Even though many of the brutal interrogation techniques used by the CIA in secret prisons were known before the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report this week, the 500-page summary is still an eye-opener. The findings remove any doubt the United States government carried out methods of torture against terror suspects involved in the 9/11 attacks and other plots — and some people who were involved marginally or not at all.

The report details waterboarding, sleep deprivation, ice water baths — and a form of “rectal feeding” that makes you wonder: Who thought up these things? And approved them?

Yet the graphic depictions of abuse give way to questions of legality, morality and effectiveness: Why wasn’t Congress better informed of what was going on? Where was the accountability to judge whether extreme tactics were yielding valuable information about our enemies and their operations? Should the people responsible be charged criminally?

The last question was answered when President Obama ended the CIA program in 2009, releasing details about waterboarding but declining to go much further. The Justice Department conducted a limited review of the secret operations. This week Obama reiterated his opposition to the CIA program, but otherwise was noncommittal on any action in response to the Senate Committee report.

Reaction in Congress was predictably mixed. Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the next Intelligence Committee chairman, said, “The only motive here could be to embarrass George W. Bush. I don’t think that’s the role of the intelligence committee.”

Sen. John McCain, a victim of torture as a prisoner during the Vietnam War, said the CIA had “stained our national honor” and “damaged our security interests as well as our reputation for being a force for good in the world.”

And in the end, it didn’t work.

—The (Easton, Pa.) Express-Times

n n n

A blatant case of legislative pandering earlier this year to the National Rifle Association by Gov. Tom Corbett and the General Assembly could well prove a futile exercise after the state’s chief law enforcement officer has declined to defend it in court.

Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane’s office said she won’t represent the state in court defenses of the law. Lancaster, Philadelphia and several lawmakers so far have filed court challenges.

The law, passed by the Legislature and signed by Corbett in October, would give the NRA “standing” in court if and when municipalities are sued by individuals or groups for enacting gun laws more restrictive than state laws or regulations.

Kane’s decision means any court defense of the law would pass to the governor’s Office of General Counsel, which by mid-January passes from Corbett’s control to that of Gov.-elect Tom Wolf.

When the amendment passed the Senate in October, we disagreed with Republican state Sen. Rich Alloway’s claim it protects the “Second Amendment and the rights of law-abiding citizens.”

The legislation remains a shameful legislative abrogation of the power and right of the state’s municipalities and of their voters and elected officials to enact public safety laws free of the threat of special-interest litigation.

Kane’s decision not to defend the law follows her refusal in 2013 to represent the commonwealth in a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s same-sex marriage ban, which later was struck down. Corbett’s counsel attempted to defend the law in that instance, and Corbett last May decided not to appeal the court’s decision.

Both the NRA-court standing law and the same-sex marriage ban were examples of bad legislation that begged invalidation.

Kane, the first woman and Democrat elected Pennsylvania attorney general, has since her 2012 election been a political lightning rod operating under heavy criticism from both the GOP-dominated Legislature and a Republican administration.

While several of her decisions regarding prosecutions and other matters remain controversial, her decision to forgo defense of the NRA in-court surrogacy standing — and her choice not to defend the state’s same-sex marriage ban was the right one.