by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright April 21, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

        Leaving the door open to investigate Bush administration officials for violating U.S. laws against torture, President Barack Obama hinted he might let Congress consider such cases.  Recent declassified Justice Dept. memos confirm the use of “waterboarding” and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” expressly forbidden by the Geneva Convention.  While Bush White House officials, notably former Atty. Gen. Alberto Gonzales, defined prisoners of war as “enemy or illegal combatants,” the White House reassured the American public—indeed the world—that the government would follow the Geneva Convention for prisoners held at Guantanamo Bay.  Since recent memos confirm that the military and CIA waterboaraded “high value” prisoners, the White House faces a curious dilemma:  Either investigate former White House officials or ignore illegal behavior.

            Former Vice President Dick Cheney has been ahead of the curve, blasting the White House for hogtying counter-terrorism operations, especially the CIA.  Past CIA Director four-star Gen. Michael Hayden told “Fox News Sunday” that Obama was hurting U.S. national security by releasing he declassified memos.  Hayden wouldn’t comment on reports that terrorism suspects Abu Zubaydah and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed were waterboarded 266 times between 2001-03.  As Barack finshed an Oval Office meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II, he told reporters that he might consider investigating former Bush administration officials.  Over the weekend, White House officials ruled out prosecution against form CIA officials taking place in “enhanced interrogation techniques.”  Republicans have been outraged at the possibility of investigating former White House officials.

            Before the White House lets partisan elements in Congress upend any semblance of civility, they need to reexamine Bush administration options in the wake of Sept. 11.  Sept. 11 blindsided the U.S. intelligence community, especially the CIA and FBI.  In the chaos that followed, there were immediate concerns about a piggyback terrorist attack.  White House officials were scrambling to get a handle on the most serious intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor, where 2,402 sailors lost their lives Dec. 7, 1941.  Then Vice President Dick Cheney, former Defense Secretary under President George H.W. Bush, was profoundly disillusioned with civilian intelligence, reaching instead to Defense Intelligence to pick up the slack.  “Enhanced interrogation techniques” were expressly forbidden in the Army Field Manual, a document adhering the 1949 Geneva Convention.

            Obama needs to look at the context after Sept. 11 before allowing bitter partisanship to weigh lay his administration.  It “is going to be more a decision for the attorney general with the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that,” Obama told reporters outside the Oval Office, leaving the door open to possible prosecutions.  Atty. Gen. Holder, recently confirmed after some heated Senate confirmation hearings, takes his cues from the White House.  Obama, not Holder, needs to consider the ramifications of opening up a counterproductive can of worms.  Whether you agreed or disagreed with “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the intent was to obtain the best intelligence with limited resources following Sept. 11.   Instead of looking in the rearview mirror, Barack should be building relations—as he did at recent summits—with members of the opposing party.

            Most GOP members, with the exception of former presidential nominee Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), don’t regard “waterboarding” as torture.  Cheney has repeatedly denied that it's torture and recently urged Obama to release declassified memos attesting to the valuable intelligence gleaned from “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Bush administration officials knew that “enhanced interrogation techniques” were expressly prohibited in the Army Field Manual.  “It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to place a prisoner under physical or mental duress or an other form of coercion in an effort to secure information,” reads the Code of US. Fighting Forces.  To skirt this prohibition, the Bush’s legal team had to redefine prisoners as “illegal or enemy combatants” and allow the civilian CIA to handle interrogations.  Investigating former White House officials would be counterproductive.

            Bush White House officials were stunned at the CIA and FBI incompetence at preventing Sept. 11.  Calling for “enhanced interrogation techniques,” the past administration was desperate to glean any information from prisoners captured in Afghanistan to prevent another Sept. 11.  When the Congress passed the USA Patriot Act Oct. 26, 2001, only two weeks before the Taliban was driven from power Nov. 12, it gave the White House new tools to prevent another terrorist attack.  Whatever the White House did, including interrogating Guantanamo Bay prisoners, it attempted to compensate for failures of the CIA and FBI.  “As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back,” said Obama, concerned that any investigation—no matter how discreet—would sidetrack his administration.  Pointing fingers now only makes bipartisanship impossible.

About the Author

John M. Curtis is editor of OnlineColumnist.com and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily Journal. He’s director of a Los Angeles think tank specializing in political consulting and strategic public relations. He’s the author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.