ICRC Reports on U.S. Torture

Mark Danner has excerpts from the report in yesterday's New York Times.

Federal Courts Are the Best Venue for Terrorism Trials

In a letter to the editor in response to a news story in the Washington Post, our colleague Gabor Rona argues emphatically against reconstituting military commissions in any form. It is not okay to flout constitutional standards to convict people who might be found not guilty in fair trials where secret evidence and coerced confessions are excluded. Instead, as we have documented in our report In Pursuit of Justice: Prosecuting Terrorism Cases in the Federal Courts, our normal federal courts are up to the task:

The true road to effective counterterrorism passes through our normal federal courts, where the delivery of justice is sometimes complicated, expensive and time-consuming. That's a small price to pay for an improved national security strategy that also restores our souls and our international legitimacy.

Experienced Interrogators Speak Out

An op-ed in today’s New York Times offers some advice from two seasoned interrogators to the panel established by President Obama’s executive order to investigate America’s interrogation methods. Matthew Alexander worked as an interrogator in the military, and wrote a book last year, “How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq.” Steven Kleinman has been an intelligence officer and an interrogator in the Air Force for 25 years and is a colonel in the Air Force Reserve. He also signed on to a series of principles last year at a meeting of 15 interrogators and intelligence experts convened by Human Rights First.

These principles are based on the interrogators and intelligence officials’ experiences of what works and what does not in the field: interrogation techniques that do not resort to torture yield more complete and accurate intelligence. They also call for the creation of a well-defined single standard of conduct in interrogation and detention practices across all U.S. agencies. At stake is the loss of critical intelligence and time, as well as the United States’ reputation abroad and its credibility in demanding the humane treatment of captured Americans.

In today’s op-ed piece, Alexander and Kleinman expand on these principles, calling for this new panel established by President Obama to include experienced interrogators who will recognize the need to examine longstanding interrogation methods objectively, and should consider creating a research center so that our country can take a more scientific approach to intelligence-gathering:

The panel should consider creating a research center devoted to gathering and
analyzing the valuable lessons that interrogators have learned in the course of
our current conflicts, establishing a clear and stringent standard of conduct
and ethics and building a cadre of skilled interrogators. Researchers at such a
center could also evaluate all strategies now used in questioning and identify
other methods that are both effective and consistent with our legal and moral
traditions.

Admiral Gunn on Truth Inquiry: "We have to find out what happened... to provide clear, unambiguous guidance on the front line."

Yesterday Admiral Lee Gunn, a member of HRF's coalition of military leaders, testified at the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on a commission of inquiry. Here is his testimony:

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be a part of this esteemed panel and to have an opportunity to talk about this important issue.

In addition to the other things you mentioned that I'm involved in, I've been a member for the last three-plus years of a group of 49 retired flag and general officers who have spoken extensively on the issue of detainee treatment and its importance both to the men and women in the military and for the men and women in their execution of their duties.

I'd like to talk a little bit about that and, in doing that, elaborate on the written testimony that I have submitted.

I'd like to say at the outset that my views are those of a sailor, conveying concerns about the serious problems created for servicemen and women by choices made in Washington over the last seven years. So what are those problems?

Strained alliances comes first in my list. And in this day and age, the American military operates by itself almost never in the world. And the importance of being able to work with our allies and our friends cannot be overstressed.

Confusion about detainee treatment, number two on my list, means to me that we have provided unclear guidance. That is, choices made in Washington have resulted in guidance that was not clear, that was in many cases ambiguous, and in some cases was flat wrong about the requirement to treat detainees humanely and in accordance with international conventions and the Geneva Convention, in particular, and also
with American law.

Third on my list is exposure to greater risk of abuse if those soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen are captured. Now, no one is going to -- we're not kidding ourselves that our opponents, our enemy will be inclined to treat our people humanely if they fall into enemy hands. On the other hand, it's important that we be able to mobilize international opinion in support of people taken by our enemy and the treatment of them in a humane way.

We have, as Ambassador Pickering mentioned, furnished extremists with recruiting materials extensively. And that is a consequence that we should have envisioned when we made many of the choices about how we were going to -- to act and how we were going to talk about how we acted.

And, finally, in the problems list is that we further damage the reputations of Americans who are working in this new realm of winning hearts and minds and trying to convince people that America has ideals and ideas to which they should subscribe. And we have disadvantaged our military people who've been involved in that, and I would argue that we've similarly disadvantaged the other members of the American administration, other public servants in that regard, as well.

We're not done.

And that's why I think that we need a serious inquiry into the way we've behaved for the last seven years and the kind of orders we've given and decisions we've made.

The enemy is still the enemy. The stress on our people in uniform and out who are charged with dealing with this enemy will continue. The pressure on our country and her leaders will remain. And we need to understand the circumstances under which choices were made by leaders in the past in order that we can anticipate those same circumstances or others in the future and avoid making what we consider to be mistakes.

So the question is, to me, what's happened to us? What did we do wrong? What did we do right? And I'd like to mention that the military examines itself often and in depth. We do that with after-action reviews and hot wash-ups following exercises and operations. We do it with in-depth studies when those are called for. We conduct Uniform Code of Military Justice investigations, as I know you're well aware, Mr. Chairman. And we conduct aviation safety investigations and examinations, as well.

The last one is kind of an interesting case in which the testimony, seeking the truth and having lives depend on finding the truth, in which the testimony is generally fire-walled completely from legal proceedings that may eventuate from these investigations. But whatever the appropriate means, the services together have to find out what happened and be in a better position in the future to provide the kind of clear, unambiguous guidance that is necessary on the pressure-filled front line and in the detainee treatment arena.

The outcome is that soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, Coast Guardsmen deserve and require that kind of guidance and those orders. Structure is essential to you when you're under pressure, particularly in combat and also in the elevated tension of taking care of detainees.

American values have to be our test with regard to the application of those orders and that guidance. We have failed American servicemen and women over the last seven years, and we have to stop doing that. We need to do better, and we need to get on with it.

Hearing on Getting to the Truth Through a Nonpartisan Commission of Inquiry

A New York Times editorial today discusses two important developments this week: the admission that the CIA destroyed 92 videotapes of interrogation, and the release by the Justice Department of a number of OLC memos that former President Bush used to justify “mangling the Constitution after Sept. 11, 2001.” These are important steps towards making good on the promise of greater transparency, but the Times argues that much more transparency is needed. The memos released do not include key memos justifying harsh interrogations, nor those justifying the decision to authorize illegal wiretapping. And the admission that 92 tapes have been destroyed begs further scrutiny.

This morning Senator Patrick Leahy, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is holding a hearing on the creation of a bipartisan inquiry into the range of Bush Administration abuses, a careful debate about how to proceed toward the essential goal: “providing Americans with as much truth and accountability as possible about their government’s actions.” Information about the hearing, including the witness list can be found here.

Among the witnesses testifying today is Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, a member of Human Rights First’s coalition of retired military leaders. Members of this group, including Admiral Gunn, stood behind President Obama as he signed executive orders in January ending torture and closing Guantanamo.

Human Rights First also submitted a statement for the record to the Senate Judiciary Committee:

Work remains to be done to ensure that this administration and future administrations do not repeat past mistakes. Providing policymakers and the public with a clear picture of past policies and practices and their consequences for national security is essential to inoculate against future abuses and to inform responsible forward looking policies.

Read the full statement here.

CIA Destroyed 92 Interrogation Tapes

Big news this morning as documents reveal that the CIA has destroyed 92 videotapes of interrogations, which is many more than had previously been acknowledged. The destruction of tapes could complicate future attempts to prosecute detainees whose interrogations were on the tapes, and it raises important questions about the legality of the interrogations in the first place.

The revelation comes as a criminal prosecutor is wrapping up his investigation in the matter. Human Rights First welcomed the decision to launch a criminal investigation into the destruction of the tapes. However, because at least four top White House lawyers under President Bush between 2003 and 2005 took part in discussions about whether to destroy the tapes, we supported an independent investigation rather than one from within the Justice Department. Serious questions remain about White House involvement in the destruction of the tapes, and why so many tapes were destroyed.