Gregory D. Lee

This week, Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Washington) stealthily introduced a section into the intelligence authorization bill titled, “Cruel, Inhuman, and Degrading Interrogations Prohibition Act of 2010.” If enacted, there would be criminal penalties up to the death penalty for U.S. interrogators in the war on terror who subjected terrorists to so-called “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” (EITs).

Our fearless protectors.

On Wednesday, Rep. McDermott, at the very last minute while you and I slept, inserted a new provision into the bill that prohibits interrogators from ever using EITs against terrorists. EITs are already banned by President Obama’s executive order, so why the need to insert this into the intelligence authorization bill?

Apparently, Rep. McDermott and his friends on the intelligence committee want to remove any opportunity to use EITs again. Passing a law attaching criminal penalties for using EITs would mean it would literally take an act of Congress to repeal it if this or a future president decided there was a sudden need to use them.

For example, a high-value terrorist is captured and brags to his CIA interrogators that there is a crude nuclear weapon somewhere in the U.S. that will go off tomorrow. He says he knows the exact location of the bomb, but refuses to disclose it. The terrorist agrees to take a polygraph examination to prove the veracity of his claim, and passes with flying colors. The president is informed and, like the CIA, is convinced the threat is genuine. What should the president do?

If left up to Rep. McDermott, the president could not legally order the use of EITs to extract the exact location of the nuclear weapon. In fact, if the president ordered interrogators to use EITs, whether or not he obtained the information that saved thousands of American lives, he and the interrogators would be subject to imprisonment.

To Rep. McDermott, waterboarding, placing a bug in terrorists’ confined quarters, sleep deprivation, exploiting a phobia or anything else that humanely persuades terrorists to disclose actionable intelligence, must to be outlawed. In fact, the act includes the sentence, “The moral standards that reflect the values of the United States governing appropriate tactics for interrogations do not change according to the dangers that we face as a nation” (emphasis added). Therefore, even if my scenario happened, interrogators could not use EITs without risking prison.

A spiritual thriller by Dan Calabrese. Click the image learn more and to order a copy.

Let’s not forget that when Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was captured in Rawalpindi, Pakistan in 2003, he initially clammed up and didn’t provide much, if any information. What information he did give was inaccurate and incomplete. But according to the CIA’s inspector general, once interrogators subjected him to EITs, including waterboarding, he became a vital source of information. He told the CIA about the history of al-Qaeda, delayed terrorist plots, and the detailed operations of the entire network. He became the “most prolific” asset on how the organization operated, and he provided information that ultimately prevented future terrorist attacks on Los Angeles, New York and London.

Despite this irrefutable evidence, Democrats insist that “torture and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment do not produce consistently reliable information and intelligence, and are not acceptable practices because their use runs counter to our identity and values as a nation.”

Because terrorists are no longer waterboarded, saying that the results amount to “(in)consistent reliable information and intelligence” cannot be substantiated. This is yet another limp-wristed excuse to not do what needs to be done to secure the nation. These same people would rather see a great American city nuclear bombed than one poor al-Qaeda terrorist waterboarded. Liberals simply do not have the stomach or desire to defend the nation.

How many people have died as a result of waterboarding? None. How many people have been permanently injured because of waterboarding? None. How many people have been even slightly injured because of waterboarding? None.

On Thursday, Democrats withdrew the act after intense criticism from House Republicans. Remember that this November when you vote.

Reach Gregory D. Lee through his website: www.gregorydlee.com. Join his blog at: www.gregorydlee.blogspot.com.

17 Responses to “Congressman Jim McDermott: Enemy of U.S. national security”