Under the guise of this new administration

The Center for Constitutional Rights would like you to write to the Senate (which in practice means filling out a few fields and clicking "send my message").  And really, isn't it the least you can do for them after all they've done for you?

The details:

The U.S. Senate is in the process of debating the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2010. The NDAA currently includes a provision that bans the use of private military contractors from conducting interrogations of detainees. Also, an amendment to the bill could require the video recording of all interrogations. The White House is opposed to the provision that bans the use of private contractors from conducting interrogations and is also opposed to any amendment requiring video recording. There is a possibility that these elements could be stripped from the bill.

Also, while the elements pertaining to interrogations are positive developments, the NDAA could undermine our efforts to end the use of military commissions. CCR has long maintained that the use of military commissions is absolutely unacceptable in a democracy. The NDAA currently includes provisions that would change the laws regarding the use of military commissions, changes that the Obama administration appears to welcome, stating the changes will "make the commissions an effective and fair system of justice." Congress should not refine a broken and unjust system – they should repeal the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Regarding the Obama administration's opposition to any amendment requiring video recording of interrogations, here was their reaction back in March to the CIA's destruction of 92 interrogation videotapes:

MR. GIBBS: Obviously -- obviously this is a -- the development is not good; it's sad. And I think the leadership in Mr. Panetta and certainly under the guise of this new administration, we want to give the people that work in the CIA the tools they need to keep us safe, but do so in a way that also protects our values.

In light of the administration's current position, Gibbs apparently meant it was sad that the CIA made the mistake of recording interrogations in the past, and Obama wants to correct that error and protect America's actual values from being captured on any further politically-inconvenient recordings.  I do at least appreciate the refreshing candor of the phrase "under the guise of this new administration," though.

Comments

[gfod]

I often wonder why governments document the bad things they do (it seems to me that it will eventually be declassified - why run that risk?). I guess subordinates need to prove to their superiors what a good job they're doing so they can get that next promotion...? I don't get it, what do you think?

[SteveB]

You can get extra irony points by recalling that, as a member of the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama was the lead proponent of a bill that would require the police to videotape interrogations.

But that's the Chicago Police Dept. we're talking about. You'd be crazy not to want to keep an eye on those fuckers.

[John Caruso]

I wonder about the same thing sometimes, gfod. I think the answer is pretty straightforward, though: because they have to. It's not like government is filled with people with perfect recall, infinite memory capacity, and a willingness to pass on information via the oral tradition; like any large organization, they need a fixed institutional memory, and that means massive amounts of documentation.

Even looking just at interrogations, it's pretty clear that it's necessary to document them in some way, and probably multiple ways (video, transcripts, etc)—because otherwise how would the "intelligence" that's gathered be available for review? And in the case of the Bush administration's foray into the direct application of torture, I'm sure the videos were highly useful for training purposes as well.

Even the worst stuff is no doubt documented somewhere, though we'll never see it (or like the CIA videotapes, it will be destroyed—or maybe "destroyed"—before we can). Honestly, I suspect that what the Obama administration is objecting to here isn't the videotaping, but the fact that it is explicitly required (and there are probably retention requirements as well)—which removes the plausibility of convenient excuses like "we didn't videotape it" or "we destroyed the videotapes", and may even make them illegal.

That's what Gibbs really meant (whether he knew it or not) about "giving the people in the CIA the tools they need": that the Obama administration wants to make sure the CIA can keep acting as a law unto itself without undue public or legal accountability.