It’s hardly a secret that the C.I.A. has employed some questionable interrogation methods in the past. In Guantanamo Bay, the Agency’s former detention center, detainees were waterboarded, deprived of sleep and more or less starved out. The C.I.A. justified its actions by stating they were part of a post-911 antiterrorism effort. However, the American people were by and large outraged by the C.I.A’s actions. In reality, a number of the detainees were innocent, and even if they weren’t tortured, it was not justified. Years after the methods at Guantanamo Bay were made public, the Senate is still looking for answers. It hopes to obtain a copy of the C.I.A.’s internal investigation of the interrogations.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s Request
Recently, the Intelligence Committee of the Senate requested that the C.I.A. release its own reports covering the post 9-11 interrogations. The request comes after the Senate released its own 6,000 page report of the C.I.A. interrogations. The report is currently classified, but many suspect it contains harsh criticism of the Agency’s unethical intelligence-gathering methods. The Intelligence Committee hopes the C.I.A.’s reports will shed more light on exactly how and why the brutal interrogations occurred.
The C.I.A. Rebuttal
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the Agency issued a rebuttal to the Senate’s report. In a 122-page response, the C.I.A. questioned the Senate’s data and stated its conclusions were misguided. John O. Brennan, one of President Obama’s former advisers, delivered the Agency’s official statement. C.I.A. employees are not the only ones questioning the Senate’s report, though. Some Republican members of the Senate’s Intelligence Committee believe the report was poorly done and biased against the C.I.A.
Inconsistent Reports?
On the other hand, some believe there is good reason not to trust the C.I.A.’s official statement. Senator Mark Udall, a Colorado Democrat who first revealed the existence of the C.I.A.’s internal review, believes the Agency’s own review will prove strikingly different from its official statements regarding the interrogations. If this is true, there will almost certainly be larger questions to address. One could not help but wonder why the C.I.A. would mislead the government and American public about its interrogations. How was it able to hold a clandestine operation for so long?
President Obama: C.I.A. Critic Turned Ally?
Complicating the debate surrounding the C.I.A.’s policies is the fact that President Obama continues to use the Agency to fight terrorism. As Mr. Obama is a Democrat, this makes the party’s attitude towards the C.I.A. seem inconsistent. A few years ago, President Obama was a harsh critic of C.I.A. interrogation and Guantanamo Bay. One of his first acts as president was to shut down the Agency’s
detention center. The President has stated numerous times that the C.I.A.’s interrogations were unusually cruel and dehumanizing— after all, waterboarding is almost as painful as being run over by Caterpillar equipment.
Despite the pleadings of human rights groups around the world, Mr. Obama has failed to prosecute the lawyers who approved the merciless interrogations. Although he criticized the aggressive counterterrorism efforts of the Bush administration, President Obama has also used the C.I.A. to carry out some similar operations. For example, the Agency has killed a few militant suspects in the Middle East. In light of this, it may seem the President is less willing to get to the bottom of the C.I.A. interrogations than he was previously.
Many Americans agree that torture is never acceptable, no matter the circumstances. If the C.I.A. knew about the unethical interrogations but covered them up, it will be very difficult for the Agency to regain the trust of the American people.