With the debate over U.S. torture policy back on the front page, the president took a few moments this morning to address the controversy. He made four general points.
* First, Bush is detaining bad guys: “[W]hen we find somebody who may have information regarding an — a potential attack on America, you bet we’re going to detain them, and you bet we’re going to question them.” So far so good.
* Second, he is opposed to torture: “Secondly, this government does not torture people. You know, we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations.” There’s a large body of evidence that suggests this is false.
* Third, don’t worry, we know what we’re doing: “Thirdly, there are highly trained professionals questioning these extremists and terrorists. In other words, we got professionals who are trained in this kind of work to get information that will protect the American people.” That’s patently false. As the NYT reported yesterday,
With virtually no experience in interrogations, the C.I.A. had constructed its program in a few harried months by consulting Egyptian and Saudi intelligence officials and copying Soviet interrogation methods long used in training American servicemen to withstand capture. The agency officers questioning prisoners constantly sought advice from lawyers thousands of miles away.
“We were getting asked about combinations — ‘Can we do this and this at the same time?'” recalled Paul C. Kelbaugh, a veteran intelligence lawyer who was deputy legal counsel at the C.I.A.’s Counterterrorist Center from 2001 to 2003.
Interrogators were worried that even approved techniques had such a painful, multiplying effect when combined that they might cross the legal line, Mr. Kelbaugh said. He recalled agency officers asking: “These approved techniques, say, withholding food, and 50-degree temperature — can they be combined?” Or “Do I have to do the less extreme before the more extreme?”
Bush gave the green light to intelligence officials who had no idea how to use abusive interrogation techniques. “Highly trained professionals”? Not in this field, they weren’t.
* And fourth, this wasn’t done in secret: “And finally, the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress.”
That’s dubious, too.
The White House has been sticking to this line since the NYT story broke. Yesterday, Dana Perino insisted relevant lawmakers had been briefed, and today she went even further, telling reporters that members of Congress, including Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.), had been “fully briefed” on the secret legal opinions. When a reporter asked, “Fully briefed on the actual memos?” Perino responded, “Yes.”
Rockefeller believes differently, and issued a statement rejecting the White House line.
The Administration can’t have it both ways. I’m tired of these games. They can’t say that Congress has been fully briefed while refusing to turn over key documents used to justify the legality of the program.
The reality is, the Administration refused to disclose the program to the full Committee for five years, and they have refused to turn over key legal documents since day one. As I have said from the beginning, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to determine whether the program is the best means for obtaining reliable information, whether it is fully supported by the law, and whether it is in the best interest of the United States.
Maybe Bush meant that Republican lawmakers were briefed?