| Offices : Beckley • Charleston • Fairmont • Martinsburg • Washington, DC | E-mail Senator Rockefeller |
February 13, 2008
ROCKEFELLER CALLS FOR END TO SEPARATE CIA INTERROGATION RULES
-- Says CIA Can't Prove Program has Stopped Attacks -- -- Urges Colleagues to Support FY 08 Intelligence Authorization bill that bans CIA from using Enhanced Interrogation Techniques --
Washington, DC – Today, on the Senate floor, the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, urged his colleagues to support the Fiscal Year (FY) ’08 Intelligence Authorization bill that would end separate CIA interrogation techniques and require all elements of the Intelligence Community to comply with the Army Field Manual standards for interrogating detainees.
Full speech and excerpts are below.
Excerpts from Speech
“Although the CIA has described the information obtained from its program, I have heard nothing that leads me to believe that information obtained from interrogation using harsh interrogation tactics has prevented an imminent terrorist attack…
“After considering the CIA’s arguments and those of the FBI and U.S. military, I am simply not convinced that harsh CIA tactics were necessary, or are necessary, to obtain necessary intelligence information…
“Coercive interrogation techniques can lead prisoners to say anything to stop the interrogation. As a result, coercive techniques can produce information that is fabricated and ultimately lead to flawed and misleading intelligence reports. This is not an academic or hypothetical point. Bad intelligence is a real danger when employing coercive interrogation techniques…
“Since the disclosure of information about the existence of secret prisons and the use of harsh interrogation techniques, the reputation and moral authority of the United States have suffered dramatically. Rather than being a world leader in human rights, we have become known for the unapologetic use of aggressive interrogation techniques. Indeed, even Canada has included us on its list of countries that engage in torture…
“We must uphold those standards that differentiate us from the terrorists that are fighting. If our government continues to use secret interrogation techniques that many are convinced constitute torture, America’s standing in the world’s eyes will continue to be tarnished.”
FLOOR STATEMENT
SENATOR JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV
FY 2008 INTELLIGENCE AUTHORIZATION CONFERENCE REPORT
ARMY FIELD MANUAL PROVISION – SECTION 327
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
Mr. President, I strongly support waiver of the point of order on Section 327 of the intelligence authorization conference report.
It is important to provide some background on this section of the conference report. During the conference on the authorization bill, the conferees adopted an amendment that would require the Intelligence Community to conduct its interrogation in accordance with the terms of the U.S. Army Field Manual. The full membership of the House and Senate intelligence committees serve as members of the conference committee.
Section 327 of the Intelligence Authorization conference report directly parallels the provision in the Detainee Treatment Act that forbids subjecting anyone in Department of Defense custody to “any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.” This provision applies those same restrictions to the Intelligence Community.
The effect of Section 327 is therefore to require that all of the United States government operate under a single interrogation standard – the standard set by the United States military.
Adopting the military standard for interrogation as the universal standard makes sense. It is the members of the military who most benefit from the reciprocal obligations of the Geneva Conventions requiring humane treatment of prisoners, and who are most likely to be subjected to retaliation based on the failure of the United States to follow those obligations.
The U.S. Army Field Manual on interrogation was revised in September 2006, after significant interagency review. This included a review by the Central Intelligence Agency.
By providing a number of approach strategies, like the incentive approach, emotional approach, and the Mutt and Jeff approach, the Army Field Manual gives interrogators significant flexibility to shape the interrogation. The Army Field Manual also explicitly prohibits waterboarding, forcing a detainee to be naked, inducing hypothermia or heat injury, or subjecting a detainee to beatings or other forms of physical pain, as well as a number of other things.
All of this raises the question at the heart of this debate – should the Central Intelligence Agency be allowed to use harsh and coercive interrogation techniques to obtain information from al-Qaeda detainees?
This debate is about more than legality. It is about more than ensuring the intelligence community has the tools it needs to protect us. It is also about morality and who we are and want to be as a nation, and what we represent to the world. That is a decision that can and should be left to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people.
In the early period of the CIA program’s existence, I repeatedly called for an Intelligence Committee investigation into the agency’s detention and interrogation practices. I also repeatedly tried to have the CIA brief all of the members of the Committee on the interrogation program.
I recognized that assessing the need for the CIA’s enhanced interrogation techniques, the intelligence obtained from detainees, and the importance of maintaining America’s position in the world were issues that we in Congress needed to debate and discuss.
About a year and a half ago, the full membership of the Intelligence Committee was finally provided information about CIA’s interrogation program. Since that time, our Committee has held multiple hearings on the subject. We have done our best to learn as much as possible about the basis for and consequences of CIA’s program, as well as interrogation more generally.
These briefings and hearings have led the Committee to conclude that all agencies of the United States government should be required to comply with a single standard for interrogation of detainees. The Army Field Manual provides a standard of humane treatment that indisputably complies with our international obligations under the Geneva Conventions, as well as with all U.S. laws.
The CIA has briefed the Committee on several occasions about its interrogation of al-Qaeda detainees. The CIA has described the basis for the program, and why they think it should be allowed to continue.
Although the CIA has described the information obtained from its program, I have heard nothing that leads me to believe that information obtained from interrogation using harsh interrogation tactics has prevented an imminent terrorist attack.
This is true for a very simple reason. Once a terrorist is captured, his fellow plotters understandably change their plans. In other words, I do not believe the CIA has ever been in an actual “ticking time bomb” scenario, nor do I think it is likely to ever be placed in that situation.
That does not mean that information obtained from the program has not been valuable. Of course, information about al-Qaeda is exceedingly valuable from an intelligence standpoint. It is bits and pieces of information that allow our intelligence professionals to assess al-Qaeda’s capabilities and determine how best to protect ourselves as a nation.
But, more to the point, I have not heard or seen any evidence that supports the Intelligence Community’s claim that using enhanced interrogation techniques is the only way to obtain this type of intelligence.
After 9/11, the Intelligence Community decided that harsh and coercive interrogation tactics were the best way to obtain intelligence. The Intelligence Community did not research what interrogation techniques might be most effective to come to this conclusion. Nor did they reach out to interrogators with experience questioning Islamic terrorists. They simply assumed—and still assume—that coercive interrogation techniques were the best way to obtain information.
This was clearly a flawed approach. But at this point, the Administration is so invested in the use of these techniques that they can no longer step back to assess what methods are most effective to obtain intelligence.
To address this question, the Committee explored how other government agencies conduct interrogation. The Committee considered critical interrogations of individuals who do not want to disclose information, interrogations where obtaining information can prevent widespread injury or death.
Every day, military interrogators in Iraq and Afghanistan question individuals with information that can save lives—questions about where explosive devices are hidden, where captured soldiers have been taken, or where caches of weapons are stored.
FBI agents also face life and death situations in both the world of terrorism and every day criminal activity. Some of the individuals the FBI interrogates are senior leaders, individuals who are committed to staying silent and not sharing the information they possess. Indeed, FBI agents recently questioned the top al Qaeda leaders who were formerly in CIA custody, gathering enough information from those al-Qaeda leaders to build cases at trial.
Some of these FBI agents have been conducting interrogations for two or three decades, not just the 6 or so years since 9-11. They are, without question, recognized experts in their field. And they are remarkably effective at obtaining the information they need.
Yet both the FBI and the military have told us that they do not need enhanced interrogation techniques. They have told the Committee that the interrogations techniques included in the Army Field Manual provide them the flexibility they need to obtain information. Indeed, representatives from both the military and the FBI both stated emphatically that they have the tools they need to obtain necessary and reliable intelligence.
After considering the CIA’s arguments and those of the FBI and U.S. military, I am simply not convinced that harsh CIA tactics were necessary, or are necessary, to obtain necessary intelligence information.
Coercive interrogation techniques can lead prisoners to say anything to stop the interrogation. As a result, coercive techniques can produce information that is fabricated and ultimately lead to flawed and misleading intelligence reports. This is not an academic or hypothetical point. Bad intelligence is a real danger when employing coercive interrogation techniques.
Intelligence reporting from an al-Qaida detainee named al-Libi that Iraq was providing al-Qaida training in chemical and biological weapons prior to the war was publicly trumpeted by the President, the Secretary of State and other senior Administration officials as proof of an operational linkage between Iraq and al-Qaida and, therefore, as a basis for going for invading Iraq. Ultimately, al-Libi was determined by the CIA to have fabricated this central allegation and other information based on his claim of mistreatment during his interrogation.
So, this is not an academic point. America went to war based on an alleged threat that was partially based on fabricated information produced under harsh interrogation.
Apart from the question of efficacy and the risk of bad intelligence, the Committee has explored the consequences of having a different, secret standard of interrogation for the Intelligence Community. This is where the need for Section 327 becomes clear.
Since the disclosure of information about the existence of secret prisons and the use of harsh interrogation techniques, the reputation and moral authority of the United States have suffered dramatically. Rather than being a world leader in human rights, we have become known for the unapologetic use of aggressive interrogation techniques. Indeed, even Canada has included us on its list of countries that engage in torture.
Allowing the CIA to continue to use coercive interrogation techniques that are not part of the Army Field Manual is just another piece of fodder for terrorist propaganda. It is no way to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world.
Ultimately, the war against terrorism is a war of ideas. Without a public standard of humane treatment, it is impossible to convince the world that we take our international obligations seriously, that we treat people humanely, and that we are a country of laws and that we adhere to these laws.
We must uphold those standards that differentiate us from the terrorists that are fighting. If our government continues to use secret interrogation techniques that many are convinced constitute torture, America’s standing in the world’s eyes will continue to be tarnished.
As the Israeli Supreme Court concluded when it forbade the use of harsh interrogation techniques,
“This is the destiny of democracy, as not all means are acceptable to it, and not all practices employed by its enemies are open before it. Although a democracy must often fight with one hand tied behind its back, it nonetheless has the upper hand. Preserving the Rule of Law and recognition of an individual’s liberty constitutes an important component in its understanding of security. At the end of the day, they strengthen its spirit and its strength and allow it to overcome its difficulties.”
Passing Section 327 is critical to regaining our moral authority in the world, and convincing people that the United States believes in due process and human rights, rather than fear. Having a separate standard of interrogation for the CIA is simply not worth the cost.
I therefore urge my colleagues to support the waiver of the points of order on Section 327.
No matter how the Senate votes on this motion to waive points of order today, however, or whether or not the President vetoes the bill, the CIA should carefully consider the actions of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. The members of our Committees are the only members of Congress who have briefed the program, and who have been privy to the Administration’s best arguments in support of the program.
And yet, despite those briefings, a bipartisan majority of both the House and Senate intelligence committees have determined that it is in the nation’s best interest to have only one standard of interrogation, a standard that can be publicly judged by the entire world. This judgment by the representatives of the American people must not be ignored.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
###
E-mail Senator Rockefeller | Click here for more contact information.