RECENT POSTS
- Guests Begin to Arrive for White House State Dinner Festivities
- President Obama on Afghanistan Strategy: “It Is My Intention to Finish the Job”
- The Obamas Kick off their First State Visit, Welcome India's Prime Minister to the White House
- Obama’s Afghanistan Strategy To Include “Benchmarks” and “Off-Ramps,” Announcement Next Week
- The Presidential Planner
- VP Biden's Thanksgiving Dinner for the Troops
- Life and Debt
- Obama To Cabinet: “We Cannot Sit Back and Be Satisfied” With Some Progress Amid High Unemployment Rate
- Today’s Qs for O’s WH – 11/23/2009
- Obama Calls for Annual Science Fair: Achievement Should be Recognized like NCAA Championship Win
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Obama Administration Argues Against Releasing Bush-Era Detainee Information
September 02, 2009 1:34 PM
The Obama administration told a judge late Monday that it will continue to withhold information regarding past detainee policies for national security reasons, a decision assailed by the American Civil Liberties Union, which had been seeking Bush-era documents “including a presidential directive authorizing CIA ‘black sites,’” CIA inspector general records, Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel documents about the CIA's use of "enhanced interrogation techniques.”
In the ACLU’s Freedom of Information Act lawsuits, U.S. District Court Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein of the Southern District of New York had ordered the Obama administration to either turn over various documents pertaining to detainee policies by August 31 or provide justification for withholding them.
On August 31, Wendy Hilton, associate information review officer for the National Clandestine Service of the Central Intelligence Agency wrote to Judge Hellerstein stating that information about CIA intelligence activities, sources, and methods, and foreign relations and foreign activities previously classified as SECRET or TOP SECRET were done so correctly because disclosing that information “reasonably could be expected to result in serious or exceptionally grave damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism.”
Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, assailed Hilton’s argument, calling it “entirely incompatible with the Obama administration's stated commitment to ending torture and restoring governmental transparency.
CIA director Leon Panetta testified on June 8, Hilton wrote, and argued that even though many details of the detainee programs under President Bush have been revealed other information -- including the names of and information about detainees, information about government employees involved in counterterrorism, assistance provided by foreign governments – has not, and “could be expected to result in exceptionally grave damage to the national security” if it were.
Most of the CIA documents are from closed investigations conducted by the inspector general of the CIA looking into alleged improprieties in the treatment of detainees in Iraq and Afghanistan, including relevant cables, emails, memos, notes, interview transcripts with CIA officers. The information details how the CIA developed its program, and relates to intelligence sources, methods, and activities.
Hilton said the information the ACLU is seeking “would reveal U.S. intelligence needs, priorities, and capabilities to a foreign intelligence service or hostile organization seeking to take advantage of any national security weakness. The damage that would be caused by such an admission is clear. Foreign government services and hostile organizations would be advised that their activities and information had been targeted by the CIA; future intelligence collection activities would be made more difficult by such a revelation; and, as a result, the conduct of such operations would become even more
dangerous.”
The information, she said, “includes information concerning the capture, detention, confinement, and interrogation of known and suspected terrorists. The information impacting foreign relations contained within the documents includes the locations of CIA intelligence activities overseas and the assistance provided by certain foreign governments in furtherance of those activities.”
Citing the fact that al Qaeda prepares members to withstand interrogation, Hilton said that “disclosure of the questioning procedures and methods used by the CIA as part of the detention program would allow al-Qa'ida and other terrorists to more effectively train to resist such techniques, which would result in degradation in the effectiveness of the techniques in the future.” That would prevent the government from “obtaining vital intelligence that could disrupt future attacks targeting U.S. persons and property.”
“The CIA's arguments are utterly disconnected from the Obama administration's stated positions,” Jaffer said. “The agency seems to be disregarding altogether the important policy changes that President Obama announced immediately after he took office."
Jaffer said that “On the one hand, President Obama has publicly recognized that torture undermines the rule of law and America's standing in the world, but on the other, the CIA continues to argue in court that it cannot disclose information about its torture techniques because it would jeopardize the CIA's interrogation program.”
Hilton argued that the information was not classified “in order to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error; prevent embarrassment to a person, organization or agency; restrain competition; or prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interests of national security.”
Alex Abdo, a legal fellow with the ACLU's National Security Project, said that the Obama administration “must fulfill its commitment to transparency and release all crucial documents that would shed further light on the origins and scope of the Bush administration's torture program. The American public has a right to know the full truth about the torture that was committed in its name."
-jpt
September 2, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (91)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Actually it is quite simple: We, the 'good guys' obey protocol/procedure because it is a foundation of our society, and essential. They the 'bad guys' do anything they wish to us or anyone else whenever they have the opportunity. We obey our 'good' protocols/procedures, and we reign victorious (after possible suffering). There is no indecision about this, and no room for debate. Otherwise, we are not the 'good guys', but truly cowards, because of our fear of our enemies.
Posted by: gen7sw | Sep 4, 2009 9:58:11 PM
CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN!!!!! Yesiree bob. Bwahaaahaaahaaahaaa...
Posted by: escapefromobamastan | Sep 3, 2009 11:56:02 AM
The people involved in terrorism are vermin. They kill innocence people intentionally and with full knowledge of their actions. While the methods of interrogating these individuals are harsh, it seem reasonable given the nature of their plans and actions. Harsh interrogation should only be used on those KNOWN to be terrorists in positions of authority and knowledge. This interrogation needs to be controlled and closely monitored. Unfortunately, it must be done. We are not dealing with people that value human life. Because of this, they need to be treated accordingly. Unfortunately, this is the world in which we live.
Posted by: Willie12345 | Sep 3, 2009 11:20:46 AM
This is like "good cop bad cop". We don't want to do this but "they" are making us do it!
Posted by: lfrichar | Sep 3, 2009 8:47:48 AM
If Obama thinks he can get away with it and the public not come crashing in on him for his attacking the Cia for all things stopping terroists attacks, he will continue. Thankfully, there are many people on all sides of the political spectrum that have enough sense to realize how wrong of Obama and his buddy Holden are and see this for what it is ----- a political game of Fascist Obama trying to apply Alinski's rules of Radicals specially trying to demolish any dissenters to the Obama regime. Obama should be impeached and tried for treason for this nonsense.
Posted by: PotatoeGater22 | Sep 3, 2009 5:06:23 AM
"It was all a political game with Obama from beginning, let's make Bush look real bad."
Lie.
Nobody had to make Bush look bad. His approval rating was about the lowest any President had ever hit!
Get in touch with reality.
Posted by: julieterra | Sep 3, 2009 2:22:09 AM
These people are terrorists for god's sake, they have every intention of doing us harm. Get off your high horses dems, this investigation is all a political game and the American people see what you're doing.
Posted by: SaaIaV | Sep 3, 2009 1:53:56 AM
It was all a political game with Obama from beginning, let's make Bush look real bad. It was investigated going back but he had to look like the tough guy. Way to put our soldiers in more danger telling the world how you think we tortured people. Tired of this change, it's not what we wanted. We were safer under Bush
Posted by: SaaIaV | Sep 3, 2009 1:52:01 AM
Posted by: robertb |
well, that's Ok, I really didn't expect you to answer my proposition about the Bush Doctrine...
Posted by: Treace | Sep 3, 2009 1:45:43 AM
After just seeing this report and blog, and at almost the same time a report about Phillip Garrido, a sickening parallel is evident. This individual was obeying 'protocol' by following the rules for sex offenders, but no one knew he was harboring a kidnapped girl (now woman) in his back yard! How many Americans knew about the 12 year old detainee at Guantanamo Bay that was kept for almost 7 years, and then released? This now 19 year old young adult missed key years of their life. Again, that is one reason there is something called 'due process' that is a keystone of our legal system. Openness and independent oversight is required in situations like this. If: “disclosure of the questioning procedures and methods used by the CIA as part of the detention program would allow al-Qa'ida and other terrorists to more effectively train to resist such techniques, which would result in degradation in the effectiveness of the techniques in the future.”, as Ms. Hilton argues. Then independent oversight should be employed. If a part of the government is unwilling to reveal their techniques to anyone, then there must be something wrong with the techniques. Where I work, I sometimes have two witnesses ensuring the quality of the procedures/work being performed.
During the days after the 9/11 attack, the 'Black berets' took over the entrance to the army base where I work, with their automatic weapons. Having to pass before these stately people daily instills a great amount of respect for them. Many in that business are not hired consultants, but have a shield (badge) and go to work daily to perform a great service for our country. I truly believe the atrocities in question were performed by a select few renegades for no 'good' reasons.
Imagine the procedure to be followed for waterboarding or other techniques that have been used: 1) If detainee does not provide any valid information from waterboarding, perform the following: a) find drill in top drawer of toolchest; b) Affix number 19MM drill bit to end of drill with drill key; c) Run drill next to detainee's head, ensuring the drill or bit does not touch the detainee -- This is ridiculous and shameful. To hold a drill to someone's head is like a bad scene from a horror movie -- the representatives of our country do not need to exhibit that behavior. If we treat human beings as 'animals' then that is what we have become ourselves. Just because someone has no morals does not mean we need to throw ours out the window! Oversight and openness in a process like this is essential!
Posted by: gen7sw | Sep 3, 2009 12:18:52 AM
He can't justify this to his voters. He really can't.
Posted by: jan | Sep 2, 2009 9:12:10 PM
Some of these comments are making me laugh, I can't tell who a Dem or a Repub.
Posted by: Miranda | Sep 2, 2009 8:12:37 PM
Hypocrites - the liberals are angry at Bush for his secret and illegal tactics during his years in office - now that one of their own is doing the same thing, they turn the other cheek. I find both conservatives and liberals to be disgusting.
Posted by: luvnrockets | Sep 2, 2009 7:05:48 PM
What kind of numbskull actually thinks torture doesn't work. Of course it does. Thousands of lives in Iraq were saved by interrigations. You can also count in finding out about possible terrorist attacks here in our own backyard. In general, the ACLU needs to get a life. In matters like this they are clueless. Let the military and the shadow operations people do their job. The fact that you are sitting there working on your second "Tini" and watching "true blood" reflects what a good job is being done. We had great intelligence in Vietnam. It was called the ROK Tiger Division (Korea) I can guarantee you that a vietcong would rather light himself on fire while running 10 miles before being 'talked to' by those folks. This country is becomming a bunch of bumbling, media fed sheep. Our crisis of the day is openly worrying if the government should impose a fat tax on that second Big Mac. You better hope it stays that way.
Posted by: James | Sep 2, 2009 6:05:18 PM
goodness gracious.. robertb,
I left out Pakistan
Posted by: Treace | Sep 2, 2009 5:39:52 PM
__________________________
Thank goodness you brought it in, its the only country relevant to our discussion.
It's been a major source of trouble to be sure, but also a major source of intel and rendition of captured Al Qaeda.
All of that tossed away, the present coordinated operations, the future cooperation -- with the granting of an FOIA request - on the covert operations of the CIA.
Because if you think we have secrets that are ugly, our records will connect the dots to Pakistani intel operations past (the ISI - Taliban tie) and present and how they do interrogations with untold ramifications.
Posted by: robertb | Sep 2, 2009 5:52:56 PM
This is where he angers the liberals.
Posted by: secondlook | Sep 2, 2009 5:50:15 PM
This is the first smart thing BO has done yet!
Posted by: zac | Sep 2, 2009 5:48:29 PM
They need to drop this 'it'll hurt national security' bs.
Posted by: keredte | Sep 2, 2009 5:43:24 PM
goodness gracious.. robertb,
I left out Pakistan
Posted by: Treace | Sep 2, 2009 5:39:52 PM
So, Ryan,
Are you willing to sacrifice victory or at least an honorable effort to crush Taliban / Al Qaeda at the Afghanistan / Pakistan border - for the sake of moral purity by sacrificing our intelligence operations domestically and internationally?
Posted by: robertb
**** Straw argument ALERT ... see above
robertb
are you willing to nuke Iran, N. Korea, Russia, Iran, China right now, and adhere to the Bush Doctrine of preventive warfare: depose foreign regimes that represent a potential or perceived threat to the security of the United States, even if that threat is not immediate;
to get 10,000 terrorists?
It's the only way to be sure......
Posted by: Treace | Sep 2, 2009 5:35:52 PM
Post a comment
