CIA Director Brennan: Whether harsh interrogation worked is 'unknowable'

In a press conference Thursday, CIA Director John Brennan addressed the Senate Intelligence Committee report on harsh interrogation techniques, called 'torture' by critics. Citing the fearful days after 9/11, he said the agency made mistakes and some of the techniques used were 'abhorrent' and 'regrettable.'

Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP
Central Intelligence Director (CIA) Director John Brennan gestures during a news conference at CIA Headquarters in Langley, Va., Thursday. Brennan is pushing back against criticism following a Senate Intelligence Committee report detailing harsh interrogation tactics employed by intelligence community people against terrorism war-era detainees.

In his highly-unusual press conference Thursday, CIA Director John Brennan had three principle audiences:

• The Senate Intelligence Committee, whose report this week is highly critical of the spy agency, specifically the CIA’s use of what it calls “enhanced interrogation techniques” (EITs) on suspected terrorists.

• CIA officers and analysts, whose morale has been battered by years of criticism over perceived failings to prevent terrorist attacks and then rogue behavior – “torture,” to many people – in its treatment of detainees.

• And the American people, who need to be reminded of the days following the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the belief at the time shared by experts and lawmakers of all political persuasions that more attacks were being planned and must be prevented. (Mr. Brennan as much as addressed the public in a lengthy opening statement, noting that the first American killed in Afghanistan just days after 9/11 was a CIA officer hunting for the Al Qaeda perpetrators.)

"In many respects the program was uncharted territory for the CIA, and we were unprepared," Brennan said in a 45-minute press conference Thursday afternoon from the agency's headquarters in Langley, Va. "But the president authorized the program six days after 9/11, and it was our job to carry it out."

The essence of the Senate report is that harsh techniques such as water-boarding and “rectal feeding” did not (for example) help lead to finding Osama bin Laden, and in fact may have been counterproductive.

Brennan said he “fundamentally disagrees” with that assessment. “There was very valuable intelligence obtained from individuals who had been, at some point, subjected to EIT's,” he said.

But as the phrase “at some point” indicates, Brennan also maintains that whether or not the use of such techniques led directly to actionable intelligence is “unknown and unknowable.” And in reply to a question, Brennan also declined to describe such treatment – harsher than previously made public, according to the Senate report – as “torture.”

“I will leave to others how they might want to label those activities,” Brennan said. “For me it was something that is regrettable.”

But Brennan also said the agency made mistakes in the early scramble to capture those with terrorist links and that some of the techniques used to make them talk were "abhorrent and should be repudiated by all.”

"None of these lapses should be excused, downplayed, or denied," he said.

The Senate Intelligence Committee report (6,700 pages long, 500 pages of which were released in summary) was destined to be highly politicized. It was backed by Democrats and opposed by most Republicans, who issued their own minority report.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece, former CIA directors George Tenet, Porter Goss, and Michael Hayden called the report a "one-sided study marred by errors of fact and interpretation – essentially a poorly done and partisan attack on the agency that has done the most to protect America.”

In his current position as the nation’s top spy, Brennan cannot appear partisan although his appointment as CIA director is political. He also must answer to congressional oversight committees.

In his press conference Thursday, Brennan criticized the Senate Intelligence Committee on what he sees as an important point.

It was "lamentable,” he said, that the committee interviewed no CIA personnel to ask "what were you thinking" and "what was the calculus you used" in determining interrogation practices. Without that, he said, "you lose the opportunity to really understand what was taking place at the time."

During Brennan’s press conference, Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (or more likely somebody on her staff) regularly tweeted rebuttals to things he said. Among her tweets:

.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.