I Was Only Giving Orders
On December 9, the Washington Post published this link, revealing that members of Congress from both parties were briefed on the interrogation program to be used on prisoners suspected of terrorist involvement, and that this briefing included notice of waterboarding, which has since become emblematic of US use of torture on its prisoners. Significantly, the article claims that none of the Congresspeople leveled any official protest at the time. The general tenor of the article suggests that Congress was complicit in the executive policy, and that Democrats were complicit with the Republicans who put the program in place.
I have to point out that this is only a partial story, and seems carefully crafted to imply that the blame for US torture of its prisoners lies equally with elements of government outside the White House.
Note, for example, the way that we are informed that two of the four Congresspeople party to that first briefing actually encouraged the use of harsher techniques. The implication, as the group is described only as “bipartisan,” is that Democrats were just as bloodthirsty as Republicans on the matter. This need not be so. Four members of Congress were briefed; two suggested harsher methods. Which two? The article doesn’t say.
The article reports that waterboarding was described at the time. The implication is that attention was called to the practice, which was described in detail. Was it? The entire briefing, including a tour of the facility, lasted an hour. That’s a short time for a lot of policy to be described. Was waterboarding mentioned by name? Was it described in detail? Did the Congresspeople see it in action? The article doesn’t say.
The briefing included a “virtual tour” of the facility, meaning the CIA showed nothing it didn’t feel like showing. There was no chance to ask to see something in more detail on the initiative of those briefed. Since the article mentions no protest, the implication is that Congressional representatives actively approved of the facility in its totality. This is not necessarily the case. There was no way to see something less savory while passing between stopping points on the official tour. A picture tour cannot capture even the nature of what it does show, since temperature, smells, screams, and other non-visual data are left out, and, as human rights inspectors can tell you, what it does show can be sanitized beyond recognition. Were the Congressional representatives given an accurate picture of the facility? The article doesn’t say.
All these details, and more like them, are essential in determining just how strong a protest would be an appropriate response to the briefing.
What form of protest would even be legal is a little unclear. Congressional representatives, as Pelosi is quoted noting, were bound by secrecy oaths, forbidden to reveal what they witnessed; a public protest would have been impossible. (This observation does not appear until page 3; the Post apparently considers a legal ban on effective protest a relatively unimportant detail to the story. The political realities of the time, namely a Republican majority in both houses, is not mentioned at all.
I do not raise these objections to defend either Congress or Democrats from complicity in US interrogation programs. If they knew in detail that torture was being used, they deserve exposure and prosecution, just as surely as the bastards in the White House who crafted the program. Revealing details of the program might have violated secrecy oaths, but objecting Democrats might have tried pushing legislation at the time, along the lines of “The definition of torture in US law forbidding torture shall be taken to include waterboarding.” The effort would have amounted to no more than an ethical gesture, but that gesture should have been made.
The Post does not specify where their knowledge of the briefing came from, whether official statement or unofficial leak, so I don’t know where it came from. But it has the reek of a dirty trick. The structure of the story, and especially the very specific use of partial detail to imply equal blame, suggests very strongly to me that their data came from either the CIA itself, or from the White House, and that the data was very carefully crafted to spread the blame. Our current president, his vice president, his cabinet and staff, and senior officials in the executive branch have done some very, very ugly things over the past seven years. They have another year before someone else is in charge. Given the general disgust among voters, there is a distinct possibility that that someone else might ask some embarrassing questions, or let someone else ask them, and generally let some very nasty skeletons out of some very dark closets. The Post article feels like a form of insurance for one of these officials. My nose tells me that, through a few discreet leaks, someone is trying to reduce the chance of jail time by making sure that those who might seek to bring him to justice come under fire, too.
May the powers that be grant that we get to hear someone on the stand offer that defense. “I’m not responsible! I only issued orders to which others acquiesced!”