As Capitolists know, a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held a hearing today on the interrogation methods used against detainees in U.S. custody during the Bush administration. The question at hand: Was it torture?

The witnesses included a former counsel to then-Sec. of State Condoleezza Rice, three professors offering legal opinions of interrogation methods described in memos by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), as well as Ali Soufan, a former FBI Special Agent who interrogated terrorist Abu Zubaida. Soufan said he took part in the interrogation of Zubaida until he witnessed government contractors cross the line into what he felt was illegal treatment while questioning Zubaida.

The Rice adviser, Philip Zelikow, described "heated arguments" within the administration about the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and concluded that the past treatment of prisoners represents "a large, collective failure on behalf of many Americans" of both parties.

The opinions of the professors varied widely. Prof. David Luban from Georgetown said the "torture memos" from the OLC were "an ethical train wreck" and accused Bush officials of trying to "reverse engineer" a legal opinion to find a way to make illegal actions legal.

Jeffrey Addicott from St. Mary's University School of Law measured American actions against the definition of torture used by a European court trial of Irish terrorists. He called reports of American torture "propaganda" and concluded, "We have tortured no one." Addicott also said defining American actions as "torture" would then require criminal prosecution of anyone who approved, authorized or engaged in the interrogations.

Prof. Robert Turner from the University of Virginia compared American actions since 2001 to FDR's choice to detain more than 100,000 Japanese Americans after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. "Good people, fearful for the safety of their fellow Americans, made bad decisions."

Finally, Ali Soufan testified from behind a screen to hide his face from public view. He said that, based on his experience interrogating witnesses, methods from the Army Field Manual are designed to "outwit and outsmart" detainees, while enhanced interrogation techniques are meant to force prisoners into submission. He called the latter "amateurish," and said they, "taint sources..risk outcomes...diminish the moral high ground," and finally, are "ineffective."

Despite all that, Soufan said he does not support prosecution of anyone involved in past interrogations, but added, "These were grave mistakes that must never be made again."

Get the new
PD toolbar!


Follow PoliticsDaily On Facebook and Twitter,
and download the new Politics Daily toolbar!