From the
Left; After response to report, will we torture again?
Ramblings from E.J. Dionne with comments
WASHINGTON – Can we now say with confidence that our government will not
use torture again and that Americans in the future will rise up to prevent it
from doing so? In light of the reaction to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s
report, I fear that we can’t.
It
was not torture and under the right circumstances we should use "Enhance
Interrogation Techniques".
Sen. Dianne Feinstein persisted in releasing the document in the face of
opposition from the CIA and attacks by some of her colleagues because she felt
a moral calling. The 81-yearold California Democrat believed she had an
obligation to leave behind a sturdy ethical roadblock to the use of extreme
brutality in pursuit of information – even information seen as potentially
saving American lives.
She
succeeded in producing propaganda put together by a small group of staffers
with an ax to grind. It is a lie to call
purposeful propaganda a "moral calling".
“There are those who will seize upon the report and say ‘see what the Americans
did,’ and they will try to use it to justify evil actions or incite more
violence,” she said on the Senate floor. “We can’t prevent that. But history
will judge us by our commitment to a just society governed by law and the
willingness to face an ugly truth and say ‘never again.’” Yet what might have
been a moment of national reflection immediately turned into what everything
becomes these days: a carnival of partisanship. Making the truth public,
Feinstein’s critics argued, could endanger our nation.
The
truth was not made public. How can the
release of an obscure video inflame the Middle East while this so called
"Report" does nothing? Hypocrisy
at its worst and with not regard for consequences.
“She will have to live with the consequences,” Sen. Richard Burr, RN. C., who
becomes chair of the Intelligence Committee next year, said darkly.
A moving exception was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who has denounced torture
in season and out. His biography as a prisoner of war has been a standing
rebuke to those who choose to play down the consequences of these techniques
for our own men and women in uniform. He dismissed the idea that the report
itself would be responsible for new attacks on Americans. “Violence needs
little incentive in some quarters of the world,” he said.
There
is NO moral equivalency to what the CIA did and what was done by other
countries in the past. McCain's reaction
is that of one individual. He cannot
speak any further.
The real objection to the release of the report, McCain argued, was that it
calls into question the claims by defenders of these techniques that they
produced vital information. “We gave up much in the expectation that torture
would make us safer,” he said. “Too much.”
Not
true. The claim we gained nothing of
consequence has been rebutted successfully by those that were directly
involved. No one bleed, no bones were
broken and only 3 were water boarded.
One would like to think that this is now a consensual view, and it is the
formal position of our government.
A
typical left wing conclusion. Nothing
has become consensual. All the
activities were conducted with grave oversight and pre-approval.
But the pushback against Feinstein makes clear that many involved in “the
program,” as they so delicately call this departure from our own norms, would
do it all over again.
This
is delusional. Feinstein is being
rebuked not simply getting push back.
There is nothing delicate about trashing this countries CIA.
John McLaughlin, former CIA acting director and deputy director, joined with
five other former CIA directors and deputy directors in a Wall Street Journal
piece that denounced the Senate report as “a poorly done and partisan attack.”
Thank
God, they had the courage to do such. It
might disturb E.J. while bringing sanity to the discussion.
But condemning the report as “partisan” is a way of evading its implications.
If the issue is partisan, why did President Barack Obama’s CIA director, John
Brennan, defend the agency by declaring that “EITs” – that would be enhanced
interrogation techniques – “did produce intelligence that helped thwart attack
plans, capture terrorists, and save lives”?
Brennan
did so because the report was "partisan" - E.J. has lost his critical
thinking ability.
What’s striking here is the bipartisan unity among
intelligence officials.
NOT
My friend and Washington Post colleague Michael Gerson saw partisanship in the
committee’s focus on the CIA interrogations that took place under President
George W. Bush, but not on the drone program, which Obama has embraced and
expanded.
Not
one Republican voted for this in committee.
One must wonder what the heck E.J. is saying. Obama's drone program is killing innocent
people including American citizens!?!
But legitimate questions about drones do not discredit either this legitimate
inquiry into the use of torture or the obligation that Feinstein and her fellow
committee Democrats felt to bear witness.
Notice
E.J. left out the FACT that NO CIA official was deposed or testified before the
committee. Operatives have been
interviewed since that make the report simply a biased attack. Feinstein and other Democrats knew and agreed
with the EIT's since 2002. A matter of
record.
Defenders of the CIA make a point that should unsettle all of us because it’s
true: In the wake of 9/11, the country was so scared that it tolerated or at
least entertained a variety of extreme steps to protect our security, including
torture. By November of 2001, there was already a public debate about the
legitimacy of torture, even if brave voices pushed back in those dark times.
The
whole of the intelligence committee were involved, lawyers were involved and
the President was involved. Actions were
carefully evaluated in the specific to determine what would be done. Propaganda is an attempt to rewrite the
history of the period without meaningful debate which the Democrats
avoided. Remember. They only performed a selective document review
and did not speak to anyone!
Feinstein, McCain and their allies are hoping they can draw a line now that can
strengthen such voices in the future. I wish that the response to their efforts
inspired more certainty that their line will hold.
From Merriam
Webster: pro·pa·gan·da
noun \ˌprä-pə-ˈgan-də, ˌprō-\
: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread
in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.
