Why Obama Saying ‘Torture’ Matters

On Friday, the president went further than Senate Intelligence in harshly characterizing CIA abuses, making a powerful statement in the process.

National Journal
James Oliphant
Aug. 1, 2014, 12:47 p.m.

Fri­day wasn’t the first time Pres­id­ent Obama used the word “tor­ture” to de­scribe the “en­hanced in­ter­rog­a­tion tech­niques” used by the Cent­ral In­tel­li­gence Agency against ter­ror­ism sus­pects, but this time might be the most mean­ing­ful.

Obama’s re­marks came at the end of an im­promptu ses­sion with re­port­ers in the White House brief­ing room. Asked about a clas­si­fied Sen­ate re­port that delved in­to CIA ac­tions dur­ing the Bush ad­min­is­tra­tion, the pres­id­ent re­spon­ded by say­ing the re­port con­cluded that in the af­ter­math of the 9/11 at­tacks, “we did some things that were wrong. We did a whole lot of things that were right, but we tor­tured some folks. We did some things that were con­trary to our val­ues.”

Obama made sim­il­ar re­marks last year in a speech at the Na­tion­al De­fense Uni­versity — and, as far back as 2009, he re­ferred to “wa­ter­board­ing” as tor­ture. But it car­ries great­er weight now, with the ex­pect­a­tion that por­tions of the Sen­ate re­port will be de­clas­si­fied in the com­ing days at the ur­ging of the White House.

That re­port, which chron­icles a series of CIA ab­uses, does not use the word “tor­ture” to char­ac­ter­ize ex­cess­ive in­ter­rog­a­tion prac­tices, ac­cord­ing to The Daily Beast. Sen. Di­anne Fein­stein, the chair­wo­man of the Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee, which con­duc­ted the probe has said its find­ings will re­veal ab­use that is “chilling” and “sys­tem­at­ic and wide­spread.” The re­port is also ex­pec­ted to con­clude that the en­hanced tech­niques were not ef­fect­ive in yield­ing use­ful in­tel­li­gence.

“Tor­ture” and the con­nota­tions it car­ries has been a loaded word polit­ic­ally since George W. Bush’s first term. And Obama’s de­cision to use it im­me­di­ately sparked out­rage from con­ser­vat­ives on Twit­ter. (Obama was also cri­ti­cized for us­ing the col­lo­qui­al “folks” to de­scribe those in­ter­rog­ated.)

But it ap­pears to have been a choice by the pres­id­ent to cast the CIA’s prac­tices in the most bru­tal terms in or­der to make his con­dem­na­tion of them as power­ful as pos­sible, send­ing a sig­nal both at home and abroad that such prac­tices are no longer sanc­tioned. That way, when the re­port does be­come pub­lic, Obama’s words Fri­day will still be echo­ing. At the same time, it likely will do little to mol­li­fy crit­ics who say his ad­min­is­tra­tion has failed to hold CIA agents who con­duc­ted the in­ter­rog­a­tions leg­ally ac­count­able.

Obama also used the oc­ca­sion to sup­port CIA Dir­ect­or John Bren­nan, who apo­lo­gized this week to law­makers after an in­tern­al probe found that CIA agents had broken in­to com­puters used by the Sen­ate In­tel­li­gence Com­mit­tee. At least one mem­ber of that com­mit­tee, Mark Ud­all of Col­or­ado, has called for Bren­nan to resign. But the pres­id­ent seemed to put that mat­ter to rest, for now. “I have full con­fid­ence in John Bren­nan,” Obama said.

What We're Following See More »
1.5 MILLION MORE TUNED IN FOR TRUMP
More People Watched Trump’s Acceptance Speech
18 hours ago
THE DETAILS

Hillary Clinton hopes that television ratings for the candidates' acceptance speeches at their respective conventions aren't foreshadowing of similar results at the polls in November. Preliminary results from the networks and cable channels show that 34.9 million people tuned in for Donald Trump's acceptance speech while 33.3 million watched Clinton accept the Democratic nomination. However, it is still possible that the numbers are closer than these ratings suggest: the numbers don't include ratings from PBS or CSPAN, which tend to attract more Democratic viewers.

Source:
×