Congress and Americans Give the Nod To Torture

America tortures people. The debate that has ensued, not the first one in living memory, has different parameters depending on who you speak to. Supporters of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ have continued to highlight the need to leave every option on the table while also claiming that the techniques have yielded results. The opposition to the program is a bit more fracturus. Whether the program brings into question legality, efficacy or morality is something that is not completely agreed upon. First, the findings on what the practice of EIT means.

The Findings

Detainees were not more likely to give up useful information when being physically harmed- that includes Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. And KSM is hardly representative of those who were detained, in fact a large portion of detainees weren’t even affiliated with jihadism. 23% of detainees were cleared of any wrongdoing by the Pentagon. That means that even the hyper cautious over military commissions that are expected to be over zealous before just, have admitted that nearly a quarter of detainees have no connection to terrorism whatsoever.

Despite the revelations that came from the report, torture still has a considerable amount of support from political leaders. Of course, those who were directly involved or created the CIA program continue to defend the techniques as ‘enhanced interrogation’. James Mitchell, a psychologist regarded as the architect of the program, and John Brennan, CIA Director and overseer of these tactics, have gone on the record voicing their opposition to the torture report as something they see as political motivated and out of context. Their justification of EIT has not changed since the initially public discussion in the mid 2000s. The only real difference is that many of the exposed torture techniques have been chalked up to rogue CIA officers. The claim that the CIA acted independently from the White House and the President’s knowledge is heavily disputed. The report revealed that there were details from the EIT program that were not known to the President until 4 years after their implementation. However, according to the breaking coverage from the Intercept ,V P Dick Cheney, CIA Director George Tenet and Nat. Security Advisor Condelezza Rice were aware of the illegal techniques even while they claimed that intelligence agencies used ‘humane’ practices.

Ultimately, it should not matter if the President knew about the CIA program in full. The White House is responsible for what their executive agencies carry out. But it is still worth identifying the role that the White House played in the EIT program because the answer to that shifts the debate. Bush Cabinet officials and agency heads are quickly pushing the blame to lower level officials who committed illegal torture techniques without their authorization. If faceless mid-level CIA personnel acted independently, it would free White House officials from responsibility. From there, a story of isolated incidents and rogue actors is far more dismissible than a story of a corrupt institution and leadership.

Public Opinion on Torture

With so much conflicting information on who gave the orders to torture and how much elected officials knew about the program it makes polling difficult to gauge. The various polls conducted on the matter confirm that US public opinion is frayed on the issue. With any survey, semantics dictate the results- this is especially true when we can’t agree on what to call the practice in question. Respondents to a 2011 Pew poll that used the word ‘torture’ were more likely to express clear opposition to the techniques compared to those who responded to a 2013 AP poll that used the term, ‘harsh interrogation techniques’. Furthermore, there is the question on how to define a respondent’s ‘support’. If someone says that torture is justified ‘Sometimes’, does that necessarily mean that they support the program?

A study by Reed College confirms the long-standing critique of polling, which is that respondents almost never identify with absolutes. A respondent is far more likely to gravitate towards the available moderate answer even when they possess strong feelings on the matter. Broad questions will always receive broad answers, the specific questions are what can elicit one’s beliefs. This is the case with any survey, and is especially true when the definition of ‘torture’ is debatable.

So do Americans support the CIA interrogation program? It’s difficult to say for sure, but signs lead to ‘yes’. When comparing results of 2004 and 2011 Pew polls, public support of torture seems to have grown.  Despite the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report being dubbed as an historical moment, the revelations have not moved the needle of American perception.

In fact, several editorialists view the the Senate Intelligence report itself as a reason why Americans should be proud of their country instead of embarrassed. ‘What nation releases a report with such brutal self-examination? Certainly not those that the terrorists come from!’ is the general gist of the article written by Thomas Friedman. While comparing US policy to that of Middle Eastern dictatorships is probably a dangerous platform, the comments also conflate what the actions of the Senate Intelligence Committee and what their report truly is.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, a bipartisan body that was established in 1976- along with it’s House counterpart- to better monitor the executive’s branch intelligence agencies. After it was revealed that intelligence agencies were involved in the coverup of the Watergate scandal, it became clear that congress needed to monitor the CIA, FBI and NSA on a consistent basis. The SIC has been tested the most since 9/11 as the intelligence community experienced a massive expansion and a significant reduction in regulations. It is unclear how the SIC monitors intelligence agencies since these bodies answer to the executive branch. A Senator cannot give an order to a CIA official, but the SIC does have the ability to check the intelligence community. As legislators their obvious power is to pass laws that restrict their activity. However, congress has never passed any meaningful regulations on intelligence int he last 30 years. After the Edward Snowden revelations, the Senate was close to passing the Intelligence Oversight and Surveillance Reform Act but couldn’t get the votes, that includes SIC chair Dianne Feinstein.

The other way to check the intelligence community is to release information to the public. The scorn of the electorate has repercussions for the President, which in turn affects intelligence gathering. With the recent coverage of the CIA torture report you would think there would be political cover for such a move. But similarly to the legislative angle, the SIC has yet to declassify pertinent information- a power that the committee undoubtedly possesses.

The Senate Intelligence Committee: a history of restraint

Senate Resolution 400, the bill that founded the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1976, outlines how intelligence agencies are suppose to routinely share intelligence that is needed to make sound national security policy. The committee is most empowered by Section 8, a provision that established the process in which a committee member can declassify information that is seen to be in the public interest. Even if the executive branch (usually meaning the very intelligence agencies that are being evaluated) SIC is able to get a Senate floor vote on whether the declassification can happen or not.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Dem. Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, Dem. Chair of Senate Intelligence Committee

While there are hurdles, Section 8 gives the opportunity for intelligence officials to be held accountable in the public square. However, the Senate hasn’t ever been forced to vote on declassifying information because Section 8 has never been enacted before. There have been attempts from lone SIC members to declassify information, but ultimately the committee leaders overruled the request.

So despite the controversial release of the CIA torture report, it is worth noting that the SIC did not share any information that the White House was unwilling to make public. The fact that Section 8 was not employed, coupled with the fact that nothing from the report reflects negatively on the Obama Administration, has only added to the belief by Republican congress members that the report was politically motivated.

The details of the report are gruesome but after examining the process in which the findings were released the report cannot be seen as close to comprehensive. President Obama may certainly view the Bush White House’s interrogation techniques are morally abominable. Simultaneously, the public has no clue if Obama continues to sanction EIT because the SIC refuses to challenge the Executive Branch on what can be released. Considering that the Obama Administration continues the practice of rendition, it is quite likely that torture is still committed even if in an indirect manner. To the contrary of Friedman’s claims of functional checks and balance system for intelligence agencies, the US has shown to mislead the public on it’s practices and the congress is fine with whatever information they are given.

How To Portray the Full Story of Torture

prisoners (4)
Three men recently released from Guantanamo Bay to Uruguay. Another six men have already received asylum in Uruguay in Dec 2014. Miami Herald

None of the opinion polls attempted to gauge surveyed Americans level of knowledge on the torture report. It could very well be that the surveyed Americans had no clue there was new information on the CIA torture program. And it is very likely that Americans are unaware of the Section 8 provision. It should not be expected for every American to read an congressional report most in the country have a minimal interest in politics. In theory the role of the media should be to give a thorough summary of a story, and that entails including all sides of the matter. Unfortunately, western media seldom interviews those who were held in black sites or Guantanamo. This is still the case even after three Guantanamo Bay prisoners, all of whom were detained without charges, have recently been granted asylum in Uruguay. (An accessible destination for foreign journalists). The three individuals, all of whom have legal counsel, may be advised to not speak to the media, especially American organizations. However, I doubt that the few former Guantanamo detainees are not eager to share their stories. It would be interesting to see how public polls are affected after the US hears the side of the tortured.

Seawater=Fuel≠Less Greenhouse Emissions: Why the Pentagon Can’t be Trusted to Take on Climate Change on its Own.

The concept of fuel from seawater seems to be a tool against climate change… until you look into what it entails.

070406-N-5961C-008

After over a decade of research by the US Navy,  technology has been developed that converts the hydrogen and carbon from seawater into fuel. A scale-model replica airplane has been filmed flying using the new seawater fuel. A toy plane is hard to get excited about, but it shows that existing engines can use the energy source without being modified. It’s an impressive breakthrough that once again shows the scale of the Pentagon’s Research and Development wing. Pentagon projects, such as this one, can easily go undetected by mainstream media. The DoD doesn’t need the same level of press coverage that an Apple product requires for market purposes. However, companies just like Apple have benefited from federal programs like Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) which develop some of the world’s most cutting-edge systems. While these innovations came from national security concerns, they are often later applied commercially. (The application of GPS and other satellite-based systems is a perfect example). Seawater fuel may also become available to consumers down the road, but this shouldn’t be confused as good for the environment.

No one can predict with certainty the success of a new piece of innovation, but what is known is that the seawater-to-fuel process is years off from being ready for primetime. Navy researchers believe that US military ships won’t be able to produce their own fuel until the next decade.

This is where skepticism over the story has appeared from environmental activists, and why it’s warranted. Will deriving fuel from seawater actually help fight climate change? Researchers have disseminated the warning for years now that oceans are at their limits of carbon uptake, making the waters more acidic and less able to absorb manmade CO2. So the concept of fuel from seawater seems to be a tool against climate change… until you look into what it entails. The two main problems with this new fuel source is (a) even once we wait for it to be developed, is it worth it? and (b) a branch of the Pentagon controls the fate of the project.

The timeline, as mentioned earlier, shows that this technology is only a novelty for at least another ten years. The Navy has the raw ability to extract hydrocarbons from seawater, but when can we see a ship run off of the water that it takes in? (And in the case of the Navy, an aircraft carrier). It’s horribly counterproductive if the seawater is processed off site then transported to active fleets. The amount of petroleum required to just transport the seawater fuel product to deployed vessels would negate any carbon offset hoped of being achieved. Therefore, the next goal is to give military ships the capability of producing their own seawater fuel with an installation of onboard catalytic converters.

That said, even once on-site production becomes a reality ships will still rely on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, there has been no mention of the catalytic convertors operating off of solar panels- instead the system will run off good ol’ gasoline, the amount of which is currently TBD. So as you can see, seawater-powered fleets is a far cry from a green revolution. But it’s a mistake to think that the US Navy is in the green revolution business. The Department of Defense has been, and will always be, in the business ensuring military readiness and global dominance. When the announcement on this technology was made, an enthuasitic Vice Adm. Philip Cullom explained why this is such a big deal:

“It’s a huge milestone for us,” said Vice Adm. Philip Cullom. “We are in very challenging times where we really do have to think in pretty innovative ways to look at how we create energy, how we value energy and how we consume it. We need to challenge the results of the assumptions that are the result of the last six decades of constant access to cheap, unlimited amounts of fuel.”

I don’t mean to vilify the Vice Admiral, his quote is accurate and honest assessment on how this development will be applied. This article’s purpose is to bring down any giddiness on the prospect of this technology being a move away from fossil fuels. Because as mentioned earlier,  the Department of Defense is in the business of increasing military readiness and global dominance.

Watchdog groups like Project Censored have identified the Department of Defense as the worst polluter in the world, well above the usual suspects of multinationals. I’m sure there are some that see these sorts of reports as far-left hyperbole, but that does not detract from the fact that the US military has an extensive track record of toxic dumping and unprecedented use of fossil fuels. This can be traced from the use of Agent Orange in Vietnam to  Camp Lejeune here in the US. The DoD has shown that the institution does not see a strong connection between protecting the environment and national security. Now climate change is a far greater issue since it poses as an existential threat, and to the Pentagon’s credit they have identified it as such.

lejeune-rally-erin-900

Erin Brokovich standing with prostesters in DC  urging Pres. Obama to help families of Camp Lejeune

So is climate change the issue that will finally get the DoD to start cleaning up its environmental record? There is some optimistic evidence to say yes. Besides the Pentagon’s plans to cope with ensuing rising sea levels, the Obama Administration has made a pointed stance expanding the military’s role in the fight against climate change. In 2010, the Obama Administration announced the directive to get 20% of the DoD’s energy from renewables by 2020. The same administration signed into law the Caring for Camp Lejeune Families Act which grants medical care to those made ill by the Lejeune water supply. Has the Pentagon truly begun to see the national security implications of it’s heinous record of pollution? I argue that the answer is between ‘barely’ and ‘meh’. Climate Change is undoubtedly on the Pentagon’s radar, but so is a zombie apocalypse. Just because the Pentagon is aware of something, doesn’t mean it will act on it- especially if it requires sacrificing the military supremacy.

You know that the Pentagon is acutely aware of the research done on climate change because they have conducted several studies themselves. Establishment R&D groups like the RAND Corporation have been perfunctorily contracted to analyze how the military could reduce it’s carbon footprint. If you take the time to read the exhaustive papers, you can tell that its understood greenhouse emissions have serious consequences for the nation. (No ‘global warming is a hoax’ sentiment in these circles). Unfortunately for climate advocates, the reports that show concern with climate change also strongly advise a continuous reliance on fossil fuels. (If you have time, you should at least read the summary from the RAND report). There are calls for a marginal increase in wind energy, but overall a heavy reliance on fossil fuels for the foreseeable future is the general consensus in the DoD. All hesitancy to use more renewable energy stems from the concern that it will limit the might of the US military. Renewable sources are unable to sustain the growing energy needs and would come at an increased fiscal cost as well. In the same 2011 RAND study, the authors came right out to say that seawater-to-fuel technology would be not be fiscally feasible. (pg 39). Did the authors know about the Navy’s work on the new fuel source? Who knows. What can be assumed is that RAND would probably be opposed to incorporating seawater-to-fuel capabilities if it detracts from military strength simply for greenhouse gas reduction. I apologize for the cynicism, but if solar is considered too cumbersome for RAND, then I’m sure they aren’t going to wait around for seawater fuel).

rand dr strangelove

The guy from Dr. Stranglove was based on a real RAND Corporation adviser

On an optimistic note, there is reason to believe that the Navy won’t be the sole owners of seawater fuel technology forever. As mentioned earlier, the Pentagon has developed some of the most groundbreaking innovations that have instrumental in building our current day economy. (AKA private businesses). ARPANET, a communication system constructed in the 1960s to survive a nuclear attack, was constructed by on the Pentagon’s dime. While it was designed for military purposes it later went on to be the foundation for the world wide web. The internet has been improved upon and expanded through private investment, being fully ingratiated into the world economy. So it’s not farfetched to think that private groups will work to make the seawater-to-fuel conversion a zero-emission process.

The seawater fuel breakthrough isn’t the only prospect the military has in curbing greenhouse emissions. There have been reports that Pentagon is funding research on converting ocean waves and common algae into energy sources as well. They are all exciting projects that have potential to move the country away from fossil fuels. But ‘potential’ doesn’t mean anything until it actually happens. Ultimately, this story shows that the government alone cannot be trusted to solve all problems. A tempered summary but at least it’s accurate.