« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Senate Report Accidentally Reveals SERE Instructors Trained CIA Officials In Torture
One of the big revelations to come out of the Senate Armed Services Committee report on so-called aggressive interrogation techniques is an early July 2002 training session where officials from the military's Joint Personnel Recovery Agency (JPRA)--the agency that oversees the SERE training program--provided "assistance to another government agency." Much of this section of the report is blacked out, so I'll connote blacked out sections with asterisks [***], but the report says JPRA was assisting this agency "on topics such as '*** deprivation techniques,' 'exploitation and questioning techniques,' and 'developing countermeasures to resistance techniques.'" According to the report, "[t]he training was intended to "prepare *** officers for rotations in Afghanistan and elsewhere."
Spencer Ackerman reported on this section in detail when the report was first released, noting what has long been reported, but never officially acknowledged. Spencer writes, "a JPRA team assisted a squad from 'another government agency' during the first six months of 2002 that would be 'sent to interrogate a high level al Qaeda operative.'"
"'Another government agency'," Spencer writes, "is a widespread euphemism for the CIA."
Sadly for the government officials who cleared this document for release, they inadvertently acknowledged the name of this other government agency just two pages later.
"The July 16, 2002 after action memo stated that two agency legal personnel were also present for the training. According to the memo, *** personnel 'requested and were granted time to present the legal limits of physiological and psychological pressures that were acceptable at present time.'"
The JPRA instructors who conducted the training did not recall *** lawyers providing any further guidance about how to seek approval for use of the waterboard in an interrogation.However, Chief Counsel to the *** Jonathan Fredman later described an approval process for the use of aggressive interrogation techniques reportedly explaining that "[t]he CIA makes the call internally on most of the types of techniques," but that "[s]ignificantly harsh techniques are approved through the DoJ."
Emphasis mine. Odd that the Pentagon would black out Fredman's title, but not his name. His job at the time is a matter of public record--he was Chief Counsel for the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. And his memo makes clear that the agency concerned about the legality of enhanced interrogation techniques at that training is the CIA.
Note, the fact that the CIA used SERE techniques in its interrogations has long been known, and, as Spencer's article makes clear, it would have been pretty obvious which agency was involved even if the Defense Department had blacked out all identifying information. But they didn't. So can we drop the ruse already.

















Seems to me that what a majority of the people who arguing for torture (never minding that it is unlawful and abhorrent)is that the persons being tortured were not Al Qaeda..they were Iraqi civilians for the most part..(the Bushies, the CIA and the military knew that!) the reason for the torture was to establish a non-existent connection between Hussein and Al Qaeda (on order of the Bush administration)which Bush "lawyers" "justified" in case they were caught..therefore establishing justification for the Bush/Cheney's cabal's invasion of an other wise innocent sovereign nation...they tortured innocent Iraqi civilians and the back-filled it with lies about an Al Qaeda-Hussein link...they smeared and outed Joe Wilsons wife..when he (there were others, but they were also smeared and the "media" got into that smearing mode too) said there was no evidence that Hussein/Iraq was trying to buy "yellow-cake" another lie by the Bushies.."the mushroom cloud" lie..so the two lies that the Bushies needed to convince the American people that an Iraqi invasion was "lawful" and necessary were flat out lies..then they went even further and tortured innocent Iraqi civilians..."good patriotic right-wing Americans"..justify it with.."well, hell..they all look alike and they ARE mostly Muslim!" SICK!
April 24, 2009 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
found a comment on wapo who's comments are ripe with right wing support for torture:
In response to regularly violent/vitriolic right winger comments someone posed a question to those right wingers (one even "threatened" that his angry militia ilk have plans in the making ...and for all of us to "just wait"...and used his real name)
The question was posed for the right wingers to respond:
if psychopath hires lawyer to write down how to ignore/loophole laws in order to be held accountable for mass murder AND lawyer provides a list of handy vocabulary words to avoid the word "murder"
(ie torture renamed enhanced interrogation so Pres can say "America does not torture")
and then document waving psychopath kills and kills again, does psychopath avoid punishment simply because lawyer provided loopholes and a semantic based list to rename "murder"?
Not one of the right wingers responded to that question. The silence was deafening.
April 24, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And of course there has been the running commentary by many in the right, that because the SERE program has been used to train American soldiers that this somehow makes it equivalent. But really how is this case, last time I checked those soldiers who enter into SERE training have done so voluntarily, and none of those captured by US or coalition forces volunteered to be captured then tortured. Also at anytime during their training, which is supervised, the soldier can ask that the training be stopped. Again those captured had neither this luxury nor the former. It is a complete false equivalence. Congrats to Olbermann and Maddow for showing the many instances whereby Americans and foreigners have been convicted for using techniques such as waterboarding. I really do not think there is anyway for AG Holder to not prosecute based in the merits of the evidence. These guys broke Geneva conventions and offered legal advice by which the proverbial "cart was put before the horse".
I see this sort of logic as the same that has pervaded the Climate change debate. The GWB crowd are excellent cherry-pickers and people for which will argue for arguing's sake. Essentially this is exactly the opposite of ethical and sound process because all the matters is finding what one wants to find.
April 24, 2009 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a waste of blog space.
April 25, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is this interpreted as "accidental" disclosure?
I wouldn't necessarily expect Gibbs to give a press briefing to make that point, or a million other potentially relevant points, unless a reporter specifically asks.
It seems the Obama Admin policy is to release information under the presumption the People have a right to know except in specific cases of clear National Security concerns. They're not spoon feeding the information. The idea is reports should read the material, distill it, contextualize it, and actually report.
That seems to have happened here. Yea.
April 26, 2009 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink