FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The CIA’s Detention and Interrogation Program

by Sen. RUSS FEINGOLD

The President
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Mr. President:

On October 5, 2007, you spoke publicly about the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which I strongly oppose. In defending the program, you stated that “the techniques that we use have been fully disclosed to appropriate members of the United States Congress.” This statement was misleading in at least three respects.

First, despite your reference to information being “fully disclosed,” most of the members of the full Senate Intelligence Committee were not briefed about the program until several years after the program was created. Second, your administration continues to refuse to provide any legal opinions about the program to the Committee. Third, and perhaps most importantly, your statement implied that members of Congress have consented or acquiesced to the program or the techniques. As senior Administration officials are well aware, I have vigorously opposed the program, and continue to do so. The program is of highly questionable legality, it is inconsistent with our values as a nation, and it does not make our nation any safer. In fact, I believe that it may have the effect of exposing Americans- including military and other U.S. personnel to greater risk. As I stated earlier this year, “detainees should never be interrogated except as authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.”

I have detailed the bases for my strong objections to the CIA’s program in classified correspondence, sent shortly after I was first briefed on it. More recently, I have stated my opposition publicly, although I am prohibited by classification rules from providing further details about my concerns in a public setting.

Your words and actions have prevented both Congress and the public from having the full, informed debate that this important topic deserves. The program should have been briefed to the full Senate Intelligence Committee at the outset, and the continued failure of your Administration to provide the Committee with any relevant Department of Justice legal opinions is entirely unjustified. Furthermore, while I strongly believe that the Army Field Manual should govern all interrogations, if you truly believed that the procedures authorized in that Manual were inadequate for certain terrorist suspects, you should have explained your position to Congress and the American people from the outset. I hope that you will finally provide that explanation now. Americans deserve more than misleading statements and euphemistic references to “alternative interrogation techniques.”

The threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates is our top national security priority. Like all Americans, I believe that suspected terrorists should be detained and questioned, but I must strongly oppose a program that is based on such questionable legal, moral and national security grounds.

Respectfully,

Russell D. Feingold
U.S. Senator

 

More articles by:

Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., is a member of the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.

Weekend Edition
February 23, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Richard D. Wolff
Capitalism as Obstacle to Equality and Democracy: the US Story
Paul Street
Where’s the Beef Stroganoff? Eight Sacrilegious Reflections on Russiagate
Jeffrey St. Clair
They Came, They Saw, They Tweeted
Andrew Levine
Their Meddlers and Ours
Charles Pierson
Nuclear Nonproliferation, American Style
Joseph Essertier
Why Japan’s Ultranationalists Hate the Olympic Truce
W. T. Whitney
US and Allies Look to Military Intervention in Venezuela
John Laforge
Maybe All Threats of Mass Destruction are “Mentally Deranged”
Matthew Stevenson
Why Vietnam Still Matters: an American Reckoning
David Rosen
For Some Reason, Being White Still Matters
Robert Fantina
Nikki Haley: the U.S. Embarrassment at the United Nations
Joyce Nelson
Why Mueller’s Indictments Are Hugely Important
Joshua Frank
Pearl Jam, Will You Help Stop Sen. Tester From Destroying Montana’s Public Lands?
Dana E. Abizaid
The Attack on Historical Perspective
Conn Hallinan
Immigration and the Italian Elections
George Ochenski
The Great Danger of Anthropocentricity
Pete Dolack
China Can’t Save Capitalism from Environmental Destruction
Joseph Natoli
Broken Lives
Manuel García, Jr.
Why Did Russia Vote For Trump?
Geoff Dutton
One Regime to Rule Them All
Torkil Lauesen – Gabriel Kuhn
Radical Theory and Academia: a Thorny Relationship
Wilfred Burchett
Vietnam Will Win: The Work of Persuasion
Thomas Klikauer
Umberto Eco and Germany’s New Fascism
George Burchett
La Folie Des Grandeurs
Howard Lisnoff
Minister of War
Eileen Appelbaum
Why Trump’s Plan Won’t Solve the Problems of America’s Crumbling Infrastructure
Ramzy Baroud
More Than a Fight over Couscous: Why the Palestinian Narrative Must Be Embraced
Jill Richardson
Mass Shootings Shouldn’t Be the Only Time We Talk About Mental Illness
Jessicah Pierre
Racism is Killing African American Mothers
Steve Horn
Wyoming Now Third State to Propose ALEC Bill Cracking Down on Pipeline Protests
David Griscom
When ‘Fake News’ is Good For Business
Barton Kunstler
Brainwashed Nation
Griffin Bird
I’m an Eagle Scout and I Don’t Want Pipelines in My Wilderness
Edward Curtin
The Coming Wars to End All Wars
Missy Comley Beattie
Message To New Activists
Jonah Raskin
Literary Hubbub in Sonoma: Novel about Mrs. Jack London Roils the Faithful
Binoy Kampmark
Frontiersman of the Internet: John Perry Barlow
Chelli Stanley
The Mirrors of Palestine
James McEnteer
How Brexit Won World War Two
Ralph Nader
Absorbing the Irresistible Consumer Reports Magazine
Cesar Chelala
A Word I Shouldn’t Use
Louis Proyect
Marx at the Movies
Osha Neumann
A White Guy Watches “The Black Panther”
Stephen Cooper
Rebel Talk with Nattali Rize: the Interview
David Yearsley
Market Music
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail