[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Senate]
[Pages S716-S717]
WATERBOARDING
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, today is the 100th New Hampshire
Presidential primary. Regardless of who wins, this is a celebration of
our vibrant democracy of engaged citizens putting candidates to the
test and demanding answers on the tough issues the next President will
confront.
It is also another important step in choosing our next Commander in
Chief, and the stakes couldn't be higher. As we heard from the Director
of National Intelligence this morning, the threats to our Nation are
growing more diverse, more complex, and more dangerous. More than ever
we need a Commander in Chief with a clear vision, a steady hand, sound
judgment and confidence--not only in our Nation's power but in the
values and ideals that generations of American heroes have fought for
and died defending.
That is why it has been so disappointing to see some Presidential
candidates engaged in loose talk on the campaign trail about reviving
waterboarding and other inhumane interrogation techniques. It might be
easy to dismiss this bluster as cheap campaign rhetoric, but these
statements must not go unanswered because they mislead the American
people about the realities of interrogation, how to gather
intelligence, what it takes to defend our security, and at the most
fundamental level, what we are fighting for as a nation and what kind
of a nation we are.
It is important to remember the fact that these forms of torture not
only failed their purpose to secure actionable intelligence to prevent
further attacks on the United States and our allies, but they
compromised our values, stained our national honor, and did little
practical good. While some have shamefully sought to minimize the
practice of waterboarding, it is clear to me that this practice, which
is a simulated execution by drowning, amounts to torture as any
reasonable person would define it and how the Geneva Conventions on the
treatment of prisoners of war, of which we are signatories, define it.
The use of these methods by the United States was shameful and
unnecessary because the United States has tried, convicted, and
executed foreign combatants who employed methods of torture, including
waterboarding, against American prisoners of war. Following World War
II, Japanese generals were tried, convicted, and hung. One of the
charges against them was that they practiced waterboarding. Contrary to
assertions made by some of the defenders, it provided little useful
intelligence to help us track down the perpetrators of the September 11
attacks or to prevent new attacks and atrocities.
This Senator knows from personal experience that the abuse of
prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that
victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if
they think their captors will believe it. I know they will say whatever
they think their torturers will want them to say if they believe it
will stop their suffering. Most of all, I know that the use of torture
compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemies--our
belief that all people, even captured enemies, possess basic human
rights that are protected by international conventions the United
States not only joined but for the most part authored.
I understand that in the aftermath of the worst terrorist attacks on
our homeland, those who approved harsh interrogation methods and those
who used them were sincerely dedicated to securing justice for the
victims of terrorist attacks and protecting Americans from further
harm. I know that in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in Paris
and San Bernardino, many Americans feel again the grave urgency that we
felt 15 years ago. But I dispute wholeheartedly that it was right for
our Nation to use these interrogation methods then or that it is right
for our Nation to use them now.
Waterboarding, as well as any other form of torture, is not in the
best interest of justice, security or the ideals
[[Page S717]]
we have sacrificed so much blood and treasure to defend.
It is the knowledge of torture's dubious efficacy and the strong
moral objections to the abuse of prisoners that have forged broad
bipartisan agreement on this issue. Last year, the Senate passed in an
overwhelming vote of 91 to 3 the National Defense Authorization Act for
fiscal year 2016, legislation that took a historic step forward to ban
torture once and for all by limiting U.S. Government interrogation
techniques to those in the Army Field Manual. That vote was 91 to 3.
There was debate and discussion about it in the Armed Services
Committee and on the floor of this Senate. The vote was 91 to 3.
Now candidates are saying they will disregard the law. I thought that
was our complaint--Republicans' complaint--with the present President
of the United States.
The U.S. military has successfully interrogated more foreign
terrorist detainees than any other agency of our government. The Army
Field Manual, in its current form, has worked for the U.S. military--
including on high-value terrorist detainees in Iraq, Afghanistan, and
elsewhere--and it reflects current best thinking and practices on
interrogation.
Moreover, the Army Field Manual embodies the values Americans have
embraced for generations, preserving the ability of our interrogators
to extract critical intelligence from our adversaries while recognizing
that torture and cruel treatment are ineffective interrogation methods.
Some of the Nation's most respected leaders from the U.S. military,
CIA, and FBI supported this legislation, as well as numerous human
rights organizations and faith groups, including the National
Association of Evangelicals and the U.S. Conference of Catholic
Bishops.
GEN David Petraeus, a military leader whom I admire more than
literally any living military leader, said he supported the use of the
Army Field Manual because ``our Nation has paid a high price in recent
decades for the information gained by the use of techniques beyond
those in the field manual--and, in my view, that price far outweighed
the value of the information gained through the use of techniques
beyond those in the manual.'' Obviously, that includes waterboarding.
Why don't we listen to people like GEN David Petraeus, who has had
vast experience in Iraq and Afghanistan with detainees, the information
we have gotten from them, and our practices. If General Petraeus were
here, he would tell you the most effective method of gaining
information is establishing a friendly relationship with the detainee.
Obviously, we need intelligence to defeat our enemies, but we need
reliable intelligence. Torture produces more misleading information
than actionable intelligence. What the advocates of harsh and cruel
interrogation methods have never established is that we couldn't have
gathered as good or more reliable intelligence from using humane
methods. The most important lead we got in the search for bin Laden
came from using conventional interrogation methods. I think it is an
insult to many of the intelligence officers who have acquired good
intelligence without hurting or degrading prisoners to assert that we
cannot win this war on terrorism without such methods. Yes, we can and
we will.
In the end, torture's failure to serve its intended purpose isn't the
main reason to oppose its use. I have often said and will always
maintain that this question isn't about our enemies, it is about us. It
is about who we were, who we are, and whom we aspire to be. It is about
how we represent ourselves to the world.
We have made our way in this often dangerous and cruel world, not by
just strictly pursuing our geopolitical interests but by exemplifying
our political values and influencing other nations to embrace them.
When we fight to defend our security, we fight also for an idea that
all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights; that is,
all men and women. How much safer the world would be if all nations
believed the same. How much more dangerous it can become when we forget
it ourselves, even momentarily, as we learned from Abu Ghraib. Our
enemies act without conscience. We must not. It isn't necessary, and it
isn't even helpful in winning this strange and long war we are
fighting.
Our Nation needs a Commander in Chief who understands and affirms
this basic truth. Our Nation needs a Commander in Chief who will make
clear to those who fight on our behalf that they are defending this
sacred ideal and that sacrificing our national honor and our respect
for human dignity will make it harder, not easier, to prevail in this
war. Our Nation needs a Commander in Chief who reminds us that in the
worst of times, through the chaos and terror of war, when facing
cruelty, suffering, and loss, that we are always Americans--different,
stronger, and better than those who would destroy us.
I yield the floor.
____________________
