US Senate report has left the CIA embarrassed
A Democrat-led US Senate Intelligence Committee's release of an abridged report that has torn apart the ‘brutal' interrogation techniques the Central Intelligence Agency used against various terror suspects in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, has naturally created a furore. While backers of the move say the exposé will help rein in the CIA, its opponents claim that the public disclosure will demoralise the men and women in the agency who have worked to combat terror in its worst forms and have had to use strong methods to get to the truth. While there is merit in both the arguments, the fact is that the dilemma of what is acceptable and what is crossing the red line is not new to either the CIA or the US Administration.
One of the first challenges President Barack Obama faced when he took over from Mr George W Bush was to confront the allegation against the CIA over ‘water-boarding' and other forms of torture that undertrials charged with terror against the US were subjected to by the intelligence agency's interrogators. Mr leon Panetta, who took over as CIA Director in 2009 after Mr Obama assumed office and remained there until 2011, has referred to excruciating moments when he had to take a call on whether the Government would be right in making public a report on the CIA's tactics — something similar to what we are seeing now.
In his book, Worthy Fights, Mr Panetta, who went on to become the US Secretary of Defence, elaborates on the issue and explains why Mr Obama, despite protests from senior CIA officials, had then decided to release a report indicting the CIA for its methods. While he won many admirers among rights activists and like-minded individuals both within the Congress and outside, he also realised the harm in morale it could cause to the agency's personnel who were, at the end of the day, fighting to keep the US safe from terrorists. It is for this reason that Mr Obama addressed the agency soon after that decision and hailed them for their invaluable contribution. The CIA's then top legal counsel who was caught in a cleft-stick over the issue and tried to balance it out to the best of his ability, the iconic John Rizzo, wrote in his book, Company Man, of the turmoil the CIA's methods during the Bush Administration had caused in the country, leading to critical questions, as also anger and frustration within the agency.
It is unlikely that the matter will be settled either way with the US Senate's recent decision. There will be those who will continue to defend — not the methods but the need to use those extreme methods. And there will be others that will point to the fact that many of the accused subjected to torture were not even involved in the crime. Besides, the US is supposed to stand for liberty and fairness, isn’t itIJ The one good that can come out of the controversy is that the CIA, which has been used even as a tool to disrupt foreign regimes, will become more accountable and less opaque in its dealings.
