[Congressional Record Volume 156, Number 25 (Thursday, February 25, 2010)]
[House]
[Pages H909-H910]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         INTERROGATION TACTICS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, earlier today we heard some pretty 
imaginative accusations from my Republican colleagues when they were 
talking about an amendment I offered to the Intelligence Authorization 
Act. While my amendment is being removed from the manager's amendment 
up in the Rules Committee, I want to take this opportunity to clear up 
a few things.
  When President Obama took office last year, one of his first 
Executive orders was to extend the Army field manual's guidelines on 
interrogation tactics. Those guidelines prohibit interrogators in all 
Federal agencies from using brutal interrogations in any circumstance. 
That is the law today.
  So to get the facts straight, brutal interrogations are illegal right 
now. But this Executive order doesn't completely solve the problem. The 
President can't include criminal penalties in Executive orders, and 
current U.S. law doesn't outline what constitutes a brutal 
interrogation.
  My amendment would have expanded upon the President's Executive order 
to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhuman, or degrading 
interrogation so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are 
unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use 
those kinds of interrogations. And to be clear, I didn't invent

[[Page H910]]

this concept myself. The amendment was based on the Army field manual 
definition of acceptable and unacceptable interrogation tactics, which, 
as Senator John McCain has said, is effective 99.9 percent of the time. 
One of the most important things to remember about these kinds of 
interrogations is that they simply don't work.
  Brutal interrogations are not an effective tool to collect 
information, and what's worse, they actually may produce unreliable 
information. As former CIA official Bob Baer has said, ``What happens 
when you torture people is they figure out what you want to hear and 
they tell you that.''
  An endless string of studies have shown us that when people's minds 
or bodies are subjected to the kind of trauma these brutal 
interrogations entail, their brains don't function properly. For 
example, during training exercises, American special operative soldiers 
have had difficulty remembering information after they'd been put 
through food or sleep deprivation.
  Why are the Republicans defending a tactic we know doesn't work? 
Interrogations like those hurt our reputation abroad. The world was 
horrified when they saw what American soldiers were doing at Abu 
Ghraib. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, ``People 
are now starting to question whether we're following our own high 
standards.''
  Brutality like that hurts our credibility and undercuts our 
reputation in the global community.
  I'm a veteran. I wear my Vietnam pin well and proudly. I served in 
the Navy. I'm passionate about protecting this country and keeping our 
soldiers safe. More than anything, this amendment was designed to 
protect them.
  Several soldiers have done a far better job than I can in explaining 
why we need laws like this. Retired Colonel Stuart Herrington said that 
cruelty in interrogations ``endangers our soldiers on the battlefield 
by encouraging reciprocity.'' The golden rule, if you will.
  Retired admiral John Huston has said, ``Getting our interrogation 
policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane 
treatment of American soldiers who are captured.''
  I couldn't agree more. Without clear laws that define acceptable and 
unacceptable interrogation practices, including criminal consequences 
for violating those laws, we are putting more Americans at risk of 
being treated with the same brutality.
  Just last week the two former Justice Department attorneys who 
crafted the legal justification for the use of brutal interrogations 
got off scot free. The Justice Department absolved them of their 
wrongdoing and only said they had ``exercised poor judgment'' and 
hadn't broken the law. They took advantage of a gap in our current law 
and provided legal cover for abuse during interrogations. My amendment 
would have ensured this kind of legal maneuvering never happens again.
  As the President said when he issued his Executive order last year, 
``We are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when 
it's easy, but also when it's hard.''

                          ____________________