Most of those whining about CIA interrogation tactics and torture appear to have little or no idea about why we have a clandestine service of the Central Intelligence Agency in the first place, and what it does in order to protect the country. One of the most common refrains from legalist-minded terrorist rights supporters, is that CIA interrogation methods were illegal, and that therefore we cannot tolerate them without undermining the rule of law. There's only one problem with this argument. It is completely illogical. Yet you will hear it repeated over and over.
We have a secret service within the CIA specifically to carry out illegal actions. Even spying itself is usually illegal. Here are just a few of the illegal actions that can be necessary in foreign intelligence operations:
Assassination
Kidnapping
Sabotage
Fomenting insurrection
Blackmail
Extortion
Bribery
Theft
Burglary
Forgery
The CIA has done all of these things at at various times in its history, and continues to do them today. Right at this moment, the CIA, supported by the military, is evaluating intelligence to determine the next target for assassination in Pakistan. Using various methods, it will identify someone for elimination. This target will be a suspected member of Al Qaeda or the Taliban. He'll be someone who was likely never convicted of anything, and his identification might even be mistaken. He probably won't be a prominent, well-known Al Qaeda member like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. And what will the CIA do to this target?
Acting on their intelligence, the CIA will fly a drone into the territory of an allied country. They will fire a missile at their suspect, killing him and anyone who happens to be around at the time, including his wife and children, and any other possibly innocent victims. Even the Obama administration favors these assassinations, despite all the drawbacks and the significant possibility of mistaken identifications. Yet people actually argue that the CIA can't torture someone like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed because it's against the law. Really. And they expect their illogic to be taken seriously.
Is convincing a member of another state to betray his country and provide information to the U.S. in any way a legal act? That's the definition of human intelligence. There is a reason that CIA operations within the United States are restricted. The nature of intelligence requires many outright illegal actions, which we would not tolerate here in the U.S. Many other actions are legally nebulous, and the CIA operates in those gray areas. One of the reasons we have an agency like the CIA, is precisely to carry out dirty, illegal actions necessary to protect the country. There is simply no logical reason why the CIA should be permitted to assassinate terrorist suspects, yet be prohibited from torturing a positively identified terrorist leader in order to extract information. And any argument based on nothing more than, "because its illegal," or, "it undermines the rule of law," is ridiculous on its face.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Intelligence agencies are similar to the military. They work against threats to their country, albeit most often clandestinely and with different rules of engagement.
ReplyDeleteThese rules -- some domestic law, some international law -- do not include the authorization to torture, and the OLC's criminal memos trying to get around this restriction are proof enough of this.
If the CIA really could do anything illegal that it wants, as you propose, then why would the Bush administration have bothered with such memos in the first place? Your post makes no sense given the facts in evidence.
"Intelligence agencies are similar to the military."
ReplyDeleteOnly in some ways. The clandestine service of the CIA is not similar. There are huge differences.
"These rules -- some domestic law, some international law -- do not include the authorization to torture"
You missed the point. They don't include the authorization to do any of the illegal things the CIA does. Do you think we have some law on the books saying that it's legal for the CIA to sabotage facilities in other countries? To assassinate suspected terrorists?
And international law is completely irrelevant. Spying is against international law. That's kind of the point. The clandestine operations of the CIA almost all violate international law by their very nature. Do you actually think it's ok under international law for us to say, wiretap the Iranian embassy in Switzerland?
"If the CIA really could do anything illegal that it wants, as you propose, then why would the Bush administration have bothered with such memos in the first place?"
It can't do anything illegal that it wants, but it can and does do many illegal things. The Bush administration did what it did in order to protect itself, and because it wanted to, and did, change the rules of interrogation for the military. They were making a wide-ranging argument that certain things were legal because they weren't actually torture. Their policies were not specific to the CIA.
> They don't include the authorization to do any of the illegal things the CIA does.
ReplyDeleteDo you imagine CIA operatives ignore any law they wish? No, the agency is full of rules, many of which are kept confidential, but they're still legally binding. For instance there is a pretty strong general rule that they're not allowed to spy on Americans.
Granted I don't know about the CIA outside of what you might find in a Tom Clancy novel, but if fictional accounts are at all representative it's pretty clear they're bound by plenty of rules.
>Their policies were not specific to the CIA.
The memos were addressed to the CIA ("You have informed us that....You have informed us that...You have informed us that...), and the CIA was bound by them. Whether other agencies were as well is immaterial to the interrogation techniques these memos provided secret cover for.
"Do you imagine CIA operatives ignore any law they wish? No, the agency is full of rules, many of which are kept confidential, but they're still legally binding. "
ReplyDeleteIt's a government organization, and it has certain rules of operation, yes. But I'm not arguing that it's a free agent, just that it often carries out illegal activities. It does so without specific statutory authorization (unless there is some secret list of illegal activities that when done by the CIA are actually legal).
Obviously some people strongly object to some of the CIA's illegal activities, and always have. But unless it is barred from certain actions by specific prohibition -- specific to the CIA that is, it carries out all sorts of illegal activities. In other word, it operates outside the the normal boundaries of law -- as do most foreign intelligence services.
"For instance there is a pretty strong general rule that they're not allowed to spy on Americans."
Yes, and I already mentioned that. The reason they have such a rule, is to prevent the CIA carrying out its generally illegal activities, within the U.S. The existence of that rule supports my argument.
"Whether other agencies were as well is immaterial to the interrogation techniques these memos provided secret cover for."
Yes, but again, that's beside the point. CIA torture did not start under the Bush administration. Rather than following prior policy, which was bascially to let the CIA operate and deny any allegations of wrongdoing, the Bush administration came up with its own legal theories. They decided that they were going to expand the envelope for interrogations, both military and other, and operate in what they saw as a gray area. Their legal argument was not to justify torture, but instead to argue that what they were doing wasn't torture at all -- as a significant minority still argues.
It doesn't matter to those who consider this illegal that it's illogical, because at their core, they don't like the CIA's actions because they are meant to help America. These folks [the hardcore ones, not the stupid ones] hate America and anything that aids her must be opposed and attacked using any means necessary.
ReplyDeleteI imagine most of the people tortured hated America to some extent, but it's not like that should be surprising to anyone (we have, after all, been repeatedly told they "hate us for our freedom").
ReplyDeleteSo I don't think I understand your point.