My answer: Perhaps Sen. Patrick Leahy did.  According to the Associated Press today:

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee is proposing a “truth commission” to investigate abuses of detainees, politically inspired moves at the Justice Department, and whole range of decisions made during the Bush administration.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said the primary goal of the commission would be to learn the truth rather than prosecute former officials, but said the inquiry should reach far beyond misdeeds at the Justice Department under Bush to include matters of Iraq prewar intelligence and the Defense Department.

Leahy outlined his suggestion for a “truth and reconciliation” commission during a speech at Georgetown University Monday.

“I’m doing this not to humiliate people or punish people but to get the truth out,” he said.

The panel he envisions would be modeled after one that investigated the apartheid regime in South Africa. It would have subpoena power but would not bring criminal charges, he said.

Among the matters Leahy wants investigated by such a commission are: the firings of U.S. attorneys, treatment and torture of terror suspect detainees, and the authorization of warrantless wiretapping.

“Rather than vengeance, we need a fair-minded pursuit of what actually happened” during the Bush administration, Leahy said.

Here’s what I wrote at change.gov and on this fine blog back on January 17:

… Here’s an idea – a truth commission.  What if the concept was based around answering the questions regarding the Constitution, the efficacy of torture, who was ultimately responsible, etc.  This could be done in such a way as to put off any public hearings or transparency until after a bipartisan panel of serious legal, policy experts and just plain citizens had a chance to pursue the issues with subpoena power under a media blackout.  Their product would be public. …

FIRST!

President Barack Obama today signed an Executive Order essentially rescinding Bush Administration policies proscribing torture.  The order carries the title, Ensuring Lawful Interrogations.

This brought a smile to my face:

All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order, including but not limited to those issued to or by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from September 11, 2001, to January 20, 2009, concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order.

Then there’s this:

Effective immediately, an individual in the custody or under the effective control of an officer, employee, or other agent of the United States Government, or detained within a facility owned, operated, or controlled by a department or agency of the United States, in any armed conflict, shall not be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach, or any treatment related to interrogation, that is not authorized by and listed in Army Field Manual 2 22.3 (Manual).

So, what’s so big about the Army Field Manual?  It’s called setting and abiding by a standard that is in accordance with the U.S. Constitution, international treaty obligations and federal law.  It means no more episodes of “24″ playing out in Guantanamo or black sites in Poland.  You see, Jack Bauer is a TV character.  To move the plot along his forays into torture often lead to good information.  In the real world, harsh interrogation techniques often yield bullshit.

The order also calls for the closure of CIA operated detention facilities.  To the credit of some in the CIA, they were never for getting into the jailer’s business in the first place.  Obama established a task force to study and make recommendations on issues around agencies other than the Dept. of Defense employing Army Field Manual techniques and how to lawfully transfer detainees from one place to another, ostensibly the kinds of folks who have been picked up through the use of extraordinary rendition, some of who were innocent, one of whom was innocent and died in American custody in Afghanistan.

The Constitution and laws and the understanding of basic human rights are what separates us from the apes who live and think in the Middle Ages and seek to terrorize us.  Today, we began to reclaim the moral high ground.

If the country were not facing such an historic economic crisis, perhaps I would be one of those angered by signals that neither the incoming Congress, nor the Obama Administration, seem to have the will to investigate and potentially hold accountable those who broke the law in the areas of interrogation, detention and rendition during the past administration.

Here’s an idea – a truth commission.  What if the concept was based around answering the questions regarding the Constitution, the efficacy of torture, who was ultimately responsible, etc.  This could be done in such a way as to put off any public hearings or transparency until after a bipartisan panel of serious legal, policy experts and just plain citizens had a chance to pursue the issues with subpoena power under a media blackout.  Their product would be public.  In some manner, either through the office of the President or the Congress an acknowledgement would be made and a strong statement, law or EO would be enacted to guide the government through these issues in the future.  An acknowledgement could be made that any mistakes in judgement or action were the result of trying, out of the ordinary times (although this shouldn’t be an excuse).

Click this link to vote for this idea at change.gov

Initial Focus on the Bridge to Our Energy Future:

Our economy and society and is intertwined with petroleum – a single resource – that there is no single alternative on the horizon.  Many speak of a Manhattan or Apollo project for energy independence, but this economic is much to complex to be solved in a timeframe akin to either of those two great American achievements.

Think of the bridge with its major parts, the spans.  We can begin our Apollo-style project of basic research, advanced research, work on prototypes, testing, the development of economic models, etc.  But at the same time, we can also build the bridge, span by span.  One span may be the Pickens Plan, an effort that will attract private as well as government resources.  Another span could be an aggressive tax credit program for making existing American homes energy efficient.

This also has the benefit of being a communications or message construct which will help educate America as to the pervasiveness of petroleum and the strategic disadvantage we are in due to our dependence on this diminishing, primarily foreign supplied resource.

Click this link to vote for this idea at change.gov

Let go of the cynic in you for just a few minutes and give them the benefit of the doubt that the ideas being collected and the voting on those ideas will actually be considered in the Obama policy agenda.  The signup was easy and after that you can ideate and vote to your heart’s content.

I posted two ideas today, which I’ll write about later.  One deals with a potentially constructive way to handle the torture legacy and another speaks to the need for a bridge to the energy future, not just an Apollo-style grand solution.

The more we use web-based outreach efforts by government, perhaps the more they will be offered.  Perhaps this attempt at transparency, or at least government collection of ideas and opinion will have effect.

One thing I will say is that if government at various levels is going to seek information in this manner, government cannot just “reply” to the ideas which they find “easy”  to speak on.  Some of the highly voted ideas are not mainstream, but due to their “popularity” an acknowledgment from somewhere in government might go a long way to fighting cynicism.  The briefing book closes at 6 p.m. Sunday.

Click Here for the Obama Transition Citizens’ Briefing Book

“We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani,” said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution.

Crawford, a retired judge who served as general counsel for the Army during the Reagan administration and as Pentagon inspector general when Dick Cheney was secretary of defense, is the first senior Bush administration official responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo to publicly state that a detainee was tortured.

Earlier this week, an Obama transition official leaked that President-elect Barack Obama may issue an executive order to close the Guantanamo detention center.  A day later, the Pentagon, oblivious to the signal sent by the Obama team trotted out numbers alleging as many as 61 former inmates at Guantanamo had “returned” to their terrorist ways.

President George W. Bush and V.P. DICK Cheney have spent the last three weeks on a farewell tour of sorts doing interviews on their eight years in office.  Over the past five years, evidence has mounted that Bush Administration at the highest levels essentially sanctioned torture by CIA and military interrogators.  In the face of that evidence, neither the president or vice-president have admitted mistakes in their prosecution of the war on terror.  Today, a very credible member of their administration did so for them.

The Bushies are leaving office and trying their hardest to build a case for a positive legacy.  What many around the world will remember is torture, black sites and renditions.  In the wake of one of America’s most trying times – 9/11 – our leaders succumbed to their baser human instincts and turned their backs on the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.  They created a climate of fear rather than one of strength of purpose.  They tore at the unique American fabric in ways we may not even yet realize.  In some respects, Osama bin Laden must be thinking, “Mission Accomplished.”

Cheney also urged the Obama administration to continue the Bush administration’s interrogation policies.

“I would hope [Obama] would avoid doing what others have done in the past, which is letting the campaign rhetoric guide his judgment in this absolutely crucial area,” Cheney said. “We were very careful, we did everything by the book, and in fact we produced very significant results.”

So many problems with that statement, DICK.  There are a great many smart people, including former members of the Bush Administration who warned you and David Addington about getting too carried away with agressive interrogation techniques.  Chief among their concerns was something we patriots like to call the U.S. Constitution.  There’s also this other little concern known as the Geneva Convention.  You can argue all you want that our foes in the war on terror are not lawful combatants, but the rest of the world needs to somewhat agree, or, it looks like selective application of an international human rights treaty.  And, what about the old bromide that we’re not going to stoop to their level.  There’s so much more than campaign rhetoric behind the criticisms of the Bush Administration’s endorsement of torture.

DICK, you also say you were very careful.  Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side, and others have documented the many instances of false intelligence received through interrogation techniques that the FBI and Defense Department didn’t even want to be a part of.  In at least one instance, an innocent man was yanked off of a European street and deposited in an Afghani prison.  If that’s what you call careful, I’d hate to see reckless.

And, finally DICK, when you say by the book, what book are you refrencing?  I notice you don’t mention the Constitution.  Are you referring to a book one of your sychophantic aides produced after you told them what the contents should contain?

This great country’s standing among nations is less because of politicians like Dick Cheney.  The legacy of his state-sponsored torture program is a dark stain that may take years to erase.  They say they produced significant results, but we’ll never know, because they cloak those results in secrecy.  Essentially, they can say anything.  It’s whether or not we’re foolish enough to believe them.

Chris Wallace may come from the same gene pool of his dad, 60 Minutes’ Mike Wallace, but he couldn’t carry his dad’s reporter’s notebook.

As I watched Wallace interview DICK Cheney today on Fox News Sunday, I was given more reason to lament the hard times our U.S. newspaper industry is experiencing.  The only pure journalists left are at the nation’s dailies, where journalism is a craft and the pursuit of truth and both sides of the story is relentless.

TV just doesn’t have the time, or the journalistic talent for the most part to act as the Fourth Estate, the Watchdog.  Wallace failed his country miserably today when he did not press Cheney on the U.S. torture policy in the wake of 9/11.  Part of the problem must me be that he’s an airhead — does he lack basic information or the ability to synthesize it?  The other part of the problem is that Fox is going to run out the Bush Administration string and remain the “Republican Network” until January 19.

Here’s another thing Wallace did today that will hopefully have the elder Wallace on the phone bawling him out.  He gave in to doublespeak, the euphemism.  In a word search of the interview with Cheney, not once does the word “torture” cross either one of these guys’ lips.  Here’s the closest either one ever comes to calling torture, torture:

I think you can have a robust interrogation program with respect to high-value detainees. -  Dick Cheney

There is a legitimate argument to be made that much of what the U.S. did under the Bush Administration in the so-called War on Terror actually exacerbated the problem in many parts of the world.  By setting up Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, black-site dententions and torture, they did more to dishonor the Constitution and rile up a generation of Third World extremists than they ever did to keep us safe.

The butcher’s bill for the arrogance and paranoia of Dick Cheney will likely be paid well into the future.  Chris Wallace didn’t even scratch the surface.

I was in a meeting today previewing a presentation I developed to communicate with a group of people over a thorny issue.  At one point, a colleague said to me, “Pelikan, you’re gonna like this.”

“Are we trying to educate or notify? This first part is good – you’re educating, but then you move to notifying.”

My colleague knew I’d like that feedback because she said she heard a political pundit using the same language to describe how the Bush Administration failed to get public support for the bailout.

I don’t know where she heard that analysis, but it’s good.  I still have yet to discuss this whole “crisis” with more than a couple of people who are four-square behind it. 

I think that pundit was right.  Henry Paulson said just in the last couple of months that the issues in the credit and banking system were “manageable.”  Then all of a sudden there’s a plan to make him king of the financial mountain.

There’s another reason why regular folks are skeptical.  It’s the rush.  The Bush Administration has a very poor record when it comes to public policy decisions hastily rammed down their collective throat:

1. WMD & Al-Qaeda running rampant in Iraq – There were no WMD and Al-Qaeda didn’t exist in Iraq until we destabilized the country.
2. Patriot Act – Constitution shredded
3. U.S. Official Torture Policy – Thanks to Dick Cheney, David Addington and John Yoo, Constitution shredded, treaties pissed on, FBI and Dept of Defense ignored, innocent people tortured along with bad guys who were tortured and gave erroneous information, Amerian moral authority erroded.

Now, 30 days before a presidential election, with less than a week to consider the problem, the Bush Administration wants to fork over $700 billion to investment bankers?

This can’t be good.

• Editorial: Cuyahoga reform FBI-style – Cleveland Plain Dealer
• City OKs streetcar study – Columbus Dispatch
• State fines United Health Care – Columbus Dispatch
• Editorial: Right to repeal – Columbus Dispatch
• Editorial: Which Way? – Columbus Dispatch
• Dann aide remains under scrutiny – Toledo Blade
• Editorial: Obama’s Journey – Toledo Blade
• GM to cut second shift – Dayton Daily News

National News

• Report faults aides in hiring at Justice – New York Times
• Obama, Clinton ticket seen as unlikely – New York Times
• 10 things to scratch from your worry list – New York Times
• Justice Dept. report cites illegal hiring practices – Washington Post

• Obama, Kaine in serious talks – Washington Post
• Op-Ed, Eugene Robinson: A torture paper trail – Washington Post

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee subcommittee which conducted the hearings on torture, detainee treatment, etc., did so over the course of around six weeks. They should have had these four hearings, back to back, four days in a row and gotten more of the public’s attention to this issue.

Philippe Sands, a University College of London law professor has also written a book detailing story behind the so-called torture memo signed by then SecDef Rumsfeld. Material from Sands’ book, Torture Team, became this article in Vanity Fair.

Now is the point in the post where I should write something about the rule of law, unintended consequences, and a presidency which tramples the Constitution, U.S. and international law. But, Sands said it best in his prepared testimony before the House Judiciary Committee:

From these conversations it became clear to me that the Administration has spun a narrative that is false, claiming that the impetus for the new interrogation techniques came from the bottom-up. That is not true: the abuse was a result of pressures and actions driven from the highest levels of government. The Administration claims that it simply followed the law. My investigation indicated that – driven by ideology – the Administration consciously sought legal advice to set aside international constraints on detainee interrogations. The Administration relied on a small number of political appointees, lawyers with no real background in military law, with extreme views on executive power, and with an abiding contempt for international rules like the Geneva Conventions. These are rules that the United States has done more to promote and put in place than maybe any other country. As result, under international law war crimes were committed: I have no doubt that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions was violated, alongside provisions of the 1984 Convention prohibiting Torture. The spectre of war crimes was raised by US Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the 2006 judgment in Hamdan v Rumsfeld. That judgment corrected the illegality of President Bush’s determination that none of the detainees at Guantanamo had any rights under Geneva.

For the complete transcript of Bob Moyers’ interview of Jane Mayer

July 25, 2008

BILL MOYERS: And so it went. We’ll post excerpts from the hearings at our site on PBS.org. But with me now is Jane Mayer, one of the country’s top investigative reporters. Twelve years with the WALL STREET JOURNAL, covering the White House, war and foreign crises and twice nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, bestselling author Jane Mayer is now based in Washington as staff writer for THE NEW YORKER. In the past several days, her new book, THE DARK SIDE: THE INSIDE STORY OF HOW THE WAR ON TERROR TURNED INTO A WAR ON AMERICAN IDEALS, has created even more passionate discussion than the hearings themselves.

BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the JOURNAL.

You’ve been attending some of these hearings. Are you certain that the witnesses who came from the government knew they were talking about torture?

JANE MAYER: Well, I think they knew they were being asked about torture. I mean, they danced around the question. They’ve redefined the term “torture” so that what was torture before 9/11 they say has not been torture since.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

JANE MAYER: Because they wanted to interrogate people in completely brutal ways. And they wanted to avoid being accused of war crimes. So one of the witnesses there, Doug Feith in particular, who was the number three in the Pentagon, argued right after 9/11 that the Geneva Convention should no longer apply to anybody that was picked up in the war on terror, that was a terrorist suspect. And so they took away the rules of war, which were the Geneva Conventions, which America really pioneered in many ways. And they also said that the criminal laws didn’t apply to the same suspects. So they were left with kind of a legal limbo. And they made up the laws as they went along on it. So-

BILL MOYERS: Can we fault them for wanting to put first the safety of the United States in the hours, days, and weeks after 9/11?

JANE MAYER: Well, you know, this isn’t really so much about fault. It’s a question, seven years later, if what they did in those panicky moments right after 9/11 were the right choices and whether they’re still the right choices. I think that there’s been a re-consideration from many quarters. And one of the things that I write about it in this book is that, unseen by the American public, there were many people really early on who had big problems with what this program required. And they were not just liberals at the ACLU. They were-

BILL MOYERS: No, they were conservatives inside the government, right?

JANE MAYER: They were. And, particular, the first line of dissent came from the United States military leaders and particularly the military lawyers who are experts in the laws of war. And they said this is dishonorable. This is not how we fight wars. And if you do this to these people, they’re, it’s going to enflame them and it’s going to endanger our own men and women when they get taken captive. And another very early line of dissent came from the FBI, who, when they first saw what the CIA was doing, when they started interrogating high-value detainees, a couple of the FBI agents who were there said, “These people, the CIA, should be arrested for criminal behavior. What they’re doing is, the quote was, “borderline torture.”

BILL MOYERS: And some FBI agents, as I read your book, refused to take part in this brutality.

JANE MAYER: They did refuse. Absolutely. They said, “We’re not gonna have anything to do with this.” And, in fact, it wasn’t just on the low level. What it was a completely remarkable situation where it, the issue, went all the way up to the top of the FBI, where the director of the FBI took a look at this and he said, “Well, we’re not gonna be involved.” So you – we’ve had a war on terror where the FBI has pretty much taken a backseat or no seat because they don’t want to have any part in this thing because they know that they think that some of it’s criminal.

BILL MOYERS: Who were some of the other conservative heroes, as you call them, in your book?

JANE MAYER: A lot of them are lawyers. And they were people inside the Justice Department who, one of whom, and I can’t name this one in particular, said when he looked around at some of the White House meetings – he was in where they were authorizing the President, literally, to torture people – if he thought that was necessary, he said, “I can’t, I could not believe these lunatics had taken over the country.” And I am not talking about someone who is a liberal Democrat. I’m talking about a very conservative member of this Administration. And there was a-

BILL MOYERS: Your source?

JANE MAYER: My source.

BILL MOYERS: And, yet, when these conservatives – as you write in your book – when these conservatives spoke up, Cheney and company retaliated against their own men.

JANE MAYER: People told me, “You can’t imagine what it was like inside the White House during this period.” There was such an atmosphere of intimidation. And when the lawyers, some of these lawyers tried to stand up to this later, they felt so endangered in some ways that, at one point, two of the top lawyers from the Justice Department developed this system of talking in codes to each other because they thought they might be being wiretapped. And they even felt-

BILL MOYERS: By their own government.

JANE MAYER: By their own government. They felt like they might be kind of weirdly in physical danger. They were actually scared to stand up to Vice President Cheney.

BILL MOYERS: And you say that all of this was maintained by a, quote, “top-down quality control?” How did they do it?

JANE MAYER: Well, I mean, I think this is important because we’ll all remember when the pictures of Abu Ghraib came out, the Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, you know, these were, you know, just a few rotten apples. There wasn’t a policy here. So, part of what I spent a lot of time trying to do was to figure out what was policy? What was official U.S. policy? And there’s a paper trail that goes right to the top of our government. And Congress is beginning, in some of those hearings that you showed, they’ve begun to ask questions and subpoena documents. And-

BILL MOYERS: Are they getting to the truth? You’ve been watching the hearings.

JANE MAYER: They’re beginning to.

BILL MOYERS: You think they’re getting to the truth?

JANE MAYER: I think that they’re beginning to piece it together. It’s a humungous jigsaw puzzle. I mean, and there are many, many secrets we still don’t know. There are legal memos that nobody’s ever seen. There’s a memo, for instance, that exists still that defines all the interrogation techniques that were allowed. And, for some reason, the government, the White House, won’t allow even Congress to see it. Even the members of Congress with top security clearances can’t see it. You have to wonder at a certain point is this because they’re afraid of hurting national security? Or are they afraid of being ashamed in public when that list comes out?

BILL MOYERS: But there is also this fact that, which is that there was a briefing in which four top members of Congress, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was present, were present, and they were told what was going on. Have they been compromised by their knowledge of what was happening?

JANE MAYER: Well they’ve been very defensive about it, the Democrats in particular, because they’ve said that in private they complained about this. They felt they were not allowed to speak out because they’d be accused of violating national security. I also think that, what I’ve talked to some of them, that say that while the CIA explained what it was doing, it didn’t explain it thoroughly. So they used a lot of euphemisms as the kind of euphemisms that we’ve been hearing, which are intent, enhanced interrogation, or special interrogation.

BILL MOYERS: The other side of it was raised by Representative Trent Franks, a Republican on the committee. Let me play this for you.

REP. TRENT FRANKS: CIA Director Michael Hayden has confirmed that, despite the incessant hysteria in some quarters, the waterboarding technique has only been used on three high-level captured terrorists – the very worst of the worst of our terrorist enemies. Now, what are these people like, Mr. Chairman? When the terrorist Zubaydah, a logistics chief of al-Qaeda was captured, he and two other men were caught building a bomb. A soldering gun used to make the bomb was still hot on the table, along with the building plans for a school. CIA Director Hayden has said that Mohammed and Zubaydah provided roughly 25 percent of the information CIA had on al-Qaeda from all human sources.

BILL MOYERS: What he is saying is that torture works.

JANE MAYER: Right. That’s been the argument.

BILL MOYERS: What is your conclusion after these many years of reporting is?

JANE MAYER: Well, there are a couple of things I want to say about this. One is to say that there’s a special exception here: We won’t torture except when we will torture, is a legal problem. The convention against torture, which the United States Senate ratified, has no exceptions. It’s a major felony. There’s no excuse for doing it for war. There’s no excuse for national security. It doesn’t have exceptions. So this is a serious legal problem.

JANE MAYER: Secondly, what did they get from, let’s take his case of Abu Zubaydah. There was a soldering iron, as he says, and they were building a bomb. What led them to Abu Zubaydah? Was it torture? It wasn’t actually. It was a bribe that they gave to the Pakistanis that got them to Abu Zubaydah. Bribing people does work, and that’s, you can see again and again in the war on terror. Then, what did they get out of Abu Zubaydah when they brutalized him? It turns out and I’ve talked to, for instance, Dan Coleman, who’s an FBI agent who knows a lot about Abu Zubaydah and this interrogation. He questioned, he thinks they got nothing out of him. First of all, he was mentally unstable. They you, they, he said all kinds of crazy things. He later said that he made up half of the things that he told them.

There’s – the reason that people don’t torture is not just because it’s a moral issue. It’s because when we moved to a system of law that was on the principles of the enlightenment, the effort was to get at the truth. And you don’t torture because people say anything under torture. And, according to a very top CIA officer I spoke to who was very close with Tenet, he said 90 percent of what we-

BILL MOYERS: George Tenet.

JANE MAYER: George Tenet, the former director of the CIA. He said 90 percent of what we got was crap. And he said and that was true of every method we used: Torture, non-torture.

BILL MOYERS: There have been some suggestions recently that they may have begun to torture Abu Zubaydah before the Justice Department drew up this memo justifying it. Do you think-

JANE MAYER: But the torture memo, the famous torture memo that was written in August of 2002 by, mostly by John Yoo, was written to justify these harsh interrogations, whatever you want to call them. But when John Ashcroft, the former attorney general, testified recently, he was asked, “Well, you know, when did these interrogations on Zubaydah begin?” It turns out they’d been interrogating him since March, which is several months before they had legal approval to do so. That’s an area where there seems to be super legal exposure for the people involved in this program, the interrogators, the people at the CIA who authorized it. And, in particular, there were a number of psychologists who were contracted psychologists who designed that program.

BILL MOYERS: Yeah, that’s a fascinating part of your book. You talk about the doctors and the psychologists who participated in the government’s program of torture. What, tell us about it.

JANE MAYER: They’re civilians. And they hadn’t, these psychologists had never actually interrogated anyone. They’d trained in this odd little program where they did mock torture on people. And they had studied how to break people down. And one of them in particular, a fellow named James Mitchell, spoke, according to my sources, about how the science behind breaking someone down psychologically is based on experiments shocking dogs, using electric shocks on dogs.

JANE MAYER: There’s this theory called learned helplessness, where if you keep shocking a dog in a cage in a random way so that there’s no sense to it, the dog’ll just kind of give up. They won’t even try to escape after a while when you open the door because they’re completely despondent. And this particular psychologist, James Mitchell, what showed up near Abu Zubaydah and started talking about this theory of learned helplessness and how the science was great and you could sort of break resistance of detainees if you applied some of these same methods.

JANE MAYER: Now, just for legal reasons, I need to say that a lawyer for James Mitchell says that he never really believed this. Yet, I have people on the record in here, in this book, talking about how he talked about it all the time.

BILL MOYERS: You write movingly in here about your concern over the participation in the torture program of these civilian doctors and psychologists.

JANE MAYER: That, to me, is actually a terrible … something I still can’t fathom; which is, how can doctors, who take a Hippocratic Oath to do no harm, be involved in a program that, call it torture or not, it’s purposefully cruel? And they pop up again and again.

BILL MOYERS: Doing what? What were they doing there?

JANE MAYER: They measure people’s blood pressure. They make sure that detainees are strong enough so that they continue to, can continue to be tormented.

BILL MOYERS: I mean, they’re observing the torture or the-

JANE MAYER: Yes.

BILL MOYERS: Enhanced interrogation?

JANE MAYER: They are. In one case, Mohammad al-Khatani, who was a detainee down in Guantanamo, falls apart. His, all his vital signs are, you know, cratering. And they, he gets emergency medical care, so that they can make sure that then he can be brought back and go through more of this. And I guess, you know, everybody knows in World War II that science was perverted by the Germans. And this is – I don’t want to draw this parallel because what we did is not on an order of that. Anyway, doctors take an oath. There’s an international oath that doctors take to do no harm. And particularly, it’s particularly horrible, I think, to see people use their psychological and medical expertise to hurt people.

BILL MOYERS: Some of these doctors and psychologists who participated, where they’re watching the torture, as you say, did you talk to them?

JANE MAYER: Yes, I have talked to them. I’ve talked to the psychologist James Mitchell. I interviewed him at one point.

BILL MOYERS: Were they-

JANE MAYER: He said he felt he had nothing to be ashamed of.

BILL MOYERS: Why?

JANE MAYER: I think he feels that he was doing the right thing.

BILL MOYERS: Because?

JANE MAYER: Because he thought he was protecting the country.

BILL MOYERS: Torture can become an accepted way of life for a society. I mean, you can get used to it. Or you can know it’s going on and realizing that it doesn’t affect you, so it doesn’t matter to you. Do you is there a possibility that that’s happening here?

JANE MAYER: Well, you know, there’s a great book out called, “Torture and Democracy,” by Darius Rejali, which is about how torture has worked over the years. And one of the things he writes about is that it has a very corrupting effect on a society and also on military discipline, on anybody involved in it. There’s this tendency to get rougher and rougher. You don’t get the answer you want? You up the level of aggression. It also has a horrific effect on the outlook of the people who were involved in this program there and I do describe how one of the interrogators in particular who did waterboarding with the CIA is wracked by nightmares now according to one of his friends. He – you can’t go to that dark place without it affecting you.

BILL MOYERS: Why did you go to the dark side? I mean, you spent three or more years there.

JANE MAYER: I became, I have to admit, somewhat obsessed with the subject because when I did the first story for “The New Yorker” of this series of stories which was about the program called Rendition, in which American government officials working for the CIA had black hoods over their heads, no one knew who they were. And they were kidnapping people, snatching them off of streets, and throwing them basically in dungeons where they could never be heard from again. And the more I found out, the more disturbing it became. And so, and also I was told at every step, “You can’t know this.” And for an investigative reporter, you know, it’s like someone waving a red flag at a bull.

BILL MOYERS: Where did these three years take you? Where did you spend these three years?

JANE MAYER: Well, I was just sitting at my desk in Washington really. I’ve been to Guantanamo. In the past, I’ve been in the Middle East. And to some extent, I think that made me interested in this. I was actually in Beirut in on October 23, 1983, when the U.S. Marine barracks was blown up by terrorists. So, I was kind of there when America started dealing with this issue. And it was the most horrific thing I’d ever seen. I wondered, “Well, what mindset makes a terrorist like this? And how do you deal with this?”

And, but I knew enough about the Middle East when I saw, for instance, the Abu Ghraib pictures, to know if you’re going to humiliate people like this, you’re going to have a powerful backlash in the Middle East. And many people I interviewed said the war on terror is a war on hearts and minds. We’ve got to win over the next generation of young Muslims. And if you start torturing their relatives, it’s gonna be pretty hard.

BILL MOYERS: What’s the most horrific thing you found on the dark side?

JANE MAYER: I guess, I just think the worst thing for me is reading and finding out about innocent people who were taken by mistake and put through this program. And there’s one, you know, there’s one, a German citizen, Khalid el-Masri, who was locked up for months. And the CIA actually had doubts that he was a terrorist from the start, and they wouldn’t do anything about it, which I think is unconscionable. They just kept him in there to the point where he lost 70 pounds. Everybody, you, who was around him, was banging their heads in, against the wall, trying to commit suicide. It’s, it’s really awful to see the psychic destruction of people for no reason. It just doesn’t seem American to me.

BILL MOYERS: On the basis of what you report in THE DARK SIDE, do you think that these high officials, present and former, have any fear of prosecution?

JANE MAYER: Oh, I think that, especially after the Supreme Court ruled in the Hamdan case, which was in 2006, that actually the Geneva Conventions should cover detainees, there was just a chill that went through the top ranks of the government because they suddenly realized that if you violate the standards in those conventions, it’s a war crime, which is an incredibly serious situation. So, yes, I mean, and you begin to hear in some of the meetings I described, Vice President Cheney and the former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, literally start saying, “Well, we better be careful. If we move these detainees out of the black prison sites, people are gonna wonder where they’ve been and what have we been doing with them.” I mean, they’re getting sort of spooked about the whole thing. So, yes, I think they’re worried. And I think they have to defend this at this point because they’re up to their eyeballs in it. So they have to say it worked and it was necessary.

BILL MOYERS: Would that explain why Attorney General Mukasey has actually made a speech recently saying that Congress, not the courts, should define how the detainees can appeal their cases? Turning it into a political rather than a legal issue?

JANE MAYER: Well, I guess, I mean, the thing is the courts have, in my view anyway, have been terrific in standing up for the rule of law in this country and for American ideals, as we’ve known them since the founding of the country. And the congressmen tend to be a little, have a little less spine, especially as we approach an election, which we are. So, if you put this issue in Congress now as we’re facing an election, it’s gonna be demagogue-ed. And I think that there’s some sense that a lot of people know that.

BILL MOYERS: Some observers like the lawyer Glenn Greenwald say that what Congress is doing, and this is a direct quote, is “to immunize the Administration’s law breaking and retroactively protect it.” What would be the impact of that?

JANE MAYER: I think that, you know, there’s been a lot more discussion recently about whether or not President Bush might issue blanket pardons of some sort retroactively to anybody involved in this program. And that is the program of detention and interrogation. And I, you know, I think it might happen. I – there have been blanket pardons before. I’m not sure. Again, I don’t know where the American public really is on these issues. Nobody ever asked the American public, “Do you want to start torturing people?” It happened in secret. Now-

BILL MOYERS: But the American public did want to be protected from a second strike after 9/11.

JANE MAYER: I think they did. And I think they were told that this would work. And the question is, now, I think it’s worth knowing a lot more about did it really work and was it necessary? And what are the long-term consequences of this?

BILL MOYERS: What do you think the country would gain or lose from pursuing war crimes?

JANE MAYER: Well, you know, I think that it could be very toxic in some ways to hold people as criminals who were doing what they thought was right for the country. But, at the same time, I have to say I think that we need accountability in this country in order to make sure that people abide by the laws. And I can tell you when I interview people at the CIA, a number of people said that they didn’t want to get involved in this because they thought there’d be criminal repercussions. So, if there never are any criminal repercussions, I’m not sure where that leaves us.

BILL MOYERS: Do you think that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney and John Yoo and David Addington and all of the participants in these decisions would have done the sort of unthinkable things you describe in here before 9/11?

JANE MAYER: Well, I think the panic certainly unleashed them. And it’s not that I think they were sitting there saying, “I can’t wait to torture people.” What I do think, though, is that there was a long festering political agenda, which was to gut international law. There’s been a movement in conservative legal circles to try to push back international law and to also, to not coddle criminals, which is what, you know, they, how they see al-Qaeda in some instances, to get tough.

JANE MAYER: I mean, right after 9/11, there’s a speech from President Bush in which he says, you know, we’ve been too soft. So, they felt that they had to get tough. And this is what they thought being tough was, being macho. And I think the Bush Administration really thought, “Okay, we’ll take this shortcut and it, and we got to do it.” And so they did it.

BILL MOYERS: And, in the face of this, why is Congress so pliant?

JANE MAYER: Well, I think, politically, this is not a winning issue – to look like you’re standing up for terrorists. And it’s really not about standing up for terrorists. And that’s why I have to say I admired the statement from John McCain where he said it’s not about them, it’s about us. And it’s about our country. You know, you don’t wan to imitate the terrorists. We’re better than that.

BILL MOYERS: THE DARK SIDE: THE INSIDE STORY OF HOW THE WAR ON TERROR TURNED INTO A WAR ON AMERICAN IDEALS. Jane Mayer, thank you very much for the book and for being here.

JANE MAYER: Glad to be with you.