Torture’s in the House – Alexander Draine
Draine on Society
The news has recently been filled with blows and counterblows between Speaker of the House Pelosi and the Central Intelligence Agency. The topic at hand is whether or not Speaker Pelosi was informed by the CIA in September of 2002 about use of water-boarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques”. I will sidestep the issue of whether or not such actions are morally or legally justified.
It seems to me that we, the public and the media, are missing the true point. It is interesting to know when Speaker Pelosi was actually informed about the use of water-boarding on enemy combatants, but it is much more worthwhile to discuss the implications of such knowledge.
If Speaker Pelosi were informed by the CIA about the use of water-boarding, it would have certainly occurred at a classified meeting of senior members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It is also likely that, at any such meeting, only the ranking Democrat and Republican would have been briefed. Having had a brief stint as an unpaid intern for United States Representative Rush Holt of New Jersey’s 12th district, I can tell you from personal experience that such meetings are strictly confidential. Representative Holt was not permitted to bring any portable electronic devices, such as the BlackBerry which otherwise never left his side, to these meetings. He was not permitted to discuss the content of these meetings with his staff members or the public. I can also tell you that, on several occasions, he did not feel that his questions were answered to his satisfaction.
A factor that impedes our Congresspersons is the nature of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. Let us suppose that Speaker Pelosi was informed in 2002 by the CIA that water-boarding was being used on prisoners and enemy combatants. What could she have done? The answer is nothing! She would have been prohibited from discussing such matters with her own staff, let alone the media! She could have introduced such topics during discussion on the floor of the House of Representatives, but this would have been an open invitation to be attacked for divulging state secrets and would likely involve the loss of her security clearance. She certainly could not have forced the CIA to halt the use of such techniques. Such actions go beyond a U.S. Representative’s limits of power. The Congress could have withheld operating appropriations from the Agency, but that would have required time, political capital, and a political majority which the Democratic Party lacked in 2002.
Speaker Pelosi may very well have known in 2002 that the CIA was conducting water-boarding on enemy combatants. She also may very well have not known. If she had known, there is very little reason to believe that anything meaningful could have been done about it.
The current Congressional oversight of the intelligence community is broken. There are few effective channels for Congresspersons to legally challenge covert intelligence actions. The most important events, which are usually the ones the public is, or should be, interested in, are only shared with top Congressional leaders, who are in turn not allowed to share it with even other members of Congress. I do not have a vision of what perfect Congressional oversight would look like; such a thing may not even be possible. There are, however, certain changes which could be made which would at least improve the current process.
The effective size of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees should be expanded to allow a more broad and diverse set of minds to examine the issues that require highest levels of security clearances. Rather than just having the two most senior ranking Congresspersons briefed, perhaps every member on the Intelligence Committees should be briefed on these matters.
There should also be a more inclusive staff presence for the Intelligence Committees. Due to the classified nature of the Intelligence Committees, Congresspersons are unable to discuss these matters with their own staff. If the Legislative branch is to be an effective counterbalance to the Executive branch, then it must have access to legal counsel as well.
The current system of Congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community is flawed as it allowed violations of the law at the highest levels of our government. Such legal transgressions can neither be ignored nor forgotten.
All the records about this must be released to the public. We already know that torture occurred, so the claims that it would endanger the nation or divulge state secrets are flimsy at best. What is important to know is who knew of it and when, who authorized it, and who carried it out. A special prosecutor must be authorized to conduct investigations into the highest levels of our government, past and present. In the United States, nobody should be above the law. Only when we know what truly occurred, we can begin to discuss what the appropriate solution to the problem is. Until then, all of the “he said, she said” back and forth is just a distraction from the real issue.
If you are essentaly going to ask a member of congress to give up some of the power that comes with senoirity, what do they have to gain in the process. There is an appeal of right and wrong but this reminds me of one of the few parts I find worth repeating from Freakenomics.In a section on the economics of drug dealers, it is remarked that a gang leader does not wish to have a violent drug trade. Underlings have to commit violent acts to prove themselves worthy of advancement.
If knowledge is power and the junior members want senoirty, what is their incentive to dilute the power they may oneday have? In a more fudal power structure, I could see your argument having more weight, but the opertunity of advancement makes your argument less sound.
In the research of behavioral economists, it has been found that one tends to prefer a game where the level of loss is either 30 or 60, instead of a certain loss of 50. Your sugestion seems like a certain loss of power, especialy for those who have it.
The argument that Mr. Draine is making is that this issue gives light to a greater issue- the big picture so to speak. And that big picture is that the system of intelligence communication is highly inefficient and inherently bound to fail. The fact that members of Congress who are “in the know” are not allowed to discuss it with anyone who doesn’t already know ,doesn’t leave a lot of room for discussion and therefore no solution can be effectively made. If the two ranking members of an Intelligence committee are the only two members who are aware of the real issues at hand, that means they cannot discuss it with the other members- how can that issue then be addressed if they are not allowed to talk about it?
What Mr. Draine is demonstrating in this article is not a loss of power or a forfeit of power, but instead evidence of a greater problem: the system of intelligence communication is broken and inherently inclined to fail.
When analyzing a situation like this one involving Nancy Pelosi, it is always necessary to take a step back and look for the big picutre.Without taking step back to see the big picture, a person cannot fully understand what this incident really means. That is the point of Mr. Draine’s article and he represents it well.
Why should they be able to? The fewer people who are aware of classified information, the fewer people will be able to leak that information. This does yeild a problme of what can be concealed under the national security umbrella, but enemy agents find it easier to read the New York Times. Besides, the fewer people in the know, the easier it is to find leaks.
“The fewer people who are aware of classified information, the fewer people will be able to leak that information.”
That didn’t stop Dick Cheney and Karl Rove for leaking the identity of an undercover CIA agent. Treason anyone?
“…but enemy agents find it easier to read the New York Times.”
What information that has lead to a successfully executed terrorist attack has come from the New York Times?
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Armitage_(politician)#Role_in_Plame_affair
5. I was not refering to a specific incident, but to the general concept of disclosing information.
Once again, you speak of things that were actually done by Dick Cheney and company.
The CIA and Congress have been at odds since the inception of our intelligence agency. In some cases, secrecy is undoubtedly necessary, but in matters of policy–as is the case with the interrogation method debate–there is little reason to restrict information from the public. The CIA should not be given the autonomy to set its own policies regarding matters such as whether or not water boarding constitutes a violation of the Geneva Convention. They should be off assassinating Osama Bin Laden and messing around in Putin’s underwear drawer.
This debate always confuses me. Is waterboarding torture? I mean, as I understand it, they put a cloth over your face and run water over it for a good thirty seconds….very uncomfortable? yes. torture? that is less clear. this is interrogation in a maximum security prison, not spa treatment at the Hilton, what do you expect? As I understand it, there is no lasting physical damage, just a lot of mental stress, which, while perhaps hard to bear, does not in my book constitute torture — simply hard interrogation. I’m not for torture, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t necessarily accept the popular assumption that waterboarding constitutes this. It sucks. But it doesn’t leave any lasting mark. I just don’t know….Either way I would love to see it done to Hannity…
you never thought to google waterboarding? and in recent news… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/22/mancow-waterboarded-video_n_206906.html
Leave your response!
The JV Tweet
Login
Mailing List
Categories
Tags:
Archives
Calendar
Recent Comments
Most Commented
Recent Posts