With the release of the Office of Legal Counsel memos on interrogation techniques, the Left have renewed their cry for war crimes trials (see here). Since the Position Expiration Date has passed, President Obama, too, seems eager to prosecute someone--anyone--for the "war crimes" of keeping America safe. But as Ed Morrissey wonders, who would he prosecute?
Obama can open the door to prosecutions, but who will he prosecute? He’ll find it difficult to go after the interrogators, who relied on some strange opinions from the normally-binding Office of Legal Counsel. The prosecution can try undermining that by claiming it as a Nuremberg defense, but this wasn’t Nazi Germany and the OLC exists to give this kind of legal direction. Interrogators relied on those interpretations in good faith.
That leaves George Tenet and the OLC attorneys, but they didn’t conduct the torture, and the OLC didn’t order the interrogations, either. They responded to a request from the CIA to opine on the legality of the procedures. Holder can prosecute Tenet, but then he’d also have to file charges against several members of Congress who were briefed on the procedures and never objected — including current Speaker Nancy Pelosi. If Tenet would get prosecuted for ordering the interrogation techniques, then Pelosi and others would have to get prosecuted for being accessories in not taking action to stop them.
Obama had it right in the first place. He made the decision to ban those procedures, and he should just keep looking forward. If those interpretations were flawed, and I’d agree that at least some of them were, they’ve been withdrawn.
The term "three ring circus" comes to mind here. If it weren't so disgusting, I'd support these war crimes trials just to watch Nancy Pelosi and other Congress people roasted on the spit.
There should be no prosecutions because there was no crime, which is precisely what the OLC was supposed to be about (i.e., providing analysis of U.S. statutes). But now, on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, we can look back and convince ourselves that these techniques don't work. Except they did.
Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."
Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,' 'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York.
The memo notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi' and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that country.
In the thread here, one person argues repeatedly,
Torture is evil. Those who attempt to justify it, those who attempt to rationalise it, and especially those who attempt to celebrate it (like Sharon) are also evil.
183 times in a month. That is the sort of thing the Gestapo or the KGB did.
The only conclusion is that it's more acceptable for millions of Americans to die than for one terrorist to be belly-slapped. Or subjected to loud music (or caterpillars). Or waterboarded.
Vice President Dick Cheney is calling for the release of more of these memos so that Americans will have a better idea of the arguments. I'm all for complete release of information, including the information that President Obama won't want released because it supports these interrogation techniques.
UPDATE: WLS at Patterico's Pontifications asks what the charges should be for those prosecuted for "torture."
|