Return to story

Dagger in the back

September 1, 2009 1:25 am

ededit01.jpg.jpg

-

MONDAY-MORNING quarter- backing is the favorite sport of politicians and pundits, and decisions made under exigent circumstances often produce fruit ripe for the plucking: the internment of Japanese-Americans after Pearl Harbor, for example, or even the use of atomic weapons to end World War II. Were these decisions reasonable? Just? Ethically defensible?

Not since Imperial Japan's bombers mauled the U.S. Pacific Fleet in 1941 had America sustained an attack like the Sept. 11 assault on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Al-Qaida's brazen targeting of civilians sent tremors through every segment of society. From the White House to the FBI to the CIA to the military, those whose primary mission it is to "preserve, protect, and defend" the United States set their jaws and vowed that never again would terrorists find such easy prey in the American people.

That terrible September day prompted tough decisions. Now, eight years later, the Monday-morning club has officially convened. Attorney General Eric Holder has named a special prosecutor to consider legal action against CIA employees or contractors possibly complicit in "prisoner abuse."

The specifics are contained in a 2004 Justice Department inspector general's report.

For instance, an interrogator told Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed that his children would be killed if there were any more attacks on the United States. "KSM" is the man who planned the destruction of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, where more than 3,000 died, and someone is worried about an oral threat to this monster?

Likewise, a CIA questioner threatened Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who plotted the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole that killed 17 sailors and wounded 39, saying, "we could get your mother in here," implying the potential for sexual assault. Who cares?

The physical acts in the report that some are questioning include placing pressure on a prisoner's carotid artery or "water dousing"--i.e., pouring water over a prisoner for 10 to 15 minutes. Do such methods come close to the horror experienced by the 9/11 victims or the fire and whirring metal that engulfed the crew of the Cole?

In an ideal world, a covert agency and "enhanced interrogation techniques" would not be necessary. Terrorists would not exist. Evil would be constrained and conflicts limited. News flash: This is not an ideal world. Those who want to neuter the CIA must have a death wish. They are entitled to it. They are not entitled to extend it to millions of innocent Americans.

Mr. Holder's decision risks crippling the effectiveness of the CIA, demoralizing career agents, and confusing our allies. The actions he is considering prosecuting passed muster with the Bush Justice Department. By pursuing criminal charges now, Mr. Holder would place CIA operatives on the hot seat (not to mention opening up the possibility of revealing covert agents' identities), a serious breach of faith.

In January, President-elect Barack Obama, speaking to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, said, "At the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe. I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyering."

But Langley necks may as well begin craning and agents lawyering up. Because the promise Mr. Obama made to CIA spooks in April--to "protect your identities and your security as you vigorously pursue your missions"--is now sounding pretty thin.

Granted, decisions made in the after-math of Sept. 11 may now seem extreme. Mr. Obama already has banned the most egregious of these. In his words, it's time to look ahead, not back.





Copyright 2012 The Free Lance-Star Publishing Company.