I’d like to follow-up on my post from Monday about Obama’s commitment to close Guantanamo and end the use of torture in interrogations. After being alerted about Obama’s Intelligence Community Review (ICR) leaders in the comments (thanks Tim), I am concerned that Obama might not keep his promise that he reaffirmed in the 60 Minutes interview: “I’ve said repeatedly that America doesn’t torture and I’m gonna make sure that we don’t torture.”

The two leaders of Obama’s ICR team are John Brennan and Judith “Jami” Miscik. Both are former CIA bigwigs: Brennan served from 1980-2005 in numerous positions and Miscik served from 1983-2005, notably as Deputy Director of Intelligence from 2002-2005. They are no doubt experienced, but do their policies show an aversion to torture and Bush-era tactics?

In an interview on PBS’ NewsHour in 2005, host Margaret Warner asked John Brennan, “So was Secretary Rice correct today when she called [rendition] a vital tool in combating terrorism?” He replied:

I think it’s an absolutely vital tool. I have been intimately familiar now over the past decade with the cases of rendition that the U.S. Government has been involved in. And I can say without a doubt that it has been very successful as far as producing intelligence that has saved lives.

Rendition, as Brennan puts it, “is the practice or the process of rendering somebody from one place to another place. It is moving them and the U.S. Government will frequently facilitate that movement from one country to another.” Basically, the government captures suspects and hands them over to other countries for interrogation. This interrogation is often alleged to include torture.

Last year, Brennan was interviewed on CBS’ Early Show. He did affirm that “subjecting an individual to severe pain and suffer” is torture and that it is “inconsistent with American values and it’s something that should be prohibited.” But when asked “If we acknowledge that [torture] goes on, you know, what does that mean, exactly I guess?,” he replied:

Well, the CIA has acknowledged that it has detained about 100 terrorists since 9/11, and about a third of them have been subjected to what the CIA refers to as ‘enhanced interrogation tactics.’ And only a small proportion of those have, in fact, been subjected to the most serious types of enhanced procedures. There has been a lot of information that has come out from these interrogation procedures that the agency has, in fact, used against the real hardcore terrorists. It has saved lives. And let’s not forget, these are hardened terrorists who have been responsible for 9/11, who have shown no remorse at all for the death of 3,000 innocents.

And what exactly are these “enhanced interrogation techniques” that Brennan seems to advocate? Here’s a list from an ABC News report in 2005.

“1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.

2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.

3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the stomach. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.

4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.

5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees. Throughout the time in the cell the prisoner is doused with cold water.

6. Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner’s face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.”

Brennan did say that Water Boarding qualified as torture and “should be prohibited.”

It’s open for interpretation whether or not the other techniques are torture. Either way, I think this evidence is strong enough to raise serious questions about Obama’s choice of Brennan as a top transition adviser.

From what I’ve read, Miscik is a much better choice. She acknowledges her responsibility over the faulty Iraq WMD intelligence and fought against the Bush administration when asked to declassify parts of documents that would help them justify the Iraq War. She refused, and was fired a few weeks later (though CIA Director Porter Goss’ spokesperson said, “There is absolutely no linkage between the two events.”)

One of the biggest reasons I voted for Barack Obama was that I thought he would give a significant boost to the US’ soft power and international credibility. So it really bothers me when I read in the Wall Street Journal, “President-elect Barack Obama is unlikely to radically overhaul controversial Bush administration intelligence policies, advisers say, an approach that is almost certain to create tension within the Democratic Party.”

You’re damn right it’s going to create tension. I’m all for his centrist, pragmatic approach to governing, but the Bush administration policies on intelligence gathering are certainly not centrist policies. They are much too far to the right. Selecting Brennan as one of your advisers doesn’t signal a move back towards the center. Obama should be clear: The US should not torture and should not allow other countries to torture for us. Period.

I went to change.gov (Obama’s transition website) and searched for “torture” in his agenda, hoping to find some clarification about his plans. I got zero hits.