The letter below was sent to Senate Judiciary Committee leaders by the undersigned CIA, military, and FBI professionals on Tuesday, September 26, 2006. It is, perhaps, the clearest reasoning I have yet seen regarding reasons to not use torture in the fight against terrorism.

Why still post this on ShadowMonkey when the House and Senate already passed legislation this week on this issue? Because nothing is set in stone; because elections are coming up; because we need to be aware of the advice that our Congress is ignoring. -sm

[ Click here to see who in Congress voted for the Torture Bill ]

[ more reading on this issue ] 

Tuesday 26 September 2006

United States Senate
Committee on the Judiciary
224 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510

The Honorable Arlen Specter, Chairman
The Honorable Patrick J. Leahy, Ranking Democratic Member

Dear Senators:

We write as experienced intelligence and military officers who have served in the frontlines in waging war against communism and Islamic extremism. We fully support the need for proactive operations to identify and disrupt those individuals and organizations who wish to harm our country or its people. We also recognize that intelligence operations, unlike law enforcement initiatives, enjoy more flexibility and less scrutiny, but at the same time must continue to be guided by applicable US law.

We are very concerned that the proposals now before the Congress, concerning how to handle detainees suspected of terrorist activities, run the risk of squandering the greatest resource our country enjoys in fighting the dictators and extremists who want to destroy us — our commitment as a nation to the rule of law and the protection of divinely granted human rights.

Apart from the moral considerations, we believe it is important that the Congress send a clear message that torture is not an effective or useful tactic. As noted recently by the head of Army Intelligence, Lt. Gen. John Kimmons:

No good intelligence is going to come from abusive practices. I think history tells us that. I think the empirical evidence of the last five years, hard years, tells us that.

Our nation was created in response to the abuses visited on our ancestors by the King of England, who claimed the right to enter their homes, to levy taxes at whim, and to jail those perceived as a threat without allowing them to be confronted by their accusers. Now, 230 years later, we find our own President claiming the right to put people in detention centers without legal recourse and to employ interrogation methods that, by any reasonable legal standard, are categorized as torture.

We ask that the Senate lead the way in upholding the principles set forth in the Declaration of Independence and affirmed in the Geneva Conventions regarding the rights of individuals and the obligations of governing authorities towards those in their power. We believe it is important to combat the hatred and vitriol espoused by Islamic extremists, but not at the expense of being viewed as a nation who justifies or excuses torture and incarceration without recourse to a judicial procedure.

The US has been in the forefront of the human rights campaign throughout the 20th century, led by Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. The end of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust inspired the United States to take the lead in making the case that human rights were universal, not parochial. Until recently the policy of our country was that all people, not just citizens of the United States, were entitled to these protections. It is important that the world understand that we remain committed to these principles. In fighting our enemies we must wage this battle in harmony with the traditional values of our society that were enshrined in the opening clause of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

Respectfully yours,

CIA Officers:

Milton Bearden, Directorate of Operations
Ray Close, Directorate of Operations
Vincent Cannistraro, Directorate of Operations
Philip Giraldi, Directorate of Operations
James Marcinkowski, Directorate of Operations
Melissa Mahle, Directorate of Operations
Paul Pillar, Directorate of Intelligence
David MacMichael, Directorate of Intelligence
Melvin Goodman, Directorate of Intelligence
Ray McGovern, Directorate of Intelligence
Mary O. McCarthy, DCI professional staff

US Military and Department of Defense:

W. Patrick Lang, (Colonel, US Army retired, Director Defense Humint Services, retired)
A. D. Ackels, (Colonel, US Army, retired)
Karen Kwiatkowski, (Lt. Colonel, USAF, retired)

US Department of State:

Thomas R. Maertens, Deputy Coordinator, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State
Larry C Johnson, Office of Counter Terrorism, US Department of State

Federal Bureau of Investigation:

Christopher Whitcomb, Hostage Rescue Team

[ comments below ]

Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto:

Comments

Add New Search

Please Don't M R (Unregistered) 2006-09-29 15:58:12 To bring the democracy around the globe, please don't destroy the democracy at home. We and our fore fathers worked so hard to build this. Quote

too late tsal (Unregistered) 2006-09-29 16:15:10 Too late. Quote

um... JJ (Unregistered) 2006-09-29 16:41:15 Odd to be citing Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. I guess they had some redeeming qualities. Well, my main criticism of that Roosevelt was that he was a socialist and not exactly a peace guy. Wilson lied America into World War I "gotta go get that Kaiser guy." Not that the war wouldn't have been any more of a giant slaughter with or without US participation. Quote

JJ, wow.... Sean (Unregistered) 2006-09-29 22:05:31 JJ, you have some interesting viewpoints. So how exactly did Wilson lie the Germans into sinking a US passenger ship and several merchant ships? I'm not really saying the Germans didn't have their reasons, we were supporting our friends by selling them military goods and supplies, even if we were at the same time trying to broker a peaceful end to the war prior to our entry. Oh, and I think you might be confusing your Roosevelts. Usually FDR is the one accused of being a socialist, not Teddy, for all the things he created in the new deal. But then, if you consider FDR a socialist, you must want to eliminate social security, medicare, medicaid, the unemployment insurance system, farm aid, etc. While true socialism in the nature of communism doesn't work, because humans are a greedy species, some socialist programs are necessary to take care of our own. The main fault, I think, is that we don't do enough to help these people to get out from under those programs so they can again be contributing citizens. Quote

CEO Ikey Benney (Unregistered) 2006-09-29 22:27:00 Hello: Thank you for publishing this letter from intelligence agents to US senators. It is interesting and helpful because it reveals the thoughts and political ideology of some of the US government agents who are charged with the difficult task of protecting America. Ikey Benney Quote

3118north joe scott (Unregistered) 2006-09-30 11:03:34 if it takes torture of one terroris to save the life of even one civilized person i say have at it the rest of you bleeding hearts go back to pakistan or iraq or wherever you think life is better Quote

re: 3118north ShadowMonkey (Unregistered) 2006-09-30 11:42:53 Joe: thanks for stopping by and commenting. I don't think anyone here is interested in protecting terrorists. I, for one, would put it this way: the problem is that the tactics used in the pursuit and interrogation of _suspects_ are antithetical to both the ideals upon which our nation was founded and the rule of law. Quote

war Bleeding heart liberal (Unregistered) 2006-09-30 12:35:05 The more you fight your enemy, the more you become like your enemy... Quote

Bleeding heart with a gun ME (Unregistered) 2006-09-30 13:38:20 I think perhaps SpankingMonkey ... oops, ShadowMonkey, like Bush, cannot read. The letter, written by people who are the ones actually fighting the "War on terror", states that torture doesn't accomplish anything useful and that by torturing we become the un "civilized". I wouldn't hesitate to put a bullet through the head of a terrorist who is threatening me, mine, or even your sorry butt. I have served in the Military. Have you? It's because I love this country that I hate to see what it is becoming. Quote

re: Bleeding heart with a gun ShadowMonkey (Unregistered) 2006-09-30 14:43:08 Hmm...thinking you must have misattributed a comment. _I'm_ the one who posted the damn article about torture being wrong. AND regarding your smug comment about your military service: yes. I served in the Army for six years on active duty. Quote

re: Bleeding heart with a gun MR (Unregistered) 2006-10-03 18:49:28 Let me ask instead: have you been tortured? Any torture victim will tell you they much rather get a bullet to their heads instead. The U.S. needs to come to terms with the fact that their political correctness rhetoric is a great mask to their true nature: no different to that of terrorists. The only difference is that one side makes no excuse for their violence; it's right on your face. Quote

Civilized torture? DarqueWing (Author) 2006-10-11 21:01:45 MR, no, I've never been tortured. Nor have I ever served in the military. I'm not cut out for that kind of thing, and I'm willing to admit it. I think the rationale of defense is enough to justify having armed forces filled with expertly trained killers, armed to the teeth and ready to destroy anything, anyone, anywhere, anytime. These are the Dogs of War, after all - let them be vicious. The Dogs of War, however, must have a leash. And that leash must be held by men and women of conscience, people who understand the value of human life and have a vested interest in preserving it however possible. Those trained killers, in a perfect world, will never be used. Diplomacy, rationalization, negotiation - these are the tools of a civilized nation, and the leash can only be cut once all those tools have utterly failed. The very nanosecond that all civilized means of discourse have been eliminated, those Dogs of War must be ready to instantly execute the will of the people. This is why, even though I'm no military man, I'm so proud of those who serve: they have the unenviable task of being a last resort. Despite all the moral objections that prevent me from doing what they do, they manage to not only perform, but to be the absolutely highest-quality, mightiest military force the world has ever known. My own notions of peace, tranquility, and pacifism would be as out of place in the Marines as an M-16 would be in my hands - and that's the way it should be. But torture? Where does that fit into this? Perhaps, to the men and women in uniform, the idea of torture seems quaint compared to the sheer destruction that they are capable of wielding. But to those of us on the other side of the equation, those of us who are ruled by conscience and not by conflict, torture represents a regression to an earlier state of mankind, and can never be a way forward. We're supposed to be better than that, period. The second we start dealing in torture, we're no better off than if Al Qaeda was running the Senate. Torture deserves the same fate as absolute monarchies, slavery, arbitrary executions, and governance by religion: lost to the sands of time, gone, never to be touched again, no matter the cost. Quote

Write comment
Name:
Title:
UBBCode:	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	Enter code:

Powered by JoomlaCommentCopyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved.Homepage: http://cavo.co.nr/