Reuters: Lawyer David Remes, the New York Times’s authority on Gitmo and the Justice Department

By Thomas Joscelyn

John Schwartz of the New York Times has published a piece on the reaction of some conservatives to an ad by Keep America Safe asking for the DOJ to identify government lawyers who previously represented or advocated on behalf of terrorists. The Times, of course, was eager to highlight dissent within conservatives’ ranks over the controversial advertisement.
 
The conservative critics argue that the lawyers’ work on behalf of detainees is a strictly noble pursuit. They point to John Adams’ representation of British soldiers after the Boston massacre as evidence that the lawyers are simply the heirs of a longstanding and honorable legal process. The comparison is absurd for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that Adams did not represent America’s enemies during an actual war, as the lawyers in question have.
 
But the Times article also ends with this:

David Remes, a lawyer who represents 18 detainees, said in a telephone interview from Guantánamo that the deeper point of the attack on the lawyers was political.

The goal, Mr. Remes suggested, “was to make the Obama administration and the Justice Department even more gun-shy than they are on Guantánamo issues.”

What do the conservative lawyers think of David Remes?
 
He is no John Adams.
 
What the Times does not say is that Remes used to work for Attorney General Eric Holder’s old law firm, Covington & Burling. Remes left the firm after an infamous pants-dropping incident in Yemen in 2008.
 
Keep in mind that Yemen is currently home to one of the strongest al Qaeda affiliates in the world — and has been a major recruiting hub for al Qaeda for two decades. That’s why so many Yemenis ended up at Guantanamo in the first place (they comprise more than 40 percent of the current population). To this day, Osama bin Laden maintains deep and troubling ties within the country.
 
According to the Wall Street Journal’s Law Blog (LB), here is how Remes explained why he dropped his pants (emphasis added):
 

“At the press conference in Yemen — this is a society where the rule of morality is so strict — I wanted to drive home the degree of humiliation that these searches cause by illustrating a typical body search,” Remes told the LB. “The physical abuse they can stand. The verbal abuse they can stand. But when the military punishes Muslim men by shaving off their beard, or by forcing them to disrobe — for a Muslim man that is a thousand times more cutting than a Westerner can imagine. . .I wish people paid as much attention to the suffering and torment in Guantanamo as they paid to the way I sought to dramatize it.”

 
In other words, on behalf of his Yemeni clients, Remes wanted to demonstrate how anti-Muslim the American military is at Guantanamo. He said this during a time of war, in one of the growing fronts of that war. This does not advance America’s interests or legal process. It harms her image further in the Muslim world. Yet, some lawyers will undoubtedly justify this as a service to Remes’ clients.
 
Would John Adams have dropped his pants inside Britain during the Revolutionary War in order to smear American forces and gain sympathy for his clients? No, that was not how the revolutionary John Adams behaved.
 
To drive home the point, Remes gave an interview to the Yemen Post that same month, during which he said (emphasis added):

They said that in addition to the bad conditions they face every day, they now go through constant physical body searches. They are searched before they enter every room. The search involves pulling down their trousers and having guard’s hands enter inside their underwear, and that is a terrible violation of the personal dignity of these men in particular, and because of their religious beliefs they feel strongly offended and increases their misery. Another complain (sic) that they told me was the punishment of forced nudity they were forced to go through. This clearly violates the Geneva Convention. This is all humiliation. In addition, it seems that this humiliation is done for the sake of humiliation. It is not physical torture only, but physiological torture as well. 

 
Again, Remes portrayed American military personnel at Gitmo as being anti-Muslim. In reality, Gitmo has long been compliant with the Geneva Convention. The idea that the American military is humiliating Muslims just for the “sake of humiliation” is a disgusting smear.
 
During another interview with the Yemen Observer in July 2008, Remes played the blame Bush game and said America has a “neocolonial mentality.” He said shaving detainees’ beards was a tactic comparable to those “practiced by the Nazis against Jews in the 1930’s.”
 
Again, this type of inflammatory rhetoric does not serve some noble legal process. It adds to the well of anti-Americanism that exists in Yemen and throughout the Muslim world.
 
In the same Yemen Observer interview, Remes described his clients as innocents who are wrongly detained. “Crimes against the US would consist of September 11, the attacks on US Embassies and the attacks to the USS Cole. One of my clients is Abdul-Slam al-Hailah. Is he a terrorist? He is a prominent businessman from Sana’a, very influential, very much respected, and well-connected,” Remes said.
 
The name of the detainee Remes referred to can also be rendered as Abdul al Salam al Hilal. To answer Remes’ question: Yes, there is every indication that al Hilal is a terrorist – and an important one at that.
 
Steve Hayes and I previously profiled him for The Weekly Standard. According to documents produced at Gitmo, U.S. intelligence authorities concluded that while al Hilal worked for the Yemeni government’s political security organization (PSO) he used his well-placed position to move al Qaeda terrorists around and get some freed from jail.
 
In the summer of 2000, al Hilal visited the Islamic Cultural Institute in Milan, which was used by al Qaeda to recruit and facilitate the movement of terrorists around the globe. The Italians monitored the institute for some time and shut it down (at least for a time) after the September 11 attacks. The Italians wiretapped the institute, and found al Hilal saying:

Well, I am studying airplanes! If it is God’s will, I hope to bring you a window or a piece of a plane next time I see you. .  .  . We are focusing on the air alone. .  .  . It is something terrifying, something that moves from south to north and from east to west: the man who devised the program is a lunatic, but he is a genius. It will leave them stunned. .  .  . We can fight any force using candles and planes. They will not be able to halt us, not even with their heaviest weapons. We just have to strike at them, and hold our heads high. Remember, the danger at the airports. If it comes off, it will be reported in all the world’s papers. The Americans have come into Europe to weaken us, but our target is now the sky.

 
This was well in advance of the September 11 attacks. That quote, as well other evidence and allegations pertaining to al Hilal’s case, is freely available on the Times’ web site. It is easy to see why U.S. intelligence officials concluded that the Milan wiretaps, including the one cited above, “link the alleged Milan al Qaeda cell to the 11 September 2001 massacres in the United States.”
 
But the Times isn’t interested in that story — or how Remes has slandered American troops and pretended that bad men are innocent Muslims detained by the “neocolonial” American empire.
 
The paper is only interested in the conservatives’ infighting and the conservatives cited aren’t really interested in the actual facts of what the lawyers they defend have been doing all these years.
 
John Adams would be ashamed.

By Douglas J. Hagmann

10 March 2010: A four-count count indictment issued against Colleen Renee LaRose, 46, formerly of 429 Main Street, Pennsburg, Pennsylvania was unsealed yesterday by federal authorities in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The indictment charges LaRose with one count each of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, conspiracy to kill in a foreign country, making false statements to a government official and attempted identity theft.  The indictment also references five other co-conspirators, including one who resides in the U.S., although none of the five were identified by name.

LaRose came to the attention of federal authorities in 2008, when she allegedly began using the internet to solicit financial and material support to wage Jihad, or holy Islamic war against the West. Using the internet pseudonyms “JihadJane” and “Fatima Rose,” LaRose posted on Islamic internet forums, YouTube and FaceBook in an attempt to befriend and rally like-minded Muslims to her cause. She expressed her desire to advance Islamic holy war and become a shahed, or martyr for Islam. Others living within and outside of the U.S. answered her calls, and she began to put her alleged murderous plans into action.

Her online activities abruptly stopped she was arrested by federal authorities in on October 15, 2009, on charges of transferring a stolen U.S. passport to a co-conspirator. Following her arrest, she was incarcerated at the Federal Detention Center (FDC) in Philadelphia where she currently remains.

The indictment released Tuesday offers only a limited glimpse into the activities and ambitions of Colleen LaRose. Her path to “Islamic jihad” is neither exclusive nor exceptional, despite her U.S. citizenship and decidedly Western appearance. In fact, the case of Colleen LaRose can be an example of an emerging breed of Islamic terrorists and a template illustrating the developing threat posed by an ideology motivated by hatred.

The road to jihad

Diminutive at 4’11” tall, with dark blond hair and green eyes, Colleen Renee LaRose most recently lived in a second-floor apartment at this four-unit brick apartment house in the town of Pennsburg, , a rural community located north of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. She resided there with her cats and for a time with a boyfriend and his ill father after living in San Angelo, Texas for several years.

In Texas, she lived at 305 N. Schroeder Avenue, San Angelo, with her husband Rudolpho CAVAZOS until her divorce in 1998, although maintained that surname as well as other aliases and variations of her name. In 1997, she was convicted of a class B misdemeanor for passing a bad check. According to court records, an open warrant still exists for her in the state of Texas stemming from that case. She was also convicted of driving under the influence.

LaRose reportedly converted to Islam as a result of her relationship with a male companion. Over the last few years, she began to become active in Islamic forums and web sites, embracing the ideology while living a rather unremarkable life and blending with the landscape of suburban sprawl in America.

Information obtained exclusively by this investigator from a federal source involved in this investigation provided insight into LaRose’s path from an American suburbanite to alleged terrorist, as well as the ensuing investigation leading to her indictment.

In June 2008, LaRose posted an entry on the internet site YouTube under the pseudonym “JihadJane,” writing that she wanted to help the “suffering Muslim people.” Following the posting of the video and her statement, federal agents began and maintained surveillance of the video and postings, including LaRose’s writiings.

It was not until December 2008 that the posting by LaRose received a response by a co-conspirator in “a south Asian county” who expressed a desire to also wage jihad and become a martyr. It is relevant to note that the lapse between June and December 2008 was caused, in part, by self-proclaimed “cyber vigilantes” intent on “taking down” such postings to “fight against jihad.” Those activities also caused interruptions of proactive monitoring of the seditious activity by federal intelligence officials – an issue coincidently addressed in this article by this author.

From December 2008 through March 2009, LaRose communicated via the internet with other Muslim terrorists and supporters, arranging for financing, training and travel to advance Islamic jihad. One of the communications between LaRose and an unidentified co-conspirator referenced the plan for LaRose to marry the co-conspirator to secure his residency in a European country. Meanwhile, LaRose sought information from the Swedish Embassy, inquiring how to obtain permanent residency status in Sweden.

Also in March, LaRose reportedly received instructions to travel to Sweden for the alleged purpose of murdering an individual there. In a series of communications on March 22, 2009 between LaRose and a co-conspirator and Islamic terrorist identified as CC#3 in the indictment, CC#3 directed LaRose to murder an individual in Sweden, killing him “in a way that the whole Kufar [non-believer] world would get frightened.”

Based on a confirmation received by this author from a federal source, her mission was to murder Lars Vilks, an artist who drew a picture of the head of Muhammed on the body of a dog. That depiction of Muhammed angered Muslims throughout Europe, much like the Danish cartoon controversy. LaRose agreed to do so, writing “I will make this my goal till I achieve it or die trying,” according to the indictment.

On August 23, 2009, LaRose allegedly stole the passport from the male with whom she resided, removed the hard drive from her computer in an attempt to conceal her plans, and embarked on her journey to Europe. Later that month, she she traveled to Europe “with the intent to live and train with jihadists” and to “find and kill” Vilks. Within two weeks, she joined an online community hosted by Vilks and eventually moved into Vilks’ artist enclave in Sweden.

For the next few weeks, LaRose waited for final authorization from her terrorist contacts. On September 25, 2009, she reportedly received a communication stating that “The brothers are ready,” and a request that she send money to her contact in Somalia, reportedly a member of the al Shabaab terrorist organization. In a follow-up communication five days later, LaRose stated that she considered it “an honor and great pleasure to die or kill” for her terrorist contact, adding that “only death will stop me here that I am so close to the target,” according to the indictment.

LaRose never executed her plan to murder Vilks, and federal officials are not releasing additional information about the events that followed, citing the ongoing nature of this investigation and additional pending arrests. What is clear is that LaRose traveled back to the U.S. in the days that followed, and was arrested by federal officials in Philadelphia on October 15, 2009.

What is also clear is that LaRose is not the only American being motivated to Islamic jihad. The road to jihad is a busy one, and until the West understands and acts upon the peril we face, there will many others answering the call to jihad.

CNN: The Corrie’s civil suit against Israel’s defense ministry starts in Haifa, Israel, on Wednesday.

———————————————-

The terrorist supporting Corrie’s want Israel to pay for their terrorist daughter’s death. Anti-Israeli Leftist main stream media won’t tell you the truth about Rachel Corrie, but Discover the Networks will.  Read all about Rachel

Rachel Corrie burns a mock American flag in front of future terrorists, Palestinian kids

Buh Bye:Dead POS terrorist Rachel Corrie

BBC

Tibet’s spiritual leader has said China is trying to “annihilate Buddhism”, as the region marks the anniversary of a failed revolt against China in 1959.

The Dalai Lama’s comments come as Tibetans also mark the anniversary of the bloody riots in 2008, which were crushed by Beijing.

China has stepped up security in Tibet’s capital Lhasa amid fears of fresh protests, local residents say.

Beijing considers the Dalai Lama, who lives in exile, a separatist.

The Dalai Lama, who fled Tibet in 1959 and has since been living in India, says he only wants autonomy for Tibet within China.

Beijing says that rioters in Tibet killed at least 19 people in 2008, but Tibetan exiles say Chinese security forces killed dozens of protesters. It was the worst unrest in Tibet for 20 years.

‘Prison-like conditions’

In his annual address on the 51st anniversary of the Tibetan uprising, the Dalai Lama stated that “whether the Chinese government acknowledges it or not, there is a serious problem in Tibet”.

“The Chinese authorities are conducting various political campaigns, including a campaign of patriotic re-education, in many monasteries in Tibet.

“They are putting the monks and nuns in prison-like conditions, depriving them the opportunity to study and practise in peace. These conditions make the monasteries function more like museums and are intended to deliberately annihilate Buddhism.”

He also accused Beijing of deploying large number of troops across Tibet and placing restrictions on travel in the region.

But the spiritual leader pledged to continue his policy of “the dialogue” with China.

Dawn Johnsen

(CNSNews.com) – The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday voted 12-7 along party lines for the full Senate to cast an up-or-down vote on Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. It was the second time since President Obama first nominated Johnsen one year ago that the committee has approved her nomination.
 
Johnsen, a law professor at Indiana University, had to be re-nominated by President Barack Obama after the Senate failed to vote on her appointment before its winter recess.
 
The Office of Legal Counsel provides authoritative legal advice to the president and all the Executive Branch agencies, reviewing all executive orders and proclamations to be issued by the president, the Justice Department Web site says. The office also provides legal advice to the Executive Branch on all constitutional questions and reviews the constitutionality of pending legislation.

Republican committee members who oppose the nomination made it clear that they believe Johnsen’s past activism with liberal groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union and her pro-abortion stance disqualify her for the post.
 
“She has aggressively opposed even modest restrictions on abortion, such as partial birth abortion, and parental involvement,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said at Thursday’s  hearing.
 
He cited a legal brief co-authored by Johnsen that said public facilities and public funding should be used for abortions.
 
“She made the argument that, quote, ‘legal abortion remains safer than childhood,’ end of quote.” Grassley said. “And that bans on abortion might undermine the 13^th Amendment, which bans slavery. And that, quote, ‘forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continual physical service to the fetus in order to further the state’s asserted interest,’ end of quote.”

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) voted against Johnsen’s nonimation by proxy on Thursday, issuing a statement to explain his opposition:  “Ms. Johnsen’s statements demonstrate a record of extremism and blatant partisanship on sensitive issues such as abortion and voting rights,” Coburn said. “As a strong pro-life advocate, physician, and originalist, I cannot, in good conscience, support her nomination.”
 
Republicans said Johnsen’s approach to national security also concerns them.

“As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Johnsen would be the senior official responsible for making legal judgments in the war on terror,” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) said. “But her alarming record should disqualify her from this crucial role.
 
“Her sweeping condemnations of counterterrorism policies have been factually and legally wrong — and clearly tinted through the lens of her leftist agenda,” Sessions added.
 
“Professor Johnsen has spent nearly 20 years using legal analysis advancing far-left causes, and often dismisses outright views with which she disagrees,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said. “She has every right to be an ideological legal activist, but not as head of the Office of Legal Counsel. Democrats said for years that the Justice Department generally, and Office of Legal Counsel specifically, must be devoid of politics and ideology and Professor Johnsen fails that test.”

But Democrats argued that Johnsen is highly qualified for the position, given her service in the same office during the Clinton administration. They also said her liberal views don’t present a conflict.
 
“So what?” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said of the liberal opinions Johnsen has expressed in past papers and speeches. Feinstein said she believed Johnsen could still be objective in her new role. “It doesn’t mean that she cannot make the change,” Feinstein said.
 
“This is a very brilliant woman,” Feinstein said. “She has written some very strong writings. She happens to oppose the concept of the unitary executive, which many of us do.”
 
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said there is nothing wrong with Johnsen’s views on war. “As one of the 23 senators that voted against the war in Iraq, I guess I’m an anti-war activist,” Durbin said.
 
But Republicans – who were denied a request for a second hearing on Johnsen’s re-nomination – said the nominee’s stance on security and social issues are valid reasons for opposing her nomination.

“The selection of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel is one of the most partisan nominations the resident has made,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Ariz.) said. “Given her troubling legal views on terrorism, her documented history of allowing political preferences to infect her legal positions, and her startling views on abortion, it should come as no surprise that her nomination once again did not receive a single Republican vote in the Judiciary Committee.”
 
“The Office of Legal Counsel is supposed to be objective and free from partisan motive,” Grassley said. “I’m concerned that Dawn Johnsen’s politics will inappropriately influence her legal analysis and severely undermine the neutrality of this important office.”

———————————————-

Lots of  info on Johnsen from Discover The Networks

Van Jones, President Obama’s former “green jobs” czar and a newly appointed Princeton lecturer, has a history of sparking protests against universities and previously slammed non-activist students as “worthless people” obtaining “worthless degrees,” WND has learned.

Jones also implied a university education must help students become “revolutionaries.”

Read More

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

By Marcus Klöckner– Stars and Stripes

KAISERSLAUTERN, Germany — When Germany first agreed to send soldiers to Afghanistan in 2002, politicians called it a “stabilization mission.”

After the first German soldiers died in the fighting, they started calling it a “robust stabilization mission.”

And after German officers ordered a U.S. airstrike in northern Afghanistan last September that killed at least 140 people, including civilians, the defense minister offered yet another description of the conflict: a “warlike situation.”

For Germany, Afghanistan is a war by any other name. And the nation’s participation in the conflict is prompting soul-searching by a people who are perpetually repenting for having launched two world wars.

“We are dealing with a society that lost two big wars,” said Hans-Georg Ehrhart, an analyst with the Institute for Peace and Security Studies, a think tank in Hamburg. “We are dealing with a society that in the aftermath of World War II was re-educated, a society that was told over and over again how bad a war is, and now this society [is being told it] should greatly approve if their soldiers get involved in combat situations,”

Germany has the third-largest foreign presence in Afghanistan. A total of 34 German soldiers have died in combat.

On Friday, the German parliament approved Chancellor Angela Merkel’s request for 850 more soldiers, raising the maximum number allowed to serve in Afghanistan from 4,500 to 5,350.

But the proceedings were not without drama; the Left party protested, holding up placards with the names of people killed in the Kunduz bombing.

Party members were initially sent out of the debate before being allowed to return and cast their votes.

There’s a disconnect between the German public and their elected representatives in parliament, who mostly approve of the mission, according to Ehrhart.

“It is no wonder under such circumstances the people have a critical eye on their government and its decisions regarding Afghanistan,” he said.

Seventy-one percent of Germans favor a withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan, according to a January poll commissioned by Germany’s public TV station ARD.

And 79 percent opposed adding more troops to the 4,500 there, according to a Forsa Institute poll conducted Jan. 20-21, The Associated Press reported.

Apart from the Germans’ own casualties, analysts say that the killing of civilians in the ill-fated airstrike in Kunduz is eroding support for the war.

The bombing of two stolen fuel trucks in Kunduz province has prompted six separate investigations, including one by the German parliament. It has also led to the resignations of Germany’s minister of defense, his assistant minister of defense and the nation’s highest-ranking soldier amid accusations they withheld information about the civilian deaths from lawmakers.

Insurgents stole two Afghan fuel trucks several miles from a German base in Kunduz on Sept. 3, killing one of the drivers. The German commander, Col. Georg Klein, ordered the airstrike, reportedly after receiving warnings that the trucks would be used to attack his facility. Two 500-pound bombs were dropped, killing civilians and Taliban members. The bombing happened just two months after the top commander in Afghanistan, U.S. Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, issued a directive making it a priority to minimize “the risk to the civilian population as a result of the use of force.”

It could take a year for the special committee set up by Parliament to investigate the Kunduz incident and the government’s handling of it, according to Green Party parliament member Omni Nouripour.

“I have so many questions, the others in the commission also have many questions, I do not think that the investigation can be done quickly,” he said.

The panel is expected to ask McChrystal and the U.S. pilots to testify, although the general isn’t open to the idea.

“I would not want to enter the German intelligence and political debate,” McChrystal told Stars and Stripes in a recent interview. “I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to do that.”

If nothing else, the Kunduz incident has driven home to Germans the potential for horrid, unexpected things to happen in a war — something the public seems genuinely distressed by.

Ehrhart said that before the Kunduz incident, the Germans were very quick to criticize Americans over collateral damage.

“Now we have to realize that the German military have caused the deaths of civilians,” he said. “We are involved in a martial conflict with all its effects.”

But there’s a positive, he said. “The Kunduz incident has finally triggered a debate in Germany on the Afghanistan mission that actually should have taken place years ago.”

The intelligence community is at risk if proposed legislation is passed.

BY Stephen F. Hayes and Thomas Joscelyn

Late Wednesday, congressional Democrats inserted (at the last minute) a section into the intelligence authorization bill titled, “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010.” The section ostensibly outlaws the types of interrogation tactics (e.g. waterboarding) used by CIA interrogators on senior al Qaeda terrorists and even specifies prison sentences starting at a minimum of 15 years for those who do.

But, why are Democrats doing this now? No detainee has been waterboarded for years. And President Obama took the so-called enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) off the table in January 2009, when he issued an executive order limiting interrogators to the Army Field Manual. So, we can be certain that the most controversial techniques are not being employed currently anyway.

Moreover, congressional Democrats had the opportunity to object to the EITs when they were actually being employed. Senior congressional leaders from both parties were briefed on the EITs on numerous occasions and the Democrats did not object. (The closest they apparently got was a letter from Congresswoman Jane Harman in 2003 – which is not really an objection at all.)

Ironically, congressional sources say the Republicans tried to introduce a measure that would have provided for additional disclosure of the EIT briefings, but the Democrats rejected it.

So, again, why are the Democrats doing this now?

It is not clear. But the Act has implications that go far beyond the use of the EITs. 

There is great ambiguity over what constitutes “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” treatment. And the Act does nothing to clear up this gray area. The Act specifies certain techniques the Democrats think should be off limits, but those techniques are not clearly defined. For example, the Democrats want “prolonged isolation” to be criminalized as an interrogation technique. But “prolonged isolation” is not defined further and could be interpreted any number of ways.

In the criminal justice system, it is worth remembering, solitary confinement is typically used as a disciplinary tool. Here, in the interrogation context, it may very well rise to the level of “torture” under the Democrats’ open-ended phrase “prolonged isolation.”

The same goes for “depriving the individual of necessary food, water, sleep, or medical care.” Where does one draw the line on the amount of “necessary” sleep? Let’s say interrogators are questioning a detainee late into the night, and he says he is tired and wants to go to sleep. Are interrogators supposed to stop questioning him – even if they think he has timely, actionable intelligence on an impending attack? Is 6 hours of sleep per night sufficient, or do detainees need 8?

The Act prohibits interrogators from “[e]xploiting phobias of the individual.” But federal authorities threatened to place Najibullah Zazi’s mother in jail as a coercive measure to induce cooperation. While this was perhaps not one of Zazi’s “phobias,” it certainly was something that caused him great fear – enough reportedly to get him to cooperate. What constitutes a “phobia?” Are all of the detainee’s fears (e.g. spending a lifetime in jail) off-limits? 

The Act also prohibits all hooding of detainees. Hooding is frequently necessary when moving detainees for a variety of security reasons, but that is now torture according to congressional Democrats.  

After listing a number of ill-defined techniques that would now be criminal, the Democrats warn that “[a]ny act that causes pain or suffering to an individual equivalent to the acts described” would also earn an interrogator a prison sentence. But this just adds to the ambiguity as this could be construed to include all sorts of mild interrogation tactics that fall far short of “cruel, inhuman and degrading.”

This is a real problem. If this Act becomes law, it will surely cause confusion for interrogators who want to know where the line is, precisely, lest they be thrown in jail. This creates risk aversion among interrogators where none is warranted.

The Act also contains this sentence: “The moral standards that reflect the values of the United States governing appropriate tactics for interrogations do not change according to the dangers that we face as a nation.”

With that, the Democrats would like to short-circuit the lively debate in this nation over whether the unique circumstances of the post-9/11 world required interrogation techniques beyond the Army Field Manual and the FBI’s tactics.  The CIA and the previous administration determined that yes, in fact, alternative interrogation techniques were required. But now, years after the fact, and after having failed to object previously, congressional Democrats want to change the answer to “No.”

More importantly, suppose President Obama or another future president decides that more aggressive interrogation techniques are necessary to get a dangerous, high value detainee to talk. The president would now have to get Congress to repeal its ill-informed law just to progress with the senior terrorist’s interrogation. (It is one thing for a president to rescind an executive order. It is quite another to get Congress to change its laws.) 

Then, there is this “finding”:

Torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment do not produce consistently reliable information and intelligence, and are not acceptable practices because their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.

Many of the most severe techniques the Democrats include in the “torture…cruel, inhuman, and degrading” category were used on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. In the days, weeks, and months following the most severe interrogations of KSM, numerous terrorists were rounded up and terrorist attacks foiled. (See, for example, here and here.) The CIA has consistently pointed to the value of the intelligence gleaned from senior al Qaeda terrorists placed in the enhanced interrogation program. And even President Obama’s own Director of National Intelligence, Dennis Blair, has conceded that the interrogations using EITs produced “high value” intelligence.  

Therefore, it is simply dishonest to claim that these techniques, as employed by the CIA’s professionals, did not “produce consistently reliable information and intelligence.”

There is plenty of room for honest debate on interrogations, including what techniques should and should not be used. But the congressional Democrats apparently do not want to have that debate and instead prefer to use underhanded legislative tactics.