Rep. Jim Mcdermott Remarks On His Amendment To Criminalize Brutal Interrogations

Statement

Last night, Rep. Jim McDermott made the following remarks about his amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act. While the amendment is no longer in the bill, it would have criminalized the use of cruel, inhuman, and degrading interrogation tactics by members of the intelligence community."

"Earlier today, we heard some pretty imaginative accusations from my Republican colleagues when they were talking about an amendment I offered to the Intelligence Authorization Act. While my amendment was removed from the manager's amendment, I wanted to take the opportunity to clear a few things up.

When President Obama took office last year, one of the first Executive Orders he issued extended the Army Field Manual's guidelines on interrogation tactics. Those guidelines prohibit interrogators in all federal agencies from using brutal interrogations in any circumstance.

So, to get the facts straight, brutal interrogations are illegal right now.
But this Executive Order doesn't completely solve the problem. The President can't include criminal penalties in executive orders, and current U.S. law doesn't outline what constitutes a brutal interrogation.

My amendment would have expanded on the President's executive order to clearly define what constitutes a cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation, so that it is unmistakable what kinds of techniques are unacceptable. It also creates criminal penalties for those who use these kinds of interrogations. And to be clear, I didn't invent this concept by myself.
The amendment was based on the Army Field Manual's definition as acceptable and unacceptable interrogation tactics, which, as Senator John McCain has said, is effective 99.9 percent of the time. One of the most important things to remember about these kinds of interrogations is that they simply don't work.

Brutal interrogations are not an effective tool to collect information, and what's worse, they actually may produce unreliable information. As former CIA official Bob Baer has said, "What happens when you torture people is they figure out what you want to hear and they tell you."

An endless series of studies have shown us that when people's minds or bodies are subjected to the kind of trauma these brutal interrogations entail, their brains don't function properly. For example, during training exercises, American Specials Ops soldiers have had difficulty remembering information after they'd been put through food- or sleep- deprivation.

Why are Republicans defending a tactic we know doesn't work? Interrogations like these also hurt our reputation abroad. The world was horrified when they saw what American soldiers were doing at Abu Ghraib. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell has said, "people are now starting to question whether we're following our own high standards."

Brutality like this hurts our credibility and undercuts our reputation in the global community.

I am a veteran. I served in the Navy. I am passionate about protecting this country and keeping our fellow soldiers safe. More than anything, this amendment was designed to protect them.

Many of my fellow soldiers have done a far better job than I of explaining why we need laws like this. Retired Army Col. Stuart Herrington said that cruelty in interrogations "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity."

Retired Rear Admiral John Huston has said that "getting our interrogation policies back on track will preserve our standing to fight for humane treatment of American soldiers who are captured."

I couldn't agree more. Without clear laws that define acceptable and unacceptable interrogation practices--including criminal consequences for violating those laws--we are putting more Americans at risk of being treated with the same brutality.

Just last week, the two former Justice Department attorneys who crafted the legal justification for the use of brutal interrogations got off scot free. The Justice department absolved them of wrongdoing and only said they had "exercised poor judgment," but hadn't broken the law.

They took advantage of a gap in our current law and provided legal cover for abuse during interrogations. My amendment would have ensured this kind of legal maneuvering never happens again.
As the President said when he issued his Executive Order last year, "we are willing to observe core standards of conduct not just when it's easy, but also when it's hard."

We don't know who the next President is going to be, or what the next Administration will look like. That's why we can't rely on this executive order. Congress must make this law.

Source