The Price of Freedom

It is a deeply shared feeling within the ranks of the CIA that the secret nature of intelligence work, with the extraordinary powers that accompany it, demands officers who possess the highest standards of morality and ethical conduct. It requires people who can reliably separate right and wrong in the daily practice of deception and espionage. In such a wilderness of mirrors, making moral-based decisions is tested routinely, often in far flung, hostile regions of the world, where there may be no rule of law, no freedom of speech, and no democratic institutions. It should thus come as no surprise that CIA officers generally develop a unique appreciation for American values in the course of a lifetime defending them. They learn the lesson that truth-based democratic ideals are precious, worth fighting for, and even worth dying for.

In being exposed to the brutalities of the world, intelligence officers also tend to develop a keen sense that their profession is a necessary evil in a democratic society. They understand that secrecy should be barely tolerated, and never embraced. They readily accept that accountability is of supreme importance, independent oversight is crucial, and abuses of power and violations of ethical standards must be handled swiftly, surely, and transparently.

If our response to the 9/11 attacks is in essence about establishing moral authority, at home and abroad, then the current debate on interrogation and torture misses the mark by focusing on whether certain interrogation methods worked, and whether the information that was obtained proved valuable. In my view, the enduring question is whether a small group of people in power have the right to redefine the nature of America's core values and ideals through policy decisions made under the cover of secrecy. How much authority are we prepared to yield, under what circumstances, and for how long are we willing to suspend transparency before decisions affecting our fundamental values are validated by the American people?

Like the definition of torture itself, the answers to such questions may not be as easy as we think.

My own search for answers was influenced by a mid-2003 appearance in front of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Judge Silberman and Senator Robb. In replying to questions concerning the effectiveness of CIA interrogations of senior al Qa'ida detainees, I stated that to my knowledge, which was indirect, CIA's activities had been approved in writing by the Department of Justice and that Congress had been duly informed. Not satisfied, Senator McCain asked for my assessment on the value of information obtained through interrogation. I noted that it was valuable, but limited. I explained that American intelligence has little experience in interrogation methods, and I'm not aware of ways to force someone to tell the truth. Consequently, I assumed all reporting was a mix of fact and fiction until it had been independently corroborated.

But that really wasn't the Senator's point: how far were we willing to go to obtain information? I replied that I knew no CIA officer who would knowingly violate U.S. laws and American values in his efforts to defend them. Judge Silberman jumped in to question what I would do if we captured an operative who was part of an al-Qa'ida team preparing to set off a nuclear bomb in Chicago? My response -- that I wouldn't do anything that had not been approved in advance and that was inconsistent with US law as well as with our moral values -- was not entirely satisfying, even to me.

After the session, Judge Silberman approached me to apologize "for engaging in a bit of intellectual sophistry." His point, he explained, was to raise the very real quandary officers may face if sufficient thought is not paid in advance as to what should be done in such an extreme situation. Such questions cannot be left to individuals to decide in the heat of the moment. They cannot be left to be answered by a small group of people who happen to hold the burden of power at a moment of truth. Rather, our government must arrive at a broad and explicit agreement with the American people as to how far we are willing to go to preserve our freedoms. Until then, this will remain a weak spot in our defenses of being prepared for the next round of post 9/11 terrorist violence.

Comments

[WarSkeptic]

I'm sorry, not going to buy the whole "CIA are our moral superiors" argument

"I replied that I knew no CIA officer who would knowingly violate U.S. laws and American values in his efforts to defend them" You either don't know any CIA officers or you were not telling the truth

[Romeover]

"Rather, our government must arrive at a broad and explicit agreement with the American people as to how far we are willing to go to preserve our freedoms. Until then, this will remain a weak spot in our defenses of being prepared for the next round of post 9/11 terrorist violence."

That agreement, broad and explicit, was reached with the American people and the whole world, when the United States signed the Convention against Torture.

[hegdehog]

"In my view, the enduring question is whether a small group of people in power have the right to redefine the nature of America's core values and ideals through policy decisions made under the cover of secrecy."

In my view as well. But there's another point: what if it's not done in secret? What if, instead of using secrecy, that small group of people in power uses intimidation and fear to undermine our foundation? What if they appeal to a sense of urgency or even panic to manipulate the system? Because our unnecessary and ill-considered invasion of Iraq was not done in secret. And neither was passage of the "Patriot" Act--the least patriotic piece of legislation made into law in a generation or more.

What if our system is more vulnerable to corruption than we would like to think it is? What if all it takes is a complacent electorate, an easily-cowed legislative branch, and a dishonest or careless national press? Because if that's the case, then I'd say this nightmare is likely to repeat itself.

Osama bin Laden won much more than he bargained for on 9/11. He convinced us to forget and to give away, at least temporarily, who we are and what we stand for.

[tc2598]

All in all, great article, although I have to say, I'm a lot less convinced that CIA operatives have super finely-honed moral skills. Kind of thought the opposite. This guy sure seems like he knows what he's talking about, though.

Urg. It's really just not sitting right. It's a power thing - that's a lot of power - and people don't do very well with power. He's right that it must be transparent, but it wasn't for eight years. It wasn't transparent at all.

To state the obvious, great article, but it will be a long time before I simply trust the CIA.

[frag1409]

"Torture is immoral and ILLEGAL!! Don't do it."

I think the whole point of this article is that the situation is much more complicated. Its also about more than so-called "torture". The Clinton administration felt it was "immoral" to use informants with less than impeccable "morals" to gather intelligence. Unfortunately, those are the people who usually know whats going on in criminal circles. We had less than reliable intelligence on Al Qaeda for that reason.

And when you use subjective words like "immoral' you've instantly begged the question - which is the greater evil? Lincoln did illegal things in order to preserve the Union and free the slaves. Would anyone seriously argue that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ended WWII without the need for a ground invasion costing hundreds of thousands more military and civilian lives is "immoral"...oh wait. Todays libs would, but only because they aren't going to be on those landing craft and fighting house to house.

[ckone]

Dems on the bandwagon OKed these techniques in 2003. Now that its not cool they disown it. Release the documents obama. Let the people see that making the terrorists uncomfortable in fact saved american lifes. Keep to your campaign promises. Or is this just another lie?

[WorkingClass]

Blah Blah Blah. Torture is immoral and ILLEGAL!! Don't do it.

[dan-o]

It's not as easy as your shallow comment would indicate. The author asks the correct question of our society. Many times in our past we have had to do things that are at odds with our ideals. It is not easy or simple when dealing with real life situations around a world filled with truly bad people. The people out there who want to kill Americans wil not go away by wishful thinking. There are a lot of people at the tip of the spear who need more direction than the platitudes expressed by you. I hope when the real tough decisions are needed that President Obama is willing to make them. You may not agree with me but American lives(yours included) are more important to me than people in other nations. I hope the President will follow the lead of past great leaders who did what they had to do to preserve the Union and protect the people of the United States.

[jhNY]

"If our response to the 9/11 attacks is in essence about establishing moral authority, at home and abroad', then we as a nation have utterly failed (see "war" based on LIES in Iraq, domestic spying, etc.), as have our intelligence services with their secret airflights of captives to secret torture prisons, their use of 'interrogation techniques' which flout the Geneva Conventions and the anti-torture treaty signed by Reagan, and their resistance to credible oversight, despite the autghor's declaration that "they readily accept that accountability is of supreme importance, independent oversight is crucial," etc.

A minor quibble: If "in being exposed to the brutalities of the world, intelligence officers also tend to develop a keen sense that their profession is a necessary evil in a democratic society. " , but does this not beg the question of how members of the service came to their work to begin with, since they couldn't know how necessary or valuable their work would be before they undertook it-- did they anticipate their indispensibility in a world they always suspected was too dangerous without them?

[frag1409]

by "domestic spying" I hope you're not referring the PATRIOT Act, after all it was voted into law by Senator Obama.

And he's the smartest constitutional lawyer who's ever lived!

[swift goat pet for truth]

The Israelis face real terrorism. They do not torture.
The British during the IRA bombings faced real terrorism. They did not torture.

Are Americans more fearful? Less brave? More willing to fold in the face of fear?

Yep.

[WorkingClass]

The Israelis do not torture? The Brits do not torture? Who told you this? The swift pig? The swift chicken?

[woodsywizz]

Imagine a dedicated terrorist, selected to install a nuclear device in an American city. Imagine the pride, to strike so deep at the hated Americans. The years of training, the bombings and killings. Truly, the greatest terrorist of all time. So proud, fit to bust. How would it happen?

First of all, a patsy, an ignorant but dedicated terrorist trainee, goes along. Swearing this fool to secrecy, three fake devices go in three widely separated buildings. Then, working alone, the final (real) bomb.

Say the mark gets caught. They will withstand interrogation, then an eager-beaver wannabe Jack(ie?) Bauer starts with red-hot pliers. Finally, the decoy confesses to the first location. Agents rush to secure the false bomb. It's found to be fake. The cookie crumbles; all three bogus nukes are secured. Where is the real bomb?

Ready to go, upon command or pre-timed.

If the master terrorist is found - very unlikely - do you think this person would open up? After a lifetime of shadow warfare, arrogant about being the Greatest Terrorist in the World? The device is armed, the mission complete; a place in history sure, Paradise awaits. Does anyone, anywhere, think that someone like this would crack?

Of course, the enemy might have sent another operative, to move the real nuke elsewhere!

The whole "TICK...TI­CK...TICK" scenario is ridiculous on its face. Torture won't stop the nuke.

[Henry]

Didn't 007 have a license-to-kill? Or... was that just in the movies? I keep getting this art imitating life, or is that life imitating art business all backwards.

Republicans take the high-God road in presentation. However, when you measure their conduct the whole thing looks as though it were some smoke-screen. I mean... I still have a mega problem with the Bushwa version of " they attacked us because they hate our freedoms!" Now Rolf, did the CIA brief the boy-wonder on that? Tell us sometime of the history of the cia in Latin America.

[dan-o]

They hate us for the effect our liberal western democracy has on their people and religion. They hate us for the impact of our movies and television and music has on their young people. They hate us for being in the middle east and supporting dictatorial governments that prevent them from establishing a region wide muslim government that would much worse than the governments in power. They hate us for the success of western culture and the failure of islamic culture when it ruled a big part of the world 400+ years ago. There is a lot more to their hatred other than our freedom but that too is a reason that the hardcore islamists hate us, but as I said it is more about how it changes their people away from a middle ages mindset.

[RobertHenryEller]

"Rather, our government must arrive at a broad and explicit agreement with the American people as to how far we are willing to go to preserve our freedoms."

The important conclusion of this piece.

But not just °agreement" with, but with the "consent" of, the American people.

We have both the right and responsibility of how we are governed.

From the time he conducted secret talks with oil company executives (How would you respond if you were the owner of a company, and one of your employees conducted secret meetings with your competitors, suppliers or vendors, and refused to tell you who he met with, or what they discussed?), Cheney has demonstrated that he is an eager, and not reluctant, user of secrecy. He was never fit to govern.

This was all predictable. Bush claimed he would surround himself with capable people. The problem was, Bush had demonstrated his entire life that he himself was incapable of judging capability. And frankly, the only capability Bush cared about was loyalty, i.e., people who would make sure he was never held responsible nor personally faced the consequences of anything he did, or that was done in his name.