Last night former CIA chief Jose Rodriguez appeared on to promote his new book defending his role in the CIA's torture program and his decision to order that tapes of the torture sessions be destroyed. While Rodriguez regurgitated his anticipated justification, 60 Minutes correspondent dogged him with evidence that torture hurt U.S. intelligence gathering and questioned whether the use of torture threatened to undermine fundamental American values.
The interview affirmed the impression that the CIA's use of crude force in interrogations was pursued with little thought to the program's moral implications, potential costs to the country or even to the techniques' effectiveness. If as much time and effort had been spent considering these essential questions as was spent on creating the web of legal defenses for torture, which Rodriguez described, this dark period in American history could've been avoided.
Too Much Imagination
In setting up last night's interview, Stahl highlighted Rodriguez's lack of experience in counterterrorism and the Middle East when he was appointed Chief of Staff of the Counter Terrorism Center directly after 9/11. Last week the Washington Post's Dana Priest reported that Rodriguez appeared to be "" when she met him in 2005. A similar description could be used to characterize the CIA when it established an interrogation program in 2001-02 despite its and institutional expertise in the field.
The agency may have had little experience in interrogation, but last night Rodriguez said that the CIA had "no lack of imagination." Perhaps it was the reliance on "imaginations" that led CIA officials to craft an interrogation program based upon the advice of ex-Air Force psychologists who had over the objections of veteran trainers who that the methods were ineffective at eliciting accurate information.
It may also have been "imagination" that led officials to dismiss then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's warnings of the of not applying Geneva Convention protections of those in U.S. custody which he argued would "undermine public support among critical allies, making military cooperation more difficult to sustain" and have "immediate adverse consequences for our conduct of foreign policy."
The Price Paid for False Intelligence
Throughout the 60 Minutes piece, Rodriguez repeatedly made unsubstantiated assertions that the torture program was worth the cost—that it saved lives. His responses to Stahl's numerous references to mounting documentation that CIA cruelty harmed intelligence gathering efforts were ripe with profanities but lacking in persuasive evidence.
Reuters recently reported that an ongoing extensive Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into the CIA interrogation program has found that cruel interrogations have resulted in counterterrorism breakthroughs. In a released this morning Sens. Carl Levin, Chair of the Armed Services Committee, and Dianne Feinstein, Chair of the Intelligence Committee, lay out the myth propagated by Rodriguez that CIA torture led to the location of Osama Bin Laden and dismantle it point by point with the facts. Levin and Feinstein state:
We are disappointed that Mr. Rodriguez and others, who left government positions prior to the UBL [Usama Bin Laden] operation and are not privy to all of the intelligence that led to the raid, continue to insist that the CIA's so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques' used many years ago were a central component of our success. This view is misguided and misinformed."
Even Michael Hayden, former CIA director appointed by George Bush has stated: "I'm willing to concede the point that while they were, for example, being waterboarded."
In fact, substantial evidence suggests that the use of cruelty was counterproductive. A seasoned counterterrorism agent reportedly that following false leads generated through torture has caused waste and exhaustion and consumed "[a]t least 30 percent of the F.B.I.'s time, maybe 50 percent, in counterterrorism." According to another former intelligence official "[w]e spent millions of dollars chasing " because of the CIA's insistence that coercive interrogation techniques be used against Abu Zubaydah.
Rodriguez's nuanced response to this claim: "Bull sh*t."
And the cost of using torture went beyond wasted resources, damaging the standing of the United States and undermining its counterterrorism efforts. As a concluded in 2010: "The fact that America is seen in a negative light by so many complicates our ability to attract allies to our side, strengthens the hand of our enemies, and reduces our ability to collect intelligence that can save lives." Philip Zelikow, former deputy to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, described the measurable impact on U.S. counterterrorism efforts when he stated: "When I worked at the State Department, some of America's best European allies found it to assist us in counterterrorism because they feared becoming complicit in a program their governments abhorred. This was not a hypothetical concern."
Considering the Bottom Line
From last night's interviewed it appears Rodriguez has given little thought to the real world costs of the CIA torture practices he oversaw. And why would he? There is no indication that any government official will be held to account despite the creation of a CIA interrogation program that employed crude, ham-handed illegal techniques known at the time to be ineffective and which unsurprisingly resulted in no actionable intelligence at great cost to American national standing and intelligence-gathering capability.
Until officials like Rodriguez are held accountable, the risk remains that the U.S. officials will forget essential lessons learned and return to cruel techniques. Running such a risk is unacceptable. The United States cannot afford to repeat past mistakes when it comes to torture. The cost, as we've seen, is simply too high.
Learn more about torture: Sign up for breaking news alerts, , and .
Learn More About the Issues on This Page
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Free Speech
National Security
ACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok BanACLU and Partners Urge Supreme Court to Block TikTok Ban
WASHINGTON — Today, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to block the enforcement of a law that would effectively ban people in America from using TikTok as soon as January 19, 2025. Earlier this month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected TikTok’s challenge to the law. TikTok has asked the Supreme Court for a temporary injunction to prevent the app from being banned while the court considers whether to take the case, saying that unless the justices intervene, the law will “shutter one of America’s most popular speech platforms the day before a presidential inauguration.” “The Constitution imposes an extraordinarily high bar on this kind of mass censorship,”said Patrick Toomey, deputy director of ACLU’s National Security Project. “The Supreme Court should take up this important case and protect the rights of millions of Americans to freely express themselves and engage with others around the world.” The brief argues that the D.C. Circuit failed to fully address the law’s profound implications for the First Amendment rights of the 170 million Americans who use TikTok. While the lower court’s decision correctly recognized that the statute triggers First Amendment scrutiny, it barely addressed users’ First Amendment interests in speaking, sharing, and receiving information on the platform. The court also perplexingly attempted to cast the government’s ban on TikTok as a vindication of users’ First Amendment rights, which it is not. The rights groups also explain that the law was intended to suppress certain content and viewpoints that many legislators believe could be amplified on TikTok, including the risk of foreign “propaganda.” But under the First Amendment, the government must meet a very high bar to restrict speech based on concerns about its “motivating ideology” or “perspective,” and the government has not come close to meeting that bar here. “The government should not be able to restrict speech, especially to the extent here, based on guessing about the mere possibility of uncertain future harm,” said David Greene, civil liberties director at EFF. “The Supreme Court should put the TikTok ban on hold while it considers the DC Circuit’s erroneous ruling.” Finally, the brief underscores that the government can’t impose this type of sweeping ban unless it’s necessary to prevent extremely serious and imminent harm to national security. But the government has not provided evidence of impending harm, or evidence that banning TikTok is the only available way to address its concerns. As the brief explains, the D.C. Circuit improperly treated the government’s invocation of “national security” as a trump card and failed to hold the government to its burden. “Restricting citizens’ access to foreign media is a practice that has long been associated with repressive regimes, and we should be very wary of letting the practice take root here,” said Jameel Jaffer, executive director at the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. “It would do lasting damage to the First Amendment and our democracy if the Supreme Court let this ban go into effect even temporarily.” You can find the brief online here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24A587/335380/20241217144322392_24A587%20TikTok%20v%20Garland%20Amicus%20Brief%20pdfa.pdf -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Religious Liberty
ACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter IslamophobiaACLU Statement on New White House Strategy to Counter Islamophobia
WASHINGTON – The Biden administration today released the first-ever national strategy to counter Islamophobia and related forms of bias and discrimination, including hate against Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans. In advance of the strategy, American Civil Liberties Union and its partners had urged the administration to overhaul government programs that reflect anti-Muslim discrimination. In particular, we have called for urgent action to constrain governmental agencies from continuing to exercise their authorities and technology to wrongly surveil and investigate, watchlist, and question and detain Muslims at the border, as well as deny immigration benefits to people from Muslim-majority countries. While the White House raised expectations that many of these issues would be addressed, the final strategy ended up falling far short. The following is a statement from Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project: “While this strategy acknowledges discrimination and its harms, it does little to end them and is a squandered opportunity. For decades, American officials have invoked national security to pass laws and implement programs that disproportionately harm Muslims and people perceived to be Muslim. A serious anti-discrimination strategy would concretely address multiple bias-infused government practices that deny our communities equal participation in civic life and our democracy, like federal watchlisting, surveillance, and investigation. We’re profoundly frustrated that the administration didn’t take even the basic, overdue step of recognizing that anti-Muslim discrimination is uniquely normalized and embedded in government policies.” -
VirginiaDec 2024
National Security
Trabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted ManTrabelsi v. Crawford, et al. – Lawsuit Challenging Unlawful Detention and Inhumane Treatment of Acquitted Man
Our client, Nizar Trabelsi, is in the United States against his will. The federal government brought him here from Belgium more than a decade ago and charged him with terrorism-related crimes. At trial, the government’s case failed: a federal jury found Mr. Trabelsi not guilty. But instead of allowing Mr. Trabelsi to return to Belgium after his acquittal, the United States placed him in highly restrictive immigration detention and began an ongoing effort to force him to Tunisia, where he was born and where he will very likely be tortured. Mr. Trabelsi’s detention violates the Constitution, immigration law, and the extradition treaty between the United States and Belgium. Through this lawsuit, he seeks to return to Belgium, and he demands an immediate improvement of his detention conditions. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
National Security
Immigrants' Rights
Federal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is UnlawfulFederal Judge Rejects Acquitted Man’s Argument That His Immigration Detention Is Unlawful
ALEXANDRIA, Va. — This week, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that the court does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the government can continue to detain Nizar Trabelsi, a Tunisian national who was brought to the United States against his will for prosecution and was cleared of all charges last year. The ruling means the United States will be able to continue to detain Mr. Trabelsi while it attempts to deport him to Tunisia, where he was born and where, as an immigration judge ruled earlier this year, he will likely face torture. The court also concluded that even if it did have jurisdiction over Mr. Trabelsi’s case, his claims challenging the government’s detention of him would fail. “Reviewing claims that the government is holding someone unlawfully is at the core of the judicial function, and we’re heartbroken for our client that the court got this so wrong,” said Brett Max Kaufman, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Center for Democracy. “The government’s arguments in defense of Mr. Trabelsi’s detention makes a hash of the Constitution, immigration laws, and its own extradition treaty.” In 2013, the United States forcibly extradited Mr. Trabelsi from Belgium to face criminal charges in the United States. In July 2023, after almost 10 years of highly restrictive pretrial detention, a federal jury cleared Mr. Trabelsi of all charges. But instead of releasing Mr. Trabelsi or returning him to Belgium, the U.S. transferred him to immigration detention, wrongly treating him as an applicant for admission and placing him in the deportation process. Over the years, the Belgian government has issued multiple formal diplomatic requests asking the U.S. to facilitate his return, but the U.S. has refused to send him back. Mr. Trabelsi filed a lawsuit challenging the government's authority to detain him. He also sought immediate improvements to his detention conditions. Those claims were not part of the court’s ruling today, and will continue to be litigated on a separate track. “Mr. Trabelsi only wants to return to Belgium after being illegally extradited to the United States, held for ten years, and then acquitted by a jury of any crimes,” said Nicole Hallett, clinical professor of law and director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “He cannot be held indefinitely and we will continue to fight to make sure that justice ultimately prevails.” Mr. Trabelsi is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the University of Chicago Law School’s Immigrants’ Rights Clinic, the ACLU of Virginia, and Professor Jonathan Hafetz of Seton Hall Law School. The complaint in Trabelsi v. Crawford was filed against Jeffrey Crawford, warden of the Farmville Detention Center where Mr. Trabelsi is being held; Liana Castano, ICE field office director for the Washington Field Office; Alejandro Mayorkas, secretary of the Department of Homeland Security; and Merrick Garland, U.S. attorney general.