Some people believe that pluralistic and pragmatic democracies, with responsibility and accountability to the people and normally rooted in “the idea of political tolerance for many views," are missing many characteristics needed to maintain a successful national security framework. This is still applicable today. These characteristics include the special ability to protect Americans and their national interests from adversary force and American confidence in this protection. In "Secrets, Politics, and Torture" by Frontline, we indeed see a failure of the U.S. government to incorporate many U.S. democratic values in foreign affairs and national security through the CIA’s Enhanced Interrogation Program (EIT). We see this fault through the CIA’s lack of transparency, the over-power of the executive branch, and likely further threats to US national security.

The lack of transparency of the EIT program from "Secrets, Politics, and Torture" signifies that there are moral and ethical issues with regard to secret intelligence operations that threaten the Democratic nature of the U.S. national security system, as Sarkesian notes: “effective intelligence is necessary for defense but can be problematic for civil liberties." For example, the CIA was not transparent in the breakdown and the new-age extremity of the EIT program to neither the government nor the public, thus exaggerating its legality to the government. The CIA also lied about its effectiveness. These problems historically relate to past CIA corruptions like the interrogations on terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, and “extraordinary rendition," of transferring control of prisoner to the location in a country with less strict protections in order to interrogate easier. In a democratic system, average Americans and the American government should not be held to a lack of transparency issue by the top intelligence agency in the world.

One might ask how there can be consent by regular civilians and the government if the “capture, detain, and interrogate” technique hadn’t been done for decades, as well as creating a black site in Thailand for Zubeida, holding him against his will, and using extreme non-traditional techniques as deemed “necessary." The CIA lied to the government in their report that the program would not induce physical pain in the detainees. The operations team discretely continued the program longer than it should have despite its clear ineffectiveness, causing misconceptions about it throughout the CIA. There was also a hidden corruption scandal of reward money for an interrogator who caused the death of a prisoner. These scandals led the White House to believe, or at least go along with, the supposed innocence of the program and legalize it. Media outlets produced false content around the program to manipulate public opinion as well, an injustice to the American people, their right to a freedom of press, and their freedom of information. Indeed, a senate report later on stated that the CIA did not actually receive and work with useful intelligence information. In a system that promotes such a CIA to high standing, the program did not do justice to domestic security for Americans, and created unease around the CIA generally, which is not conducive to a democracy that promises security, protection, and political stability for Americans.

There is a lack of democracy in the power-sharing within the U.S. government, particularly with regard to the relationship between the Congress and executive branch. The executive branch often has too much lee-way in national security policy, and Congress is often brought into the process of decision-making long after it can affect policy. The executive branch has greater sources of intelligence, operational instruments, the Department of Defense and the Department of State, a military advisory system, intelligence agencies, and a national security council and its staff as tools at its disposal.

After 9/11, the Bush administration implemented new policies to give the executive branch greater political power and dominate the Congress in national security decision-making, and thus the EIT program was established through majority consent from the executive branch. The president also signed to implement Covert Operations into CIA policy, limiting transparency for the CIA and giving them more control in how they interrogate. The consensus for Covert Operations was also mainly limited to the executive branch, and congress was not widely onboard with the program.

Bush also had leeway in deciding to fight the War on Terror and expanded his power through warrantless surveillance of international calls and emails by Americans, ignoring the legal counsel and Geneva Convention in interrogation of suspected terrorists, transfer of those suspected to weaker nationals for more legal torture, and efforts to prevent a ban on torture during interrogations by US intelligence and military personnel. The executive branch was responsible for the wider decision to legalize the EIT program through his War on Terror speech with fabricated content asserting that the interrogation techniques had worked and in denial that the CIA did anything wrong. These undemocratic acts are a threat to the U.S. democratic system because the over-power of the executive branch hinders negotiating power between the Congress and the executive branch, political tolerance, and political peace for the long-term.

The third way that the EIT program did not do justice to the democracy of U.S. national security system is it is a part of what will likely cause further threats to U.S. national security. Today, the Arab world feels decades-long oppression from U.S. invasion and imperialist acts, even in the name of U.S. interests. This oppression can turn into antagonistic forces against the U.S. and can lead to consequences for U.S. national security. Art and Greenhill note that many individuals from countries with threats to U.S. national security are reacting to forces based on resentments from past experiences, such as colonial rule, occupation, systematic oppression, and brutal law enforcement, so new counterinsurgency and liberation policies need to take this into account as well. For example, the brutal measures by Israelis against Palestinians in the first intifada over time led to more Palestinian support for radical voices and suicide bombers. There was also a rise of resentment and extremism in the Middle East after massive globalization there in the Gulf war of the 1990’s.

One can apply these critiques to the use of force on suspects in Iraq in this case, which were the beginning efforts to fight Al Qaeda and “liberate Iraq." The use and failure of the CIA’s EIT program upholds the false belief that the interrogations will bring better security to Americans in the long-run. In this “liberation," the U.S. army occupied Iraq like a colonial power, and spurred resentment towards U.S. forces, exposing the hypocrisy that the war is defending human rights and promoting democracy. So, the efforts to protect U.S. national security with the EIT program were not only unhelpful, but counterintuitive, undemocratic, and put American lives at risk. This is not analogous with a democratic system in any way.