars say they support closing Guantánamo. At the same time, however, they advocate the creation of a new “national security court” — a specialized tribunal that would provide fewer due process protections than those guaranteed in ordinary criminal courts and might also be empowered to detain “dangerous” suspects, potentially indefinitely, without criminal charge.

Proposals for this new system must be rejected. The federal criminal courts are fully capable of handling complex terrorism cases without compromising national security or sacrificing standards of fairness and due process. In almost seven years, only two military commission trials have been conducted. During that same period, more than 100 international terrorism cases have been prosecuted in the federal courts.

Our procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards comprise the bedrock of American justice. A decision to jettison them, even for a small number of suspects, will undermine our system as a whole and perpetuate the damage to America’s reputation for fairness.

Moreover, the disarray that has plagued the military commission system — with abundant litigation and dissent within the military command structure — would be replicated in another separate, and inferior, system.

Just as importantly, a national security court is not smart counterterrorism policy. The Bush administration’s attempt to insulate the detention, interrogation and trial of terrorism suspects at Guantánamo from the Constitution has only impaired cooperation with our allies and fueled terrorism recruitment. Creating a state-side replica of the Guantánamo legal regime would do the same.

President Bush on the Legal Opinions Behind Torture

President and Mrs. Bush appeared on Larry King Live the other night on CNN, where he continued to deny that the U.S. has engaged in torture, and in the process admitted that legal memos were used to legalize what otherwise would have been considered illegal. Excerpts from the transcript are below.

KING: Do you think -- or do you get hurt when a Colin Powell comes out and says things like we shouldn't torture and we should close Guantanamo?

G. BUSH: No, I don't get hurt, because we don't torture.

KING: So does it hurt you that Colin, who worked for you, is saying that?

G. BUSH: I don't think he said George Bush has tortured. I can't remember his quote. But I'm comfortable with what we did and know it was necessary to protect the country.

KING: So there's nothing you've done in the area of treatment of prisoners that causes you any kind of pause?

G. BUSH: No. No. Everything we did was -- you know, it had legal -- legal opinions behind it. Look, you're sitting there, you've captured Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. He's the guy that ordered the September the 11th attacks. And we want to know what he knows in order to protect the United States of America. And I got legal opinions that said whatever we're going to do is legal. And my job is to protect you, Larry. And I've given it my all. I've given it my all.

…

KING: Apparently, one of the first things the Obama administration is going to do, apparently, is close Guantanamo. It's not going to happen overnight, but they're going to issue the order. What do you think of that?

G.BUSH: I think they're going to have some very difficult choices to make.

KING: That's the wrong choice?

G. BUSH: I didn't say it was wrong. I said -- I said we were going to try to close Guantanamo, too. And...

KING: What's the problem?

G. BUSH: The problem is you've got a bunch of cold-blooded killers down there that, if they ever get out, they're going to come and kill Americans. And I'd hate to be the person that made that decision.

KING: But at one time you wanted to close it?

G. BUSH: I still want to. I still want to have a procedure where people, you know, have their day in court and -- but it's got to be done under the right circumstances. These are illegal combatants. These aren't people who wear a uniform. These are cold-blooded killers. And in order to convict some, we're going to have to -- they're going to have to use some very sensitive intelligence. And it's very important that that intelligence be -- be safeguarded in a proper fashion.Look, we don't want... ...our intelligence secrets out there for everybody to look at it. There is still an enemy that wants to strike us, Larry. And, therefore, it's important to have the tools and the intelligence necessary to protect the American people.

(CNN LARRY KING LIVE, Interview with President and Mrs. George W. Bush, Aired January 13, 2009 - 21:00 ET)

Then & Now: The Bush Administration on Torture

Remember when the President and Vice President used to say the United States didn’t engage in torture? Today brings yet more evidence of the falsity of those claims.

THEN: We Don’t Torture

"We don't torture. That's not what we're involved in." Vice President Cheney, October 27, 2006

"This country doesn't torture, we're not going to torture. We will interrogate people we pick up off the battlefield to determine whether or not they've got information that will be helpful to protect the country." President Bush, October 27, 2006

"This government does not torture people," President Bush, October 5, 2007

“This is not torture. We don't do torture. But what the agency did was they sought formal guidance from the senior leadership of the administration, as well as the Justice Department in terms of what was appropriate and what wasn't. And they got that guidance. And they followed that guidance, as far as I know. I have no reason to believe anybody out at the agency violated any tenet of the obligations and responsibilities we have in terms of statutes or our treaty obligations. I think it was done very professionally. I think it was done very few times, when it was necessary. I think it produced good results. I think there are Americans alive today because we used that technique on those three individuals.” Vice President Cheney, January 11, 2009

NOW: We Tortured

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani. His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.” Susan J. Crawford, convening authority of military commissions.

“The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture.

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe," said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

Final Thought “I think the buck stops in the Oval Office." – Susan J. Crawford, January 14. 2009

Cheney Criticizes Obama’s Intention to Close Gitmo

Vice President Cheney yesterday in a radio interview criticized President-elect Obama’s intention to shut down Guantanamo, calling it a “bad decision.” Mostly his comments focused on the challenges associated with closing the prison, which are addressed in HRF’s blueprint to close Gitmo: bring those detainees who the Attorney General believes have committed crimes against the United States to U.S. soil for federal court prosecution, and repatriate and resettle the rest of them.

Cheney also called Gitmo a “first-rate” facility, and claimed that if anything, the Bush administration has "erred a bit on the side" of "letting the wrong people go on a few occasions." If this is a seldom-heard criticism of the Bush administration, it’s an even stranger boast on Cheney’s part. Those left in the facility, he said, are "the hardcore."

"These are al Qaeda members," Mr. Cheney said. "These are people that we captured on the battlefield. These are folks whose main objective in life is to kill Americans." Cheney said the remaining detainees "are unlawful combatants, terrorists, and by definition, their objective is to achieve their political goals by killing as many civilians as possible. They don't abide by the laws of war."

Cheney’s praise for the prison is in sharp contrast to reality. In fact, last week it was reported that the number of prisoners on hunger strike there has grown to 30 people. And the military commission system is deeply flawed. Cheney’s characterization of the people still in prison at Guantanamo is also highly questionable. For example, what about the 17 Uigher detainees, who the government no longer considers enemy combatants, and who a Judge has ordered to be released?

He concludes with that oft-repeated point about our enemies not abiding by the laws of war; why should we follow the rules when we know they won’t? Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster said it very well at a panel at UVA Law School last fall:

"It doesn't matter what they do, it’s what we do. We don't lower ourselves to the level of this terrible enemy we are fighting. It's about what our standards are."

Cheney went on to comment on the incoming administration, expressing concern that those who are about to take over don’t realize that the world has changed: "The fact is the world has changed in major ways since January of '01 when we took over. And that break in service of some eight years I think they will find has been a period of time when the threat to the nation has changed in fairly dramatic ways." Matthew Alexander, the interrogator who wrote How to Break a Terrorist, had this to say about the dramatic ways the threat to Americans has changed during Cheney’s tenure as Vice President:

“I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me -- unless you don't count American soldiers as Americans. “

Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official

From today's Washington Post. Worth reading in full.

Detainee Tortured, Says U.S. Official


Trial Overseer Cites 'Abusive' Methods Against 9/11 Suspect


By Bob Woodward

Washington Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, January 14, 2009; A01

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-] Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Crawford, 61, said the combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health led to her conclusion. "The techniques they used were all authorized, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent. . . . You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge" to call it torture, she said.

Military prosecutors said in November that they would seek to refile charges against Qahtani, 30, based on subsequent interrogations that did not employ harsh techniques. But Crawford, who dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008, said in the interview that she would not allow the prosecution to go forward.

Qahtani was denied entry into the United States a month before the Sept. 11 attacks and was allegedly planning to be the plot's 20th hijacker. He was later captured in Afghanistan and transported to Guantanamo in January 2002. His interrogation took place over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003.

"For 160 days his only contact was with the interrogators," said Crawford, who personally reviewed Qahtani's interrogation records and other military documents. "Forty-eight of 54 consecutive days of 18-to-20-hour interrogations. Standing naked in front of a female agent. Subject to strip searches. And insults to his mother and sister."

At one point he was threatened with a military working dog named Zeus, according to a military report. Qahtani "was forced to wear a woman's bra and had a thong placed on his head during the course of his interrogation" and "was told that his mother and sister were whores." With a leash tied to his chains, he was led around the room "and forced to perform a series of dog tricks," the report shows.

The interrogation, portions of which have been previously described by other news organizations, including The Washington Post, was so intense that Qahtani had to be hospitalized twice at Guantanamo with bradycardia, a condition in which the heart rate falls below 60 beats a minute and which in extreme cases can lead to heart failure and death. At one point Qahtani's heart rate dropped to 35 beats per minute, the record shows.

The Qahtani case underscores the challenges facing the incoming Obama administration as it seeks to close the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, including the dilemmas posed by individuals considered too dangerous to release but whose legal status is uncertain. FBI "clean teams," which gather evidence without using information gained during controversial interrogations, have established that Qahtani intended to join the 2001 hijackers. Mohamed Atta, the plot's leader, who died steering American Airlines Flight 11 into the World Trade Center, went to the Orlando airport to meet Qahtani on Aug. 4, 2001, but the young Saudi was denied entry by a suspicious immigration inspector.

"There's no doubt in my mind he would've been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in August 2001," Crawford said of Qahtani, who remains detained at Guantanamo. "He's a muscle hijacker. . . . He's a very dangerous man. What do you do with him now if you don't charge him and try him? I would be hesitant to say, 'Let him go.'"

That, she said, is a decision that President-elect Barack Obama will have to make. Obama repeated Sunday that he intends to close the Guantanamo center but acknowledged the challenges involved. "It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," Obama said on ABC's "This Week," "and we are going to get it done, but part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous, who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted, even though it's true."

President Bush and Vice President Cheney have said that interrogations never involved torture. "The United States does not torture. It's against our laws, and it's against our values," Bush asserted on Sept. 6, 2006, when 14 high-value detainees were transferred to Guantanamo from secret CIA prisons. And in a interview last week with the Weekly Standard, Cheney said, "And I think on the left wing of the Democratic Party, there are some people who believe that we really tortured."

"I sympathize with the intelligence gatherers in those days after 9/11, not knowing what was coming next and trying to gain information to keep us safe," said Crawford, a lifelong Republican. "But there still has to be a line that we should not cross. And unfortunately what this has done, I think, has tainted everything going forward."

"The Department has always taken allegations of abuse seriously," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in an e-mail. "We have conducted more than a dozen investigations and reviews of our detention operations, including specifically the interrogation of Mohammed Al Qahtani, the alleged 20th hijacker. They concluded the interrogation methods used at GTMO, including the special techniques used on Qahtani in 2002, were lawful. However, subsequent to those reviews, the Department adopted new and more restrictive policies and procedures for interrogation and detention operations. Some of the aggressive questioning techniques used on Al Qahtani, although permissible at the time, are no longer allowed in the updated Army field manual."

After the Supreme Court ruled in the 2006 Hamdan v. Rumsfeld case that the original military commission system for Guantanamo Bay violated the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions, Congress rewrote the rules and passed the Military Commissions Act, creating a new structure for trials by commissions. The act bans torture but permits "coercive" testimony.

Crawford said she believes that coerced testimony should not be allowed. "You don't allow it in a regular court," said Crawford, who served as a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces from 1991 to 2006.

Under the act, Crawford is a neutral official overseeing charges, trials and sentencing, with ultimate decision-making power over all cases coming before the military commissions.

In May 2008, Crawford ordered the war-crimes charges against Qahtani dropped but did not state publicly that the harsh interrogations were the reason. "It did shock me," Crawford said. "I was upset by it. I was embarrassed by it. If we tolerate this and allow it, then how can we object when our servicemen and women, or others in foreign service, are captured and subjected to the same techniques? How can we complain? Where is our moral authority to complain? Well, we may have lost it."

The harsh techniques used against Qahtani, she said, were approved by then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld. "A lot of this happened on his watch," she said. Last month, a Senate Armed Services Committee report concluded that "Rumsfeld's authorization of aggressive interrogation techniques for use at Guantanamo Bay was a direct cause of detainee abuse there." The committee found the interrogation techniques harsh and abusive but stopped short of calling them torture.

An aide to the former defense secretary accused the committee chairman, Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), of pursuing a politically motivated "false narrative" that is "unencumbered by the preponderance of the facts."

In June 2005, Time magazine obtained 83 pages of Qahtani's interrogation log and published excerpts that showed some of the extreme abuse. The report of a military investigation released the same year concluded that Qahtani's interrogations were "degrading and abusive."

Crawford said she does not know whether five other detainees accused of participating in the Sept. 11 plot, including alleged mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed, were tortured. "I assume torture," she said, noting that CIA Director Michael V. Hayden has said publicly that Mohammed was one of three detainees waterboarded by the CIA. Crawford declined to say whether she considers waterboarding, a technique that simulates drowning, to be torture.

The five detainees face capital murder charges, and Crawford said she let the charges go forward because the FBI satisfied her that they gathered information without using harsh techniques. She noted that Mohammed has acknowledged his Sept. 11 role in court, whereas Qahtani has recanted his self-incriminating statements to the FBI.

"There is no doubt he was tortured," Gitanjali S. Gutierrez, Qahtani's civilian attorney, said this week. "He has loss of concentration and memory loss, and he suffers from paranoia. . . . He wants just to get back to Saudi Arabia, get married and have a family." She said Qahtani "adamantly denies he planned to join the 9/11 attack. . . . He has no connections to extremists." Gutierrez said she believes Saudi Arabia has an effective rehabilitation program and Qahtani ought to be returned there.

When she came in as convening authority in 2007, Crawford said, "the prosecution was unprepared" to bring cases to trial. Even after four years working possible cases, "they were lacking in experience and judgment and leadership," she said. "A prosecutor has an ethical obligation to review all the evidence before making a charging decision. And they didn't have access to all the evidence, including medical records, interrogation logs, and they were making charging decisions without looking at everything."

She noted that prosecutors are required to determine whether any evidence possessed by the government could be exculpatory; if it is, they must turn it over to defense lawyers. It took more than a year, she said -- and the intervention of Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England -- to ensure they had access to all the information, much of it classified.

Crawford said detainee interrogation practices are a blot on the reputation of the United States and its military judicial system. "There's an assumption out there that everybody was tortured. And everybody wasn't tortured. But unfortunately perception is reality." The system she oversees probably can't function now, she said. "Certainly in the public's mind, or politically speaking, and certainly in the international community" it may be forever tainted. "It may be too late."

She said Bush was right to create a system to try unlawful enemy combatants captured in the war on terrorism. The implementation, however, was flawed, she said. "I think he hurt his own effort. . . . I think someone should acknowledge that mistakes were made and that they hurt the effort and take responsibility for it."

"We learn as children it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is for permission," Crawford said. "I think the buck stops in the Oval Office."

Researchers Julie Tate and Evelyn Duffy contributed to this report.

Newsweek's Flawed Take on Torture

Andrew Sullivan picks apart Newsweek's sloppy coverage of torture currently on the newstand.

Advisers say Obama Preparing to Close Gitmo

Today, the AP reported that according to advisers, President-elect Barack Obama is preparing to issue an executive order his first week in office, perhaps his first day, to close Guantanamo.

“It is encouraging to hear reports that President-elect Obama is considering issuing an executive order on closing Guantanamo in the first hours of his presidency, and that he understands any strategy for closing the facility must be in line with America’s values. Showing the world we are serious about our values will require embracing time-tested procedures for criminal prosecution of suspected terrorists in our federal courts,” said Deborah Colson, Interim Director, Law & Security Program, Human Rights First.

“As President-elect Obama said on Sunday, closing Guantanamo will take time and analysis. But the overall challenge will be complicated if Mr. Obama does not make an immediate decision to suspend all military commission proceedings, including the trial of Omar Khadr, which is scheduled to begin on January 26th” she added.

Issuing such an executive order would be an impressive first step. In an interview last weekend, Obama said it would be "a challenge" to close it even within the first 100 days of his administration. But HRF has a plan for closing Guantanamo within a year. Click here to read our blueprint for closing Guantanamo, which offers a detailed plan of the next steps to close the prison, minimize the risk to America’s national security and ensure that detainees suspected of committing crimes against the United States are prosecuted in fair proceedings.

Jack Bauer in the Obama Age

Last night “24” made its debut opposite the Golden Globe awards. HRF’s David Danzig weighs in at Huffington Post, and at Fire Dog Lake.

“K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence.”

Firedoglake offers up succinct refutation of Joe Scarborough’s screed, citing Jane Mayer’s The Dark Side, and David Rose’s article in Vanity Fair late last year:

From Jane Mayer's book, The Dark Side:
“While Tenet continued to assure the White House that Mohammed's interrogation in particular had been a gold mine of invaluable intelligence, a few officers began to question the reliability of his coerced confessions. Some also feared that the torturous methods used by the Agency would undermine eventual efforts to convict him in any legitimate court. Mohammed claimed responsibility for so many crimes that his testimony began to seem inherently dubious. In addition to confessing to the [Daniel] Pearl murder, he said that he had hatched plans to assassinate President Clinton, President Carter, and Pope John Paul II. CIA cables carrying Mohammed's interrogation transcirpts back to Washington with the warning that "the detainee has been known to withhold information or deliberately mislead."

After Mohammed had been interrogated for some time, a top Agency official asked for a few choice revelations from his confession that he could share with officers from an allied foreign intelligence agency. To his surprise, he was told by top CIA officials that there really was noting "solid" enough to pass on. Although few outside of the CIA knew it, Mohammed had recanted substantial portions of his initial confessions.

Mohammed brazenly boasted later about his ability to mislead the United States. He claimed that false information he fabricated caused the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to issue urgent terrorist threat alerts on several occasions, for no real reason. He just wanted the interrogators to stop, he said, so he told them whatever they wanted to hear.”

And David Rose wrote in Vanity Fair:
“K.S.M. was certainly knowledgeable. It would be surprising if he gave up nothing of value. But according to a former senior C.I.A. official, who read all the interrogation reports on K.S.M., “90 percent of it was total fucking bullshit.” A former Pentagon analyst adds: “K.S.M. produced no actionable intelligence. He was trying to tell us how stupid we were.”

Joe Scarborough: More Extreme than Jack Bauer

Today on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough waged a condescending and ill-informed six-minute defense of torture, arguing with the Financial Times’ Krystia Freeland that torture is always effective — and that waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and stress positions aren’t torture anyway. He declared, again without getting specific, that torture has saved American lives:

SCARBOROUGH: Yes I do. Yes I do. And I know for a fact that waterboarding brought our interrogators, brought Americans, probably about 70-75 percent of what they get. What they got from Khalid Shaikh Mohammed opened doors that we are still going through. Waterboarding has produced and given so much evidence to our people in the CIA and in the other intelligence agencies. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed by himself has done more to crush al Qaeda than Dick Cheney or George Bush because of waterboarding.

Watch the entire thing, if you can stand it:

His blanket argument feels like it’s out of a different era, from before we knew what we know now about the costs of torture and the benefits of humane interrogation. The national debate on this issue has shifted very much in the last few years – people on all sides of the debate have acknowledged that national security and human rights are not at odds, and seasoned interrogators have repeatedly told us that torture makes us less safe. Scarborough sounds like Jack Bauer.

Speaking of which, last night, season 7 of “24” debuted, and Jack Bauer, never known as a subtle kind of guy, is back. He has often been viewed as an archetype of the Bush years, the kind of hero who did not stop to ask questions about legal niceties in his pursuit of the bad guys, an exemplar of the no-holds-barred action Scarborough was endorsing this morning. And yet, at least in the world of “24”, there seems to be some acknowledgement that circumstances have changed since those heady days of reflection-free action post 9/11. Jack Bauer may show some nuance yet; here’s Kiefer Sutherland’s take on the character this season:

Kiefer Sutherland: He's very disenfranchised with his own country. Even if you take a look at some of the things that he's had to do. I would have to say the most egregious was killing Ryan Chappelle his boss, by order of the president of the United States. I think he feels he's being used as a scapegoat when in fact most of the things he was doing were under order by a much higher authority than he. And he's there to defend his point of view and it's something that is a through line through the entire season. The one thing that really resonated to me from that very first speech which kind of carries him through, because I think you'll see, he has huge reservations over some of the things he's done. So this is not simply black and white where he's saying I'm right and you're wrong. He resents the senate investigation but I think on a much more personal and moral level, he's taking a look at a lot of the things he's done and does believe there is a responsible way, a legal way, a more proper way.

Crave Online: That's what he's done. What about what he's going to have to do in the next 24 hours?

Kiefer Sutherland: For him, saving the 45 people on the bus, if that's his objective and that's what he's been given as an objective, he will do whatever it takes to save those 45 innocent people. It's very hard to compare it to what's happening in the real
world and in our television show world, he happens to be right in the people that he's actually doing this with but I think he has huge reservations over the violence. I think in the end, which carries right through to episode 24 is I think where he is at now that is so different than the place before, from season one he was motivated by this unbelievable sense of ideology and what he was doing was right. I think now he's a much older, kind of wiser man who is very dejected by the fact that the world is even like this and requires him on some level. I think he is now just fighting to kind of finish out his life and maybe do something positive with it. Circumstances keep surrounding him that prevent him from doing that.

The beliefs that torture works and that the ticking time bomb scenario is commonplace are as unrealistic as the rest of the “24” universe, a fictional place where major cities can be crossed in ten minutes during rush hour, and where terror threats emerge and are neutralized within a day. It’s unnerving when folks like Joe Scarborough can’t see it.

Video Clips: President, Vice President, and President-elect on Torture this Weekend

Talkingpointsmemo.com has a video roundup of President Bush, VP Cheney, and President-elect Obama all talking about torture and Guantanamo Bay this weekend. Check it out:

Turnabout on Torture: USA Today on Cheney and Obama

USA Today echoes the sentiments of our blog in an editorial today:

On the Sunday morning talk shows, the outgoing vice president and the incoming president provided viewers with an unusually stark view of the way interrogation of terror suspects is about to change.

Dick Cheney, on CNN, vigorously defended the use of waterboarding, which simulates drowning, on three high-level al-Qaeda suspects. Unlike "pull(ing) out somebody's toenails in order to get them to talk," waterboarding "is not torture," Cheney asserted unconvincingly.

Barack Obama, on ABC, rebuked Cheney. Waterboarding is indeed torture, he said, echoing Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the ex-POW he defeated on Election Day. On Friday, introducing Leon Panetta as his pick to head the CIA, Obama succinctly underscored why torture has no place as official U.S. policy: "Not only because that's who we are, but also, ultimately it will make us safer and will help in changing
hearts and minds in our struggle against extremists."

Right after the vicious 9/11 attacks, the natural instinct was to put no limits on interrogation of potential enemies, to go over to what Cheney called the "dark side." One TV show became a hit by playing to the national mood: 24. In it, counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer repeatedly saves the nation by acting decisively while others waffle, including with the occasional use of torture.

But as time has gone on, the downside of torture has become clearer.

Institutionalization of aggressive interrogation techniques led to the scandal at Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison, undermining U.S. standing in the Muslim world and making it hard for America to argue that it practices the values it preaches. U.S. military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, have been complicated because of the inadmissibility of evidence obtained with waterboarding.

What's more, many intelligence experts agree that torture produces bad intelligence and endangers U.S. POWs. After briefings from intelligence experts about how torture does not quite work as they had assumed, even 24's writers are introducing more ambiguity.

Ultimately, ambiguity is the truth of torture.

Obama might one day face a "ticking time bomb" situation and have to make a difficult decision. But those are as rare in the real world as they are common on TV. Meanwhile, the only way to stop the damage that torture causes is to ban the use of extreme tactics, as Obama is about to do.

On that last point, just in case Obama is faced with a ticking time bomb situation, he might want to read this interview in Harper’s with interrogator Matthew Alexander. The President will undoubtedly face difficult decisions, which will not justify the use of torture:

In Iraq, we lived the “ticking time bomb” scenario every day. Numerous Al Qaeda members that we captured and interrogated were directly involved in coordinating suicide bombing attacks. I remember one distinct case of a Sunni imam who was caught just after having blessed suicide bombers to go on a mission. Had we gotten there just an hour earlier, we could have saved lives. Still, we knew that if we resorted to torture the short term gains would be outweighed by the long term losses. I listened time and time again to foreign fighters, and Sunni Iraqis, state that the number one reason they had decided to pick up arms and join Al Qaeda was the abuses at Abu Ghraib and the authorized torture and abuse at Guantánamo Bay. My team of interrogators knew that we would become Al Qaeda’s best recruiters if we resorted to torture. Torture is counterproductive to keeping America safe and it doesn’t matter if we do it or if we pass it off to another government. The result is the same. And morally, I believe, there is an even stronger argument. Torture is simply incompatible with American principles. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both forbade their troops from torturing prisoners of war. They realized, as the recent bipartisan Senate report echoes, that this is about who we are. We cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him.

President Bush's Last Press Conference

In his last press conference as President this morning, President Bush refused to discuss any pardons, "including pre-emptive pardons for anyone involved in interrogations of captives in the campaign against terrorism."

We'll post the transcript shortly.

Obama Vows No Torture While Cheney Defends Its Use

Vice President Dick Cheney is at it again, defending the use of torture. He told the AP yesterday that he saw no reason for President Bush to preemptively pardon anyone who authorized or was involved in harsh interrogation techniques, and that he has no qualms about the reliability of intelligence obtained through waterboarding. He said that waterboarding has been used with "great discrimination by people who know what they're doing" and produced much valuable information, without providing any specific examples. His assertion that torture produces actionable intelligence has been called seriously into question by high-level military leaders, intelligence professionals, and the director of the FBI.

President-elect Barack Obama, on the other hand, today said that his administration will "uphold our highest values and ideals" in its approach to fighting terrorism. When asked whether he would continue a policy of harsh interrogation, he replied that he has told CIA Director-designate Leon Panetta and retired Admiral Dennis Blair (chosen to be director of national intelligence) that he expects the Geneva Conventions to be honored. January 20 can’t arrive soon enough for the rule of law.

Season 7 of 24 Begins Sunday

This Sunday night, Fox’s show “24” returns with a new season after a 20 month hiatus. As the New York Times points out, Jack Bauer finds himself in a different United States at the dawn of 2009 – the “age of Obama” – as do the rest of us. Bauer, an archetype of the Bush years, was embraced by the country when “24” debuted just after 9/11, as a hero “who did not stop to ask questions about legal niceties in his pursuit of the bad guys.”

“24” may just be a TV show, but Human Rights First’s Primetime Torture project found that its impact was anything but fictional: Interrogators reported that junior soldiers imitated the interrogation techniques they have seen on television. Military academies reported that Jack Bauer was one of their biggest training challenges. What’s more, “24” helped reinforce how Americans, including policymakers, thought about torture: as necessary in certain situations. Human Rights First sought to limit the negative impact “24” was having on the way U.S. troops operate by developing training materials, and also by reaching out to Hollywood. We arranged for a meeting between creative team behind “24” and the dean of West point and experienced interrogators. Howard Gordon, an executive producer of “24”, also participated in the training film we developed for use at military academies.

What to Expect on Sunday

“Howard Gordon deserves a lot of credit, outside the lines of the show, for trying to do the responsible thing,” said David Danzig, director of the Primetime Torture project, in the New York Times article.

But he said he had doubts that those views would completely translate into the program’s plot. Mr. Danzig noted that previews portray Jack Bauer as vigorously defiant in defending his methods of interrogation, which have included beatings, stabbings, electrocutions and the use of drugs, suffocation and other coercive measures. “I fear that the result,” he said, “will be for the show to contend that Bauer has always been right.”

Mr. Gordon told the New York Times that Jack Bauer, in the new season, will show a more nuanced worldview, “It was to sort of account for the fact that the world has changed,” he added, “that things are much more complex than maybe we thought, and that some of our actions have had consequences in the world.”

It remains to be seen whether Jack Bauer – or anyone in the Bush Administration for that matter – will be held accountable. HRF is urging President-elect Obama to establish a nonpartisan commission to investigate the facts and circumstances relating to U.S. government detention and interrogation operations since 9/11.