Bachmann Insists the ACLU Is Running the CIA

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) thinks the ACLU is in charge of the CIA.<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/gageskidmore/5554589051/sizes/z/in/photostream/">Gage Skidmore</a>/Flickr

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


During Saturday night’s GOP presidential primary debate on CBS, Rep. Michele Bachmann accused President Barack Obama of “allowing the ACLU to run the CIA.” On NBC’s Meet the Press the next day, Bachmann doubled down on the assertion that the Obama administration has been manipulated by diabolical civil libertarian groups:

We all know that that isn’t a long-term solution to this problem. We aren’t adding any new terrorists to Guantanamo Bay. We only have Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the admitted mastermind of 9/11, who is at Guantanamo Bay, and others as well. But we don’t have a place to put Al Qaeda when we pick them up. It’s either catch and release, which is a terrible idea, or we have to kill them. What we need to win this war on terror is interrogation. This is where my comment about the ACLU comes in because today the CIA is no longer able to go through the interrogation that yielded such profitable information that saved American lives. That’s what I’m interested in, David…The, the, the only thing that we have available to us today is the Army field manual. That’s online. So terrorists can go ahead and read ahead of time what will happen to them when we capture them, and it’s really, effectively, when we capture them today, it’s a slap on the wrist. I want to save American lives, and that’s why I want the CIA…

Host David Gregory pointed out that the United States does in fact continue to detain terrorism suspects in Afghanistan, on aircraft carriers, and in secret foreign facilities, but for some reason he neglected to mention the dozens of domestic maximum and supermax facilities available on American soil, which hold hundreds of convicted terrorists. There are more terrorists serving prison terms in the US than there are detainees at Gitmo.

When Bachmann said that Obama was allowing the ACLU to run the CIA, what she really meant was that she objects to the United States no longer using Communist torture techniques designed to produce false confessions on detainees in American custody. From David Petraeus to former CIA clandestine services officer Glenn Carle to former FBI interrogator Ali Soufan—the list of national-security officials who have criticized the use of torture is long and spans the full range of government entities responsible for dealing with terrorism. When President Ronald Reagan signed the Convention Against Torture, he probably could not have imagined that more than 20 years later opposing torture would be the minority opinion in a GOP presidential debate. The ACLU is in fairly distinguished company in its opposition to torture. 

This is not an issue of torture being immoral or not working—even the CIA’s own investigation was inconclusive on whether its interrogation tactics were useful. The effectiveness of international agreements regarding the treatment of people in detention depend on powerful countries like the United States following the rules. If the US ignores these conventions, it is easier for other countries to argue that mistreatment of Americans in their custody doesn’t amount to torture either. The more the United States ignores prohibitions against torture, the more inclined America’s enemies are to feel comfortable doing the same. 

Given that the ACLU has spent the last few years suing Obama over accountability for torture, warrantless surveillance, and targeted killing, it’s fair to say if Obama were actually following the ACLU’s lead America’s national security policies would look very different. But perhaps as with her ill-advised remarks on vaccines, Bachmann is just thoughtlessly repeating what’s she’s heard. 

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate