THE MONDAY release of a heavily redacted 2004 CIA internal review of US interrogation practices and the resulting decision of US Attorney General Eric Holder to appoint a special prosecutor to consider prosecutions of those responsible in a dozen cases has prompted predictable howls of rage from conservatives in the US.
No doubt to sugar the pill, the Administration also released memos sought in recent months by former vice-president Dick Cheney that he said show the success of the CIA’s controversial methods. As published, however, they appear largely inconclusive, in part because of the agency’s editing out of sensitive sections.
More worryingly, officials announced that following a separate review the US will continue the practice of “rendition” – the controversial sending of terror suspects to third countries for detention and interrogation – but promised that those rendered will be closely monitored to prevent torture. President Obama also approved a recommendation of the review group to set up a new interrogation unit within the FBI, to oversee the questioning of top terrorism suspects using largely noncoercive techniques approved by the administration earlier this year. The creation of the new unit, welcomed by human rights groups, will strip the CIA of its primary role in questioning, but it will continue to play a substantial role.
The 2004 report by the CIA’s inspector general gave previously unacknowledged details about the treatment of prisoners, including the use of threats to harm their families, the use of choke holds, the threat of the use of electric drills and fake executions.
Mr Obama made clear in April that he does not favour prosecution of officers responsible – talking of the need to look forward, not back – and Mr Holder insisted that the prosecutor’s investigation is “preliminary”. “Neither the opening of a preliminary review nor, if evidence warrants it, the commencement of a full investigation, means that charges will necessarily follow,” he said. Obtaining convictions could be hard anyway, as waterboarding and other “enhanced” techniques appear to have been sanctioned by Mr Holder’s predecessor, John Ashcroft, and the Justice Department.
Liberal critics of Mr Holder complain he has not gone far enough in the terms of reference of the prosecutor’s inquiry. They say that it is at that higher level in the chain of command that the inquiry should be targeted, from the lawyers who advised the Justice Department to none other than Mr Cheney who approved their advice. That, however, is not likely to happen.