[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 149 (Tuesday, December 9, 2014)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6427-S6432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SSCI STUDY OF THE CIA'S DETENTION AND INTERROGATION PROGRAM
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I listened with interest to the tremendous
statement made by the Senator from California, Mrs. Feinstein, earlier
today. She has spoken of this issue on other occasions, and we
Americans should listen.
More than a decade ago the Central Intelligence Agency began
detaining and torturing human beings in the name of the war on
terrorism. Then employees and contractors of the U.S. Government, paid
for by our taxpayers' dollars, abused and degraded, dehumanized people.
They stripped them of their basic humanity. But more than stripping
them of their basic humanity, they stripped America of its standing in
the world as the leader of promoting and protecting human rights.
Instead of protecting us as Americans, by their actions they hurt all
Americans.
President Obama banned torture and cruel treatment when he took
office, but only now, because of the courage and conviction of Senator
Feinstein and the other members of the Intelligence Committee and their
staffs, do we have a full and public accounting of the CIA's actions--
an accounting the American people deserve.
The decision to release this historic report, as Senator Feinstein
has courageously said, has been difficult, but it was the right and
moral thing to do. If something is right and something is moral, no
matter how difficult it is, you should do it. Releasing the report
demonstrates that America--the America I love--is different. As
Americans, we cannot sweep our mistakes under the rug and pretend they
did not happen. We have to acknowledge our mistakes. We have to learn
from our mistakes. In this case, we as Americans must and will do
everything we can to ensure that our government never tortures again.
Five years ago, in 2009, I called for a commission of inquiry to
review the Bush administration's detention and interrogation program
and other sweeping claims of executive power by the Bush
administration. I believe that in order to restore America's moral
leadership, we have to acknowledge what happened in our name because
much of the leadership we can show around the world is not based on our
wealth or on the power of our military but on our moral leadership. Our
Nation needed back then a full accounting of the CIA's treatment of
detainees, and we need it today. With this report, at long last we have
it.
This is not the first report to record or condemn the detention and
interrogation policies and practices that were used during the last
administration, but it is the first to fully chronicle the actions of
the most secretive of our government agencies, the Central Intelligence
Agency. The final report lays bare the dark truth about their program.
That truth is far worse and it is far more brutal than most Americans
ever imagined.
We have all seen the shocking pictures from Abu Ghraib. We have read
the cold, clinical description of ``harsh'' or ``enhanced'' techniques
written by Department of Justice attorneys to justify such treatment.
We know that what was done at Abu Ghraib terribly diminished the image
of the United States throughout the world. It did not make us safer by
one iota. In fact, many would argue it made us less safe.
The report makes clear one fundamental truth: The CIA tortured
people. That is the bottom line. No euphemistic description or legal
obfuscation or pettifoggery can hide that fact any longer. The
Intelligence Committee report shows that techniques such as
waterboarding and sleep deprivation were used in ways far more frequent
and cruel and harmful than previously known. It shows that gross
mismanagement by those in charge at the CIA and a shocking indifference
to human dignity led to horrendous treatment and conditions of
confinement that went far beyond even what they had been approving. It
turns out that the senior CIA leadership did not even know that
``enhanced'' techniques were being used at one CIA detention facility.
In fact, in one instance, one of their prisoners died as a result, left
shackled on a concrete floor in a dungeon room, and likely died of
hypothermia.
This is America? This is what we stand for? This is the image we want
to give the rest of the world? This American does not think so. This
American does not think so. It is not what brought my grandparents and
great-grandparents to this country.
These so-called ``enhanced'' interrogation techniques were not just
used on the worst of the worst either. In some instances, the CIA did
not even know whom it was holding. CIA records show that at least 26
people detained by the CIA did not meet the CIA's own standard for
detention. Some of these individuals were subjected to--and this is a
wonderful slogan--``enhanced'' techniques. What an evil slogan. Some
detainees were determined not even to be members of Al Qaeda.
Moreover, the CIA relied on contractors--not even CIA personnel but
contractors--who had no experience as interrogators to develop this
program. They were happy to take American taxpayers' money. They did
not know what they were doing, but they said: Give us the money.
Eventually the CIA outsourced all aspects of the program to the company
these contractors set up. Did they make a few thousand dollars? No.
They made $80 million. This was a program out of control. It is yet
another reason why Congress has to exercise its oversight
responsibility.
The report also disproves CIA claims that torture programs were
necessary to protect our Nation, and that it thwarted attacks. How many
times have we heard it before--that we need this to protect us; we need
this to protect us from another 9/11? We had all of the evidence we
needed to stop 9/11, but the government had not even bothered to
translate some of the material that our intelligence people had already
obtained. After the fact, they decided: We should really translate some
of that material we have. Then we found it could have been stopped.
This program of torture did not make us safer. As laid out in
meticulous detail in the report, the use of these techniques did not
generate uniquely valuable intelligence. In fact, the report thoroughly
repudiates each of the most commonly cited examples of plots thwarted
and terrorists captured. That should not come as a surprise.
The Senate Judiciary Committee held numerous hearings on the Bush
administration's interrogation policies and practices. What we heard
time and again from witness after witness is that torture and other
cruel treatments do not work. But there are still some who continue to
argue, even in the face of overwhelming testimony and actually now hard
evidence to the contrary, that the program thwarted attacks and saved
lives. They defend the CIA's action. They argue that the report does
not tell the full story. But these are often the same people who
participated in the rampant misrepresentations detailed in this report.
The report shows that CIA officials consistently misled virtually
everyone outside the Agency about what was actually going on and about
the results of the CIA interrogations--very similar to what we heard
leading up to the war in Iraq after 9/11. I remember being in those
hearings. I remember listening to the then-Vice President. I remember
listening to others in those secret hearings and thinking: It does not
ring true. I stated to others that I thought some of the things they
were telling us did not ring true.
I remember walking early one morning with my wife near our home and
two joggers coming up, calling us by name. These were people we had
never seen before in the neighborhood.
One of them said, ``I hear you have some questions.'' He asked
whether I had asked to see a particular document.
I said, ``I haven't. I didn't know there was such a thing.''
He said, ``You might find it interesting to read.''
[[Page S6428]]
So I did. Then I raised even more questions about what I read there,
which totally contradicted what the Vice President and others were
saying. I mentioned that to some.
A few days later we are out walking again. Both joggers--my wife
remembers this so well--they said, ``I see you read the document.''
I said, ``I did.''
``But did they tell you about this other document?''
I said, ``I didn't know there was such a document.''
``You may find it interesting.''
And so I then reviewed it. It was obvious from what I read that they
were withholding evidence that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/
11, contrary to what the Vice President and others were saying; that
there were no weapons of mass destruction; and that in fact, they were
actually well penned in by the no-fly zone we had set up. But instead
we rushed into war because we sought to avenge 9/11, even though they
had nothing to do with
9/11. Now almost $3 trillion later, look at the mess we are in.
The report released today details how, like the run-up to the war in
Iraq, material that was held back from people who should have seen it.
This included Members of Congress, White House officials, even Justice
Department lawyers who were being asked to review the legality of CIA
techniques.
In the coming weeks, as we go into the new Congress, we are going to
hear a lot about the need for oversight. I would hope the new
leadership would look at the report Senator Feinstein and her committee
have come out with, because this is where oversight should be--at the
top of the list. So too should the unprecedented spying by the CIA on
the congressional staff investigating this program. Just think about
that. They investigated Members of Congress who were asking them about
things they had done wrong. Then there is also the troubling pattern of
intimidation, which includes the CIA referring its own congressional
overseers to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution. My God,
we are going back to the Joseph McCarthy days with things like this.
This report and those actions show a CIA out of control. It is
incumbent upon all of us--Republicans and Democrats alike--in the
Congress to hold the Agency accountable.
The Judiciary Committee should take a hard look at the role of the
Department of Justice and its legal justifications for this program.
Much ink has been spilled criticizing the OLC opinion written during
the Bush administration by John Yoo, Jay Bybee, and Stephen Bradbury.
The OLC has always had a good reputation, but these opinions sullied
the reputation of that office, and they have been rightly repudiated.
But the report also demonstrates that even those opinions were the
result of key misrepresentations by the CIA about the seniority of the
people subjected to these techniques, the implementation of the
techniques, and the intelligence resulting from them.
As an institution, if we truly represent 325 million Americans, do we
not have a responsibility to examine the systemic failure that allowed
this to happen and then to ensure that it does not happen again?
Those who attack the credibility of this report are wrong. This
report is not based on conjecture or theory or insinuation. Anyone who
reads it can see that this careful, thorough report was meticulously
researched and written. It is based on more than 6 million pages of CIA
cables, emails, and other documents containing descriptions that CIA
employees and contractors themselves recorded.
I believe Senator Feinstein and the other members of the Intelligence
Committee who worked on this deserve our respect and our appreciation.
Intelligence Committee staffers, too, have dedicated years of their
lives to this report. They have demonstrated courage and dedication in
the face of enormous challenges, because they thought first and
foremost about the United States of America.
In the past year they were even threatened with criminal prosecution.
Why? For doing the job they are supposed to do for the United States of
America. But they would not allow themselves to be intimidated. They
have served their country well, and they have my deepest appreciation
for bringing us this truly historic study.
I thank their families, because they couldn't tell their families the
things they were reading. I imagine the families knew of some of these
attacks on them. Their families too deserve our thanks.
I am disappointed that those same honorable staffers had to spend so
many months arguing with this White House about redactions to this
report--a White House that is supposed to be dedicated to transparency.
This report should have been issued months ago, and it still contains
more redactions than it should. I can think of some who will wonder why
the redactions are there, but I am gratified that we can finally shed
light on this dark chapter.
Among the many lessons we can take from this report is that Americans
deserve more government transparency, and that is essential to a strong
democracy. Just yesterday the Senate unanimously passed a bipartisan
bill, the Leahy-Cornyn FOIA Improvement Act. It significantly improves
the Freedom of Information Act. Today's release of this report is
another important victory for greater government transparency.
I strongly disagree with those who argue that the reports should not
come out and who have tried to pressure and silence Senator Feinstein.
Don't place the blame on those who are telling the truth. Place the
blame squarely where it belongs: on those who authorized and carried
out a systematic program of torture and secret detention, which is in
violation of domestic law, and in violation of international law. But
more importantly it is in violation of the fundamental principles of
morality on which our great Nation was founded.
In trying times, such as those we faced after September 11 and those
we face now, we look to our intelligence, military, and law enforcement
professionals to keep us safe. We are fortunate to have so many
dedicated and talented people serving in the intelligence community,
military, and law enforcement. But one lesson for their sake, our sake,
and our country's sake, is that we should never become so blinded by
fear that we are willing to sacrifice our own principles, laws, and
humanity.
We are the greatest, most powerful Nation on Earth. We cannot turn
our backs on our laws, our history, and our Constitution because we are
afraid. This Senator is not afraid.
No matter what, our enemies are human beings. And no matter how
hardened and evil they are, no matter how repulsive their actions--and
many are--no matter how horribly they have treated their own victims,
we do not torture them--because we don't join them on that dark side of
history. We stand on the other side of history as Americans.
Generations of men and women have given their lives and many have even
endured torture themselves in order to protect this Nation. They did so
not to protect our way of life, but to protect our principles, our
understanding of right and wrong, of humanity, of evil.
The shameful actions uncovered by this report dishonored those men
and women who have fought to protect what is the best of our Nation, as
well as the men and women even today who continue to put their lives at
risk for this country.
Americans know, throughout this country, that we are better than
this. As we heard after Abu Ghraib and we will hear now, we are better
than this and we should never let this happen again. Let's show the
rest of the world, too.
I have spoken much longer than I normally do, but this is important
to me.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
Mr. KING. Mr. President, I also want to address the report that was
released this morning by the Chair of the Intelligence Committee. I
come at this in a slightly different way than some of my colleagues,
because I came to this process late.
I joined the Intelligence Committee in January of 2013. By that time
the report had been authorized, had been written, and actually had been
finalized. So I came to it as a final product and the decision was
whether it should be released.
Before talking about the report, there are two very important points
that should be made.
[[Page S6429]]
No. 1, one of my problems with this discussion is that everybody
talks about the CIA. The CIA did this, the CIA did that. The fact is
the CIA as an institution doesn't do anything. People do things.
I have been around the world and met with CIA people in many
countries. I have met with them here. They are patriotic, they are
dedicated, they are smart, and they are brave. The problem with this
situation is their reputation has been sullied by a relatively small
group of people early in the prior decade.
So I want to make clear, at least as far as I am concerned, this is
not an attempt to discredit or otherwise undermine the CIA or the good
people who are there, but to point out that mistakes were made.
No. 2, I think we need to acknowledge that those were extraordinary
times, the year or so after September 11. We thought there was going to
be another attack. There was a lot of pressure to uncover that
information. It is easy, 10 years later, to look back and say: Well, we
shouldn't have done this or we shouldn't have done that. I understand
that. We have to acknowledge that. However, those circumstances cannot
justify a basic violation of who we are as Americans and what our
values are.
The process is the report was completed and accepted by the committee
on a bipartisan basis. My predecessor, Olympia Snowe, voted in favor of
the acceptance of the report in December of 2012.
It was then sent to the CIA. They responded, a rather full response.
It took about 6 months, and then they submitted their response to the
committee.
I knew the vote was going to be coming up last spring as to whether
to release the report. I went to the secure site in one of our
buildings and sat down every night for a week and read this executive
summary, every single word--all 500 pages, all of the footnotes--and
made my own judgment as one who was in no way invested in this report.
Here are the conclusions I reached. I must say, until I sat and read
it, I didn't fully comprehend what this issue was, why we needed this
large report, why we needed to do this study. After reading it, I was
shaken and convinced that the report was important and should be
released.
Basically, it has four conclusions. I am not going to go through them
in detail, but No. 1 was: We committed torture. I am not going to argue
that. I would say, as I said repeatedly, read the report. No person can
read the description of what was done in our name and not conclude that
it was way outside the values of our country and constituted torture by
any definition.
No. 2, it was terribly managed. That is not a very exciting point
about management, but nobody was in charge. Contractors were actually
designing the program and assessing whether it was successful--the
people who had designed it and were implementing it. There was no
central place at the CIA that managed it, so that was a problem.
No. 3--and this we are going to talk about for a few minutes--it was
not effective. The guts of this report are an analysis of the 20
principal cases the CIA presented as justification for the torture to
say that it worked, that it led to intelligence that was reliable and
current, and the report goes through in excruciating detail looking at
each one of those allegations.
It basically finds that the information was either already available,
it was available in our hands, it was available in other ways, and the
witnesses had given up the data prior to their being subjected to these
extraordinary measures. I am going to talk, as I mentioned, in a couple
of minutes about this issue of effectiveness.
I should have said this at the beginning. My poor words can't
contribute a great deal to this debate, but the speech Senator John
McCain made on this floor this morning should be required viewing for
every schoolchild in America, every Member of this body, every Member
of this Congress, and every American. He spoke eloquently about the
violation of our ideals of this program and the fact that it cannot,
will not, and could not work.
The final point we take from the report is this program was
continually misrepresented. It was misrepresented to the President, it
was misrepresented to the Justice Department, it was misrepresented to
the Congress, and it was misrepresented to the Intelligence Committee.
The problem is that continues today. In the past few days we have
seen an outburst of statements, speeches, and interviews on television
saying it was effective. It wasn't effective, and the report makes that
clear.
There is a semantic sleight of hand going on, and I have already seen
it in two or three interviews on television where people slide from the
report and they say: The program of detention of people whom we
captured after September 11 was effective in generating intelligence.
Absolutely true. There is no doubt of that. People were detained,
they were interrogated, they gave good intelligence, it taught us what
we know about Al Qaeda, and it was very helpful to the country in
preventing future plots.
The question for the House, though, is was the torture effective? If
you have somebody in custody, they give up good information, and then
later you torture them and they don't give you anymore information, the
torture didn't create that information or that intelligence. The
question is did the extraordinary methods create additional evidence.
People should cock their ears when they hear people say the program
created this good intelligence. It did. But the program is not what we
are talking about today. We are talking about so-called enhanced
interrogation techniques.
I would suggest when people come up with a euphemism such as enhanced
interrogation techniques, that should tip us off that something is
going on that we should be concerned about.
I wrestled with this decision. It was not easy. There is risk
involved. There has been a lot of commentary today. Our people are on
alert. Will someone attack us because of this report?
I can't deny that risk. I think it is impossible to say. But we have
already learned that these people will attack us for any or no reason.
They have been trying to attack us for 10 years. That is their reason
for existing.
ISIL has beheaded Americans, not because of this report, but because
that is their agenda. Now they may issue a press release or a YouTube
video and say we are doing this because of the report, but I would
submit they are going to do it anyway.
What they are going to cite--it is not the report, it is what we did
that has inflamed opposition around the world, and it has done so for
many years already.
Finally, on the question of the risk, when the terrible activities at
Abu Ghraib came to the attention of the Congress, we did a report. The
Armed Services Committee did a study and issued a report in grisly
detail of what was done, and at that point we had 100,000 troops in
Iraq. If ever there was a report that would have inflamed public
opinion in a foreign country and generated retribution against us, it
was that. We cannot be intimidated by people who tell us that we cannot
exercise and be true to our own ideals.
But if there is any risk, why should we do it? Because these actions
are so alien to our values, they are so alien to our principles that we
simply can't countenance them.
By the way, if this wasn't torture, if this wasn't a problem, why did
the CIA destroy the tapes of one of these interrogations? That is what
started all of this, when the Senate learned they had destroyed tapes.
If they thought this was not torture--which is what they were telling
us--then why are they destroying the tapes? That is what began this
process.
To me, one of the most telling quotes in the whole report was a back-
and-forth between the CIA and I think the White House--but I think it
was within the CIA where the statement was made: ``Whatever you do,
don't let Colin Powell find out about this, he'll blow his stack.'' Now
that tells me they knew they were doing something that wasn't
acceptable to our country and to the American people. But the second
reason to release this report is the key: so it will never happen
again. That is the whole deal here.
The campaign of the last few days of people saying it worked and it
wasn't torture and you shouldn't do it because
[[Page S6430]]
of the risk--that, to me, validates my concern because these people are
essentially saying: We would do it again if we had the chance. And the
only thing standing between them and doing it again is an Executive
order signed by this President in January of 2009, which could be wiped
out in the first week of a new Presidency or in the first month of a
new Presidency. We cannot have this happen again.
The oratory is that it works. I have a letter, which I will submit
for the Record, from 20 former terrorist interrogators--Army, Air
Force, CIA, FBI--saying these kinds of tactics don't work and, in fact,
they produce bad intelligence. There is an article in Politico today by
Mark Fallen, who is a 30-year interrogator, saying it doesn't work.
We have to have this discussion and lay that to rest because the
people who are saying it works are really saying: And we will do it
again if we have to. And that is not who we are as people.
Interestingly, in the CIA's response to the report--all during the
early part of this past decade the argument was--and we are hearing it
today--it works. We are certain it works. We got valuable intelligence.
We got Osama bin Laden.
The CIA is not saying that today. When they submitted their response
to the committee's report, what they said about effectiveness was that
it is unknowable whether it was effective. I believe the migration from
the certainty they gave to Members of Congress and the President and
the Department of Justice--the migration from ``certainty'' to
``unknowable'' speaks volumes because they couldn't refute the facts
that are in this report.
If this idea that this kind of interrogation works becomes
conventional wisdom, it will definitely happen again.
I go back in conclusion to John McCain's statement this morning. I
can't match his eloquence. It was one of the most powerful messages I
have ever heard in this body or anywhere else. He talked about who we
are as Americans, and he also talked from personal experience about
what torture will do and whether it will produce good information, and
I would submit that John McCain knows more about that particular
subject than all the rest of us in this body put together.
I got a critical note from a friend in Maine this morning that said
``You know, you are naive'' and all those kinds of things. I just wrote
him back and said, ``Don't take it from me; watch what John McCain had
to say.''
We are exceptional, but we are not exceptional because of natural
resources or because we are smarter and better looking than anybody
else; we are exceptional because of our values. We are one of the few
countries in the world that was founded on explicit values and ideals
and principles. And principles aren't something you discard when times
get tough. That is when they are important. That is like saying: I am
in favor of free press unless somebody says something offensive. These
are principles that make us distinct and different.
I believe this debate is about the soul of America. It is about who
we want to be as a people. It is a hard debate. It is difficult. It is
hard to talk about these things. This was a dark period. But I believe
that having this discussion, having this debate, getting this
information out--and by the way, all the information is going to be
out: the report; the CIA's response was made public today; the minority
had their own statement that is quite substantial. So the public is
going to be able to look at all this information and make their own
decisions. I looked at the information, and the decision I made was
that this is important information the people of America are entitled
to, they should understand, and we should move forward consistent with
our ideals and our principles as a nation and see that something like
this never happens again.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record
the letter I referred to earlier.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
February 4, 2014.
Hon. Angus King,
U.S. Senate, 359 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Senator King: We write to you as current and former
professional interrogators, interviewers, and intelligence
officials regarding the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence's (SSCI) 6000-plus page study of the CIA's post-
9/11 rendition, detention, and interrogation program. We
understand that the SSCI may soon take up the issue of
whether to pursue declassification and public release of the
study. In the interest of transparency and furthering an
understanding of effective interrogation policy, we urge you
to support declassification and release of as much of the
study as possible, with only such redactions as are necessary
to protect national security.
Since the CIA program was established over a decade ago,
there has been substantial public interest in, and discussion
of, the fundamental efficacy of the so-called ``enhanced
interrogation techniques'' (EITs). Despite the employment of
these methods, critical questions remain unanswered as to
whether EITs are an appropriate, lawful, or effective means
of consistently eliciting accurate, timely, and comprehensive
intelligence from individuals held in custody. Based on our
experience, torture and other forms of abusive or coercive
techniques are more likely to generate unreliable information
and have repeatedly proven to be counterproductive as a means
of securing the enduring cooperation of a detained
individual. They increase the likelihood of receiving false
or misleading information, undermine this nation's ability to
work with key international partners, and bolster the
recruiting narratives of terrorist groups.
We would like to emphasize that this view is further
supported by relevant studies in the behavioral sciences and
publicly available evidence, which show that coercive
interrogation methods can substantially disrupt a subject's
ability to accurately recall and convey information, cause a
subject to emotionally and psychologically ``shut down,''
produce the circumstances where resistance is increased, or
create incentives for a subject to provide false information
to lessen the experience of pain, suffering, or anxiety.
Despite this body of evidence, some former government
officials who authorized the CIA's so-called ``enhanced
interrogation'' program after 9/11 claim that it produced a
significant and sustained stream of accurate and reliable
intelligence that helped disrupt terrorist plots, save
American lives, and even locate Osama Bin Laden. While some
of the particular claimed successes of the program have been
disproven based on publicly available information, the
broader claim that the EIT program was necessary to disrupt
terrorist plots and save American lives is based on
classified information unavailable to the public.
The SSCI study--based on a review of more than 6 million
pages of official records--provides an important opportunity
to shed light on these important questions. We understand
that the SSCI minority and CIA have separate views regarding
the meaning and significance of the official documentary
record. Those views are important and should also be made
public so that the American people have an opportunity to
decide for themselves whether the CIA program was ultimately
worth it.
It is beyond time for this critical issue of national
importance to be driven by facts--not rhetoric or partisan
interest. We therefore urge you to vote in favor of
declassifying and releasing the SSCI study on the CIA's post-
9/11 interrogation program.
Sincerely,
Tony Camerino, Glenn Carle, James T. Clemente, Jack
Cloonan, Gerry Downes, Mark Fallon, Brigadier General
David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.), Steven Kleinman, Marcus
Lewis, Mike Marks, Robert McFadden, Charles Mink, Joe
Navarro, Torin Nelson, Erik Phillips, William Quinn,
Buck Revell, Mark Safarik, Haviland Smith, Lieutenant
General Harry E. Soyster (Ret.).
Mr. KING. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator
Levin be permitted to follow my remarks and speak for up to 10 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HEINRICH. Mr. President, torture is wrong, it is un-American, and
it doesn't work. Recognizing these important realities, the President
signed an Executive order in January of 2009 that limited
interrogations by any American personnel to the guidelines that are in
the Army Field Manual, and he reinforced U.S. commitment to the Geneva
Conventions. This closed the book on the Bush administration's
interrogation program. But make no mistake--these weren't enhanced
interrogations. This was torture. I would challenge anyone to read this
report and not be truly disturbed by some of these techniques.
Releasing the Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's detention
and interrogation program to the American people today will finally
provide a thorough accounting of what happened and how it happened. In
addition, like my colleague and friend from Maine
[[Page S6431]]
who spoke before me, I hope this process helps to ensure that it never
ever happens again.
This was a grave chapter in our history, and the actions taken under
this program cost our Nation global credibility, and--let's be blunt--
they put American lives at risk. Some have suggested that releasing
this report could put American lives at risk. But let's be clear. It
has been the use of torture that has unnecessarily put Americans in
harm's way.
There is no question that there will never be a good time to release
this study. We all know that for months, terrorists in the extremist
group ISIS have been kidnapping and barbarically killing innocent
Americans because of what we as a nation stand for. The response to
their threats and terrorism should not be for us to change our American
values; it should be to stand firm in our values and work with our
allies to root out extremism and terrorism in all its forms.
The release of this study will finally let us face what was done in
the name of the American people and allow for future generations to use
these findings to learn from the mistakes made by the architects of
this program. This is an objective, fact-based study. It is a fair
study. And it is the only comprehensive study conducted of this program
and the CIA's treatment of its detainees in the aftermath of the
September 11 attacks. Today marks an enormous, albeit painful, step
into our future.
It is important to know that these torture methods were the
brainchild of a few CIA officials and their contractors. When I joined
the Intelligence Committee two years ago, I began to read
the classified report and was surprised to learn this. Frankly, it was
not consistent with all of my assumptions. It wasn't what my prejudices
told me to expect. But that is exactly why a fact-based study is so
important.
Furthermore, it is important to know that at every turn, CIA
leadership avoided congressional oversight of these activities and,
even worse, misled Congress. That leadership deliberately kept the vast
majority of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees in the dark on
the interrogation techniques until the day the President revealed the
detention and interrogation program to the rest of the world in 2006--4
years after it began.
Even then, misrepresentations to the committee about the
effectiveness of this program continued, in large part because the CIA
had never performed any comprehensive review of the effectiveness of
the interrogation techniques or the actions of its officers. Myths of
the effectiveness of torture have been repeated, perpetuating the fable
that this was a necessary program that somehow saved lives.
The committee examined the CIA's claims of plots thwarted and
detainees captured as a result of intelligence gained through torture.
In each and every case, the committee found that the intelligence was
already available from other sources or provided by the detainees
themselves before they were tortured.
However, we need to stop treating the issue of torture as one worthy
of debate over its practical merits. This is about torture being
immoral, being un-American. Reducing a human being to a state of
despair through systematic subjugation, pain, and humiliation is
unquestionably immoral. It should never happen again with the blessing
of the Government of the United States of America.
As my colleague who spoke before me--Senator King of Maine--said so
well in an interview this morning, ``This is not America. This is not
who we are.'' I think that sums up how I view the revelations in that
report.
The information in the study released today to the public will
finally pull back the curtain on the terrible judgment that went into
creating and implementing this interrogation program.
The decision to use these techniques and the defense of the program
were the work of a relatively small number of people at the CIA. This
study is in no way a condemnation of the thousands of patriotic men and
women at this great Agency who work tirelessly every day to protect and
defend our Nation from very real and imminent threats using lawful
measures; using effective measures. In fact, the insistence that so
many intelligence successes were the result of enhanced interrogations
negates and marginalizes the effective work done by thousands of other
CIA officers not involved in these activities.
What this study does is show that multiple levels of government were
misled about the effectiveness of these techniques. If secretive
government agencies want to operate in a democracy, there must be trust
and transparency with those who are tasked with the oversight of those
agencies.
As the committee carries out future oversight, we will benefit from
the lessons in this study. I hope we never again let the challenges of
difficult times be used as an excuse to frustrate and defer oversight
the way it was in the early years described in this report.
Although President Obama ended the program by signing that Executive
order in 2009, any future President could reverse it. It is worth
remembering that years before this detention and interrogation program
even began, the CIA had sworn off the harsh interrogations of its past.
But in the wake of the terrorist attacks against the United States, it
repeated those mistakes by once again engaging in brutal interrogations
that undermined our Nation's credibility on the issue of human rights,
produced information of dubious value, and wasted millions and millions
of taxpayer dollars.
The public interest in this issue too often has centered on the
personalities involved and the political battle waged in the release of
this study, but those stories are reductive, and I hope they will soon
be forgotten. Because the story of what happened in this detention and
interrogation program--and how it happened--is too important, and it
needs to be fully understood so that future generations will not make
the same mistakes that our country made out of fear.
When America engages in these acts, with authorization from the
highest levels of government, we invite others to treat our citizens
and our soldiers the same way. This study should serve as a warning to
those who would make similar choices in the future or argue about the
efficacy of these techniques. Let us learn from the mistakes of the
past, and let us never repeat these mistakes again.
Before I close, I wish to say how important it is to acknowledge that
the Intelligence Committee's study of the CIA's detention and
interrogation program represents many, many years of hard work by
Members and staff who faced incredible obstacles in completing their
work. The fact that this study is finished is a testament to their
dedication, and it is a testament to the dedication and focus of
Chairman Rockefeller and Chairman Feinstein in deciding that oversight
is our job, regardless of how long it takes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Michigan.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the report released today by the
Intelligence Committee is an important addition to the public's
knowledge about the CIA's use of torture, euphemistically described by
some as ``enhanced interrogation techniques'' in the period following
the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The use of these techniques was a failure, both moral and practical.
These tactics violated the values this Nation has long stood for, while
adding little benefit to our security. As GEN David Petraeus and others
have pointed out, their use has placed U.S. personnel at greater risk
of being tortured. They have tarnished America's standing in the world
and undermined our moral authority to confront tyrants and torturers. I
am glad this report will fully inform a public debate with facts that
have remained classified for too long, and I hope it ensures that our
Nation never again resorts to such brutal and misguided methods.
The report lays out clearly that, contrary to claims by former CIA
and Bush administration officials, these techniques did not produce
uniquely valuable intelligence that saved lives. The report examines 20
such specific representations that were used frequently by the CIA to
make the case to policymakers for continued use of abusive techniques.
In all 20 cases, the CIA's claims about the value of intelligence
gathered through torture were inaccurate. At the same time the CIA
[[Page S6432]]
was making false claims about the effectiveness of these techniques, it
was failing to mention that some detainees subjected to these
techniques provided false, fabricated information--information that led
to time-consuming wild-goose chases.
This is not at all surprising when we consider the origin of these
abusive interrogation techniques. In 2008 the Senate Armed Services
Committee produced a detailed investigative report into the treatment
of detainees in military custody. That report traced the path of
techniques such as waterboarding, sleep deprivation, and forced nudity
from the military's survival, evasion, resistance, and escape training,
or SERE training, the path to interrogations of U.S. detainees. SERE
training was not designed to train U.S. personnel to torture detainees.
Rather, it was designed to prepare U.S. personnel to survive torture at
the hands of our enemies. SERE training simulated techniques that were
used by the Chinese interrogators during the Korean War--techniques
designed to elicit a confession--any confession--whether true or false.
Those who tortured U.S. troops were not after valuable actionable
intelligence. They were after confessions they could use for propaganda
purposes.
Defenders of the CIA's actions have claimed that abusive techniques
produced key intelligence on locating bin Laden that couldn't have been
acquired through other means. This is false, as the Intelligence
Committee's report demonstrates in detail. Not only was the key
information leading to bin Laden obtained through other means not
involving abusive interrogation techniques by the CIA, but, in fact,
the CIA detainee who provided the most significant information about
the courier provided the information prior to being subjected to
abusive interrogation.
There has been a great deal of conversation, and rightly so, about
the need for effective congressional oversight of our intelligence
community and the obstacles that exist to that oversight. This report
highlights many such obstacles. In one case, this report makes public
the likely connection between the Senate's efforts to oversee
intelligence and the destruction of CIA tapes documenting abusive
interrogation of detainees. In 2005 I sponsored a resolution, with the
support of ten colleagues, to establish an independent national
commission to examine treatment of detainees since 9/11. According to
emails quoted in the report released today, Acting CIA General Counsel
John Rizzo wrote on October 31, 2005, that the commission proposal
``seems to be gaining some traction,'' and argued for renewed efforts
``to get the right people downtown''--that is, at the White House--``on
board with the notion of our destroying the tapes.'' Does it sound a
little bit like Watergate? The videos were destroyed at the direction
of Jose Rodriguez, then the head of the CIA's National Clandestine
Service, just 1 day after the November 8, 2005, vote on our commission
proposal in the Senate. It is just one striking example of the CIA's
efforts to evade oversight.
Some have argued against releasing this report, suggesting that it
could spark violence against American interests. Fundamentally, the
idea that release of this report undermines our security is a massive
exercise in blame shifting. Telling the truth about how we engaged in
torture doesn't risk our security. It is the use of torture that
undermines our security. Release of this report is hopefully an
insurance policy against the danger that a future President, a future
intelligence community, and a future Congress might believe that we
should compromise our values in pursuit of unreliable information
through torture. If a future America believes that what America's CIA
did in 2001, 2002, and 2003 was acceptable and useful, we are at risk
of repeating the same horrific mistakes. That is a threat to our
security.
Torture is never the American way. Concealing the truth is never the
American way. Our Nation stands for something better. Our people
deserve something better--they deserve an intelligence community that
conducts itself according to the law, according to basic human values,
and with the safety of our troops always in mind. They deserve better
than intelligence tactics that are likely to produce useless lies from
people trying to end their torture being used against them, instead of
producing valuable intelligence.
I thank Chairman Feinstein for her leadership in completing and
releasing this report. I thank Senator Rockefeller for his longstanding
effort in this regard. I thank Senator McCain and others for speaking
out on the need to ensure that the United States never again repeats
these mistakes.
Mr. President, I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a
quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. MORAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________