A little over a week ago, the law firm Sidley Austin LLP submitted its "Independent Review Relating to APA Ethics Guidelines, National Security Interrogations, and Torture" to the APA Board of Directors. Today, the report was released to the public along with a story in the New York Times summarizing its contents.
Latest in Interrogation: Abuses
During a February congressional hearing on the Guantanamo Bay prison facility, discussion turned—as it invariably does—to the detention facility’s role in jihadist propaganda.
Correspondence finds its way into your inbox, bearing the signature of the newly-installed Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Richard Burr.
His letter (per today's New York Times) last week was sent to the White House, and sets forth an unusual request: In it Senator Burr allegedly asks "the executive branch" to return all copies of the Committee's study of the
On December 30, the outgoing Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senator Dianne Feinstein, sent a letter to the White House.
The document---which was released earlier today---overviews a number of proposed reforms to U.S.
Having started this series of posts by focusing on the aspect of the SSCI's report on which the committee majority is strongest---the program's brutality---I want to turn now to the aspects of the committee's work on which, to my mind at least, its report is less persuasive.
An enormous amount of the committee's energy is devoted to demonstrating that the interrogation techniques used in the program were not effective, and the committee certainly highlights areas in which the CIA stated too confidently that coercive interrogation
I want to begin my review of the SSCI interrogation report and the responses from the CIA and the SSCI minority by addressing the area in which, in my view, the majority report is strongest: the allegation that the treatment of detainees was far more abusive, far less controlled, and far more brutal than the CIA has acknowledged.
It’s now been 10 days since the release of the Executive Summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s (SSCI) study of the CIA detainee program—almost certainly to be known to posterity as the “torture report.” One of the emerging themes of much of the commentary the report has precipitated is what might best be called “torture agnosticism”—where commentators profess that they either don’t or can’t know whether torture is ever “effective,” and so are reluctant to take a categorical position as to the
Polarization surrounding the SSCI Report (see here for Lawfare’s coverage) has been most pronounced on the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs). The Report and its supporters have proclaimed that EITs never produce useful information. Unfortunately, that pat assertion undermines the possibility of a consensus on future interrogation tactics, including a consensus that rules out coercion.
I have now spent enough quality time with the SSCI interrogation report---and with minority views and the CIA response---that I am ready to begin commenting upon it. This is not to say I have finished reading it all; far from it. A plane flight to Israel and a lot of other hours have only gotten me started.
We are told there is a privacy crisis. The Snowden revelation and other such things have given the sense that we are in a crisis. I think what we have is a privacy panic. What I would call the Snowden left, joined by the Tea Party right, are churning this up way past any reasonable limits. And then, of course, the press chimes in because that’s what the press does. The press has not been particularly good on this subject. In fact, as I will illustrate to you, they regularly report some technological innovation or some event and say it raises privacy concerns. Their ability to analyze th