HuffPo: White House Sets Up Interrogation Unit

http://www.dailypaul.com/node/104371

the title of the thread was, in its entirety, the Headline of the AP piece that Yahoo ran on its splash page at the time I posted.

AP has since changed it to sound more hopeful and as if Obama is in fact bringing CHANGE!

I think this whole thing is a move to get this away from Congressional scrutiny.

Is anyone else voicing opposition?

By Alexander Bolton
Posted: 08/24/09 02:06 PM [ET]

Sen. Kit Bond (Mo.), the senior Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, ripped the Obama administration Monday over its proposal to create an enforcement team to question suspected terrorists.

The program, known as the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG), would operate out of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), under direct White House oversight. It will be overseen by the National Security Council.

President Barack Obama approved the elite unit last week, which will be made up of intelligence and law enforcement officials.

Traditionally the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has taken the lead interrogating suspected terrorists, but its practices have come under scrutiny because of allegations of widespread prisoner abuse.

“What does the White House have against Leon Panetta? This bizarre move is a vote of no confidence in not only the terror-fighters who have kept us safe since 9-11 but their very own CIA director,” Bond said in a statement.

“Chrysler and Citigroup apparently weren’t enough: now the White House is taking over the CIA and how we interrogate Usama bin Laden.”

Bond called the move a dangerous power grab.

More:

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/bond-blasts-terrorist-in...

My earlier post was removed for some reason, so let me rephrase.

It does seem reasonable and a response to the Bush policies. But, what worries me is moving something carried out by the CIA and military intelligence in war zones and battle captures, to a domestic policy using members of the various executive departments. This appears to me to be another step in the direction the Ministry of Homeland Security is going - moving the focus of terrorism to the CONUS. I'm not a fear monger, but then again I never thought the Southern Poverty Law Center would be the intelligence behind Homeland Security documents that I am a terrorist threat.

If you really think about it - what would be better? Changing policy within the CIA and Dept. of Defense and pulling private contractors out of the interrogation business and possibly putting certain operatives in jail for abuse of detainees - or - changing the agencies and the system to one that could focus domestically as well? I think the first option would be the most effective. (I know the article doesn't specify domestic operations, but the potential is there)

I hope this was more politically correct and can remain posted.

"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."

I guess in addition to the US Constitutions, Missouri Constitutions, General Assembly Rosters, etc I already hand out, I'll need to start carrying and passing out the "rules for detainees laid out by the Army Field Manual."

The chapter on interrogation is here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/policy/army/fm/...

Here is a very important section
-----------------------------------------------------------
PROHIBITION AGAINST USE OF FORCE

The use of force, mental torture, threats, insults, or exposure to unpleasant and inhumane treatment of any kind is prohibited by law and is neither authorized nor. condoned by the US Government. Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.

The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.

Additionally, the inability to carry out a threat of violence or force renders an interrogator ineffective should the source challenge the threat. Consequently, from both legal and moral viewpoints, the restrictions established by international law, agreements, and customs render threats of force, violence, and deprivation useless as interrogation techniques.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Its important to know these things if the time comes when "roundups" begin.

I guess "HUG" wouldn't have gone over so well.

Seriously, though, this new unit does not give me any comfort.

Also, I find this in poor taste:

"CIA Director Leon Panetta said in an e-mail message to agency employees Monday that he intends "to stand up for those officers who did what their country asked and who followed the legal guidance they were given. That is the president's position, too," he said."

Did what their country asked? Um...don't pin that blame on the rest of us. It was only certain people who had them engaging in torture.

I read the article and did not find any mention of what the White House's approach would be when domestic "terrorists" are questioned. The article does not appear to address this issue at all, as you rightly point out. I don't necessarily believe this is deliberate...but...read further before you make conclusions...

According to ProPublica, a blog which tracks changes in the White House official website, all mention of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board has been removed from its website. Oddly enough, however, this Board has been fully funded, and it is believed that the Obama Administration may move forward with naming members of this board. For some reason, this fact has received little or no attention in the blogosphere...and there is not much speculation as to why this has occurred.

I recently wrote an article with speculations on this...but you have provided another interesting piece of the puzzle. No Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board? Interrogations being taken over by the White House? Very very fishy.

Links to the ProPublica article and to my blog:

ProPublica:
http://www.propublica.org/ion/changetracker/item/disappearan...

My own speculations (mostly to do with cybersecurity):
http://periculosae.blogspot.com/2009/08/missing-in-action-ob...

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.
Thomas Jefferson

There was a thread on this topic before; it was removed.