In looking at the tons of declassified documents from the CIA, two things were noticed.
First,
TRADITIONAL FORMS OF INTERROGATION WERE TRIED FIRST.
Part of the criteria put forth in determining who, when, how, and why Enhanced Interrogation Techniques would be used was the REQUIREMENT that traditional interrogation methods had to be tried first, and had to have failed. Only after that had been determined (according to the declassified documents, could the process for getting authorization to use EIJ’s be pursued. If you’re lazy, just look at the table of contents and you’ll see that this was not a case of, “Woo hoo! We got so-and-so! Get a bucket!”
http://tinyurl.com/dal9ty
or
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/04/24/17/IG_s_2004_report__as_released_to_ACLU.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf
Second,
IT WORKED; ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE WAS GAINED
from using EIJs.
7/15/04
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_090507_eitbriefings.html
(Gosh, looks like they got something from the interrogations/”torture” after all. )
Supposedly…
September 11, 2002: Ramzi bin al-Shibh captured, purportedly as a result of intelligence gained through “torturing” Abu Zubaydah.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/17/AR2007121702151.html?hpid=topnews
Now, was it worth it? We don’t know because the Obama Admin (despite claiming that it wasn’t) refuses to release the documents from this date and others (as requested by VP Cheney, the Washington Post, and the New York Times) which allegedly show that yes…attacks were thwarted by the use of Enhanced Interrogation Techniques.
What are Obama and the Democrats hiding?
Author of “Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War
Reparations and America’s 2nd Civil War: Malensek, Scott: 9798864028674: Amazon.com: Books
All this crap coming from the democrats about torture is just that…crap. This is just a way to sway the public in their Bush hatred. Trust me. Obama is using the same techniques and worse. He’s just not telling us and the media certainly won’t tell us. He’s not handicapped like Bush with the media dogging hjis every step. So he will get away with this junk and the American public that listens to the old MSM will never know his tactics. These techniques work and he will continue to use them and get credit for a kinder, gentler war against the Islamists.
I’m still waiting for him to come out of the closet and tell us he has regained his muslim faith. He’ll tell us this garbage but the truth is he never lost it, What really puzzles me is the attitude of the muslim countries about him. They think he is a muslim yet they must know he eats ham that costzs $99.00 a pound. Never let it be said he does not have expensive tastes.
Number one it worked, and can be proven as much as the left wants to dismiss something for the sole reason that it was republicans, especially Bush and Cheney, that came up with the way to keep us safe for the past 7.5 years.
http://ci-report.blogspot.com/2009/05/gtmo-works-lefties-get-over-it.html
Number two. Even when called “torture” (which I do not consider it be) the numbers of supporters have increased in the past months. Just click on the image and enlarge it.
http://ci-report.blogspot.com/2009/05/support-for-torture-grows-on-both-sides.html
So it works and the public, across party lines, support grows. Tell the damn democrats, and republicans against EITs they are supposed to REPRESENT the public.
Below is taken from Scott’s “tiny URL” link (first link in his post):
The USA signed the international torture convention. The US itself considered torture to be: “cruel, unusual, and inhumane punishment prohibited by the 5th, 8th, and/or 14th amendments to the Constitution of the United States.” In accordance with the convention, the US Congress criminalized acts of torture. Defined as in the preceding. Again, this is from Scott’s “tiny URL” link.
It’s been well established, from WWII precedent, that the USA considered water boarding to be torture. There is no doubt, that, had the USA not water boarded itself, and had any foreign entity water boarded US citizens, we’d have supported criminal prosecutions for those responsible, as we did in WWII.
There are a number of questions and arguments: Was it torture? Yes, according to both international treaty and US law. Was it against both international and US law? Yes. Did it work? Maybe. Was it necessary? Remains to be determined. Did it reduce cooperation of foreign intelligence and police agencies with US intelligence and police agencies? Possibly. Did it aid and abet our enemies in recruitment of terrorists? Probably. Did it aid and abet our enemies in fund raising from Islamic high rollers? Probably.
Is it a legitimate topic for national consideration and debate? Certainly.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
>>It’s been well established, from WWII precedent, that the USA considered water boarding to be torture.>>
Proof, please. Simply saying so doesn’t make it so.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
or just Google:
waterboarding japanese
waterboarding world war II
etc.
Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, you’ve been MIA for awhile, so I shall refer you to Aye Chi’s response INRE the myth of the Japanese waterboarding trials and convictions.
You will find more detail in Lorie Byrd’s post INRE these trials and the charges, with hotlinks to referenced articles.
Nor was the “water torture” of WWII days the same as the CIA waterboarding today.
Quit spreading the myths, guy. This site has too many informed contributors to be easily fooled. Wrong audience.
Meanwhile, on the subject topic, it should come as no surprise that the anti-waterboarding darling, Ali Soufan, is still on the “it didn’t work trip”, testifying before a Senate committee about how they were doing just fine getting information until the CIA contractors took over. Congress members are, of course, eating it up like a hydrated lap dog.
To assume Soufan’s version bears resemblence to an unshakable truth is to accept a very negative view of our interrogators as the norm… that they would throw out a working interrogation plan merely for the amusement of torture.
That doesn’t make sense to me, and I am not willing to blindly accept that they prefer S&M methods over those that were “working”. . I have no problems believing that some detainees may give up some information… just as is done here with criminals under law enforcement interrogations. But are they telling the entire story, or just enough to mislead or get reprieve? And are they telling the truth when it’s given up under little pressure
There’s more to this than meets the eye. And like Old Trooper and a few of us believe, it’s not in our national security interests to put the public in a “need to know” position merely to give the populus, and our arrogant and irresponsible elected elite, some smug and false moral sense of superiority.
Anyone who tries to compare what the CIA did regarding EITs with the waterboarding practiced by the Japanese during WWII is either:
a) Unaware of the details of the technique used by the Japanese during WWII in comparison to the CIA’s technique thus they are making an apples/oranges type of comparison
or
b) Unaware that only one of the two Japanese soldiers tried for waterboarding alone was found guilty. (The second soldier was found guilty because he had waterboarded a civilian.)
or
c) both
The other Japanese soldiers charged with waterboarding were also charged with multiple other offenses.
Thus far, I have been unable to locate detailed verdict information to find out if waterboarding was a charge that they were convicted of.
*****************
Does the CIA method of waterboarding meet the definition of torture?
I say no.
Here’s why (from Scott’s link). In order to be considered “torture” waterboarding would have to have resulted in “severe pain or suffering, physical or mental”:
In order to qualify as “severe pain or suffering” (again from Scott’s link) waterboarding would have to result in pain equivalent to serious physical injury such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death:
BTW, since Aye Chi had original mentioned Yukio Asano, here’s more details on him from the Lorie Byrd post:
Devil in the details… but it’s so easy for everyone to blanket anything that bears the slightest resemblence to “waterboarding” with the torture label. Horse manure.
Thanks Mata.
I was trying to make my way there, but this %$#@&%$ computer wasn’t cooperating.
Maybe I should pour some water over it.
Larry, as usual I appreciate your well-written posts, and differing opinion. However, two things come to mind that I’d like to point out/reiterate:
First, not every interrogation that involves pouring water over someone’s head is waterboarding-if it were, then every High School bully who’s ever given a swirly would be on trial in The Hague.
Second, you say that it remains to be seen if the EIT’s worked, but it does not. The 911 Commission’s final report mentions 10 different pieces of “actionable intelligence” from Zubaydah alone. If it didn’t work…it wouldn’t have been actionable. Similarly, the second link I pointed out is a CIA document listing the briefings given to both party’s in Congress, and the date I listed specifically says “actionable intelligence.” Again, if it wasn’t usable, it wouldn’t have been actionable.
Now, having said all that, I wonder…which is more likely:
A) Cheney, his daughter, FOUR former CIA heads, multiple CIA and intel officials, and published/bi-partisan reports from independent investigations (including the 911 Commission) all say the info was usable, most of the time they specifically say it saved lives/prevented attacks, AND these people actually WANT more documents released to clear their names.
or
B) Democrats who previously had no problem with “torture” (Chuck Schumer for example, Nancy Pelosi, Jane Harman, Rockefeller, Edwards, Kerry, and I can list a dozen more with dates they were briefed)…have since chosen to selectively release documents to distract the nation lest we focus on the problems at hand (problems some would say are much larger than who wrote what memo six years ago)?
Given that Obama balked on pushing the torture issue by halting the release of photos that would have revived the discussion
Given that Schumer was for torture-then against, and is now pushing the ball off
Given that Pelosi and others were undeniably briefed years ago and had no objections
Given that Feinstein and other Dems are now saying…not a big enough deal to focus on/moveon (including Obama)
….could it be that “torture” was just a political distraction?
The defense offered by Aye is that the waterboarding conducted by the US was less harsh than the waterboarding conducted by Japanese and others in my linked article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html
Well, we don’t know that, do we, given that the waterboarding videotapes have been destroyed and no sworn eyewitness testimony has been given?
Aye, you are also neglecting to include the entire text of Scott’s link.
Page 16 (article 37): Which clearly establishes that waterboarding meets the definition of torture, under the International Torture Convention ratified by the USA.
Page 18: Which quotes the anti-torture law passed by Congress. It states that the “threat of” “death, physical pain, or suffering” constitutes torture under the statute. The whole point of waterboarding is to simulate drowning. This is described in my linked Washington Post article, above. This is certainly consistent with the “threat of” death, physical pain, or suffering.
Aye’s seemingly exculpatory statement (about mental suffering having to result in harm lasting years) is simply an interpretation by the Bush Administration legal team, made in 2002. As you know, these same Bush administration lawyers are currently part of the center of the controversy. They are being accused of providing manufactured and invalid interpretations of the anti-torture law to justify harsh interrogation measures.
To Scott: I don’t at all quarrel with your analysis that Democrats try to politicize all manner of Bush administration policies to their own advantage. I think that both sides play this unfortunate game.
My point it that it is entirely appropriate to debate the concept of what torture means, whether or not the USA engaged in torture, in violation of international law to which we were signatories, and whether or not the intelligence gained through the use of torture outweighs the harm done to our national security from international blow back against our use of these harsh interrogation methods.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Actually Larry, we do know that American EIT was nothing like Japanese torture-this is precisely what the “torture memos” described in detail. Doctors present, psychologists, lawyers, special training, tight rules, at least 4 different levels of authorization that I could see.
Have you read the “torture memos” They’re like 300+ pages, and pretty confusing at times. They do make it very clear though that this was not like Japanese pulling out fingernails, skinning people alive, Japanese waterboarding, or high school bullying via swirly (where you grab a freshman, hold him upside down, dunk his head in the toilet and flush).
On “Torture”…SERE Trained in the Philippines by Experts there before deployments by Folks that were really tortured by the Japanese in WWII…
*Waterboarding was like a Frat prank compared to the rest of SERE Training
*Waterboarding was a cakewalk compared to Ranger School
*Waterboarding was a Sunday School Picnic compared to what AQI did to captured US Soldiers in Iraq when they murdered and mutilated those Troopers and left their bodies booby trapped for their buddies to find.
Now the Moral Equivalence Game that is played out here by good folks of good conscience without exposure to that risk is patently absurd and ridiculously irrelevant to me. Many moons ago I had the honor of serving with COL James Rowe. He is no longer on this earth but he could tell you all about torture. So could Sen. John McCain and a few others.
Over 28 years Active Duty, recalled from retirement for the GWOT, not a “Man Made Disaster” but a War…with several breaks in service to get an education… I can tell you that no JAG Lawyer or Member of the Parliament of Whores (Congress) or that Punk Eric Holder, who was Janet Reno’s understudy for the Waco Massacre, can define Torture. They have never seen it or the results of it. I have. “Need to Know” is not for anyone without a Security Clearance. Sorry folks. That is the Law.
http://www.psywarrior.com/rowe.html
Any Moral Equivalence is pure speculation. Now if You will excuse me I have some marinaded deer steaks to throw on the grill and a glass of scotch whiskey that is old enough to vote waiting on me. It is my Daughter’s 18th Birthday. She reports to the Air Force Academy next month and she shot that deer in this past season.
Torture is reading this Moral Equivalence tripe.
Cheers!
I haven’t read the torture memos, but I’ll accept that what we did was less horrific than what the Japanese did. However, I wonder precisely why the US waterboarding tapes were destroyed? Did those tapes provide evidence to refute the concept that the US interrogation methods met the international and domestic legal definitions of torture? If so, why were they destroyed? One surmises that the tapes, instead, provided evidence to support the concept that torture was, in fact, committed.
I continue to believe that the national debate over this is a positive thing and not simply political grandstanding. I’m entirely willing to accept the concept that Pelosi and colleagues are in the process of getting caught in the act of political gamesmanship and outright hypocrisy, but I don’t think that this in any way detracts from the legitimacy of raising this issue for national debate.
I think it’s very important to define (1) what we actually did, (2) if what we did was consistent with legal behavior under international and domestic law, (3) if the information we got justifies abrogating our international agreements and changing our domestic law, so that we can continue to apply these techniques, and (4) if the collateral damage and blow back were so severe that we should endorse the Obama administration policy of affirming the international agreements and domestic law and eschewing these practices in the future.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, what “anti-torture” law was enacted other than the MCA in 2006. And that summary states that torture is to be defined by Executive Order.
Note that “torture” is not defined (left up to EOs), and that it is also lumped with murder, mutilation, maiming, rape and sexual assault. I hardly consider waterboarding relevant with these other obvious forms of torture. So perhaps you’ll point us to the particular enacted law of which you speak.
Secondly, and one I consider a far more important question, just what puts you or I in the “need to know” category? If we know, so does our enemy. Yet here you are, demanding specific details of intelligence ops. My personal opine? You’re out of line, and by demanding such, you are foolishly risking the lives of our intel operators merely to ease your conscience.
It was this same reasoning that… with the advent of the populus and their “need to know” mentality… that the tapes were destroyed to protect the IDs of the operatives. I have absolutely no problem with it.
@MataHarley: Mata, I’m glad you made the initiative to bring up Soufan, as his testimony today seems to be the big elephant in the room now. I’d also like to clarify that he isn’t just some anti-torture lapdog, but actually personally interrogated Zubaydah (whose evidence Scott uses in this very post), so his testimony is both relevant and well-sourced.
This is a big part of the anti-torture argument; that torture is equal parts uncivilized and ineffective, and that the higher level members of the Bush administration encouraged it in spite of that (as a side note, I don’t believe they did so because they were “evil”, but because they let their feelings of anger and futility during 9/11 dictate policy that was provably counterproductive). What’s more likely, that KSM was water-boarded 87 times over the course of months because of a ticking time-bomb scenario? Because they thought he was still holding on to more shreds of evidence? Or because they wanted him to confess to a larger scenario that did not exist? Clearly, there’s a lot of conjecture going around, and Soufan’s testimony definitely muddies the pro-EIT position, which is why I’m surprised that the Right is still so vocally against a special investigation.
There are two broader points that I’d like to mention, first is the definition of torture ratified by the US in 1988 for “All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment”:
I think it would take a very shaky argument to claim that none of the EITs would fall under this definition. To this end, I’m curious what kind of boundaries you would place on detainee interrogation and why? If, as you claim, the detainee can always hold out on some amount of information, where do you draw the line and why even bother?
Great points Larry. Luckilly 1, and 2 are described in the “torture memos” that Pres Obama released. 3 is covered in the 911 Commission report and elsewhere, but I’d love to know more. The fact that Cheney, Directors of the CIA, former DoD SecDefs, and numerous intel officials all say it was, and that docs prove it, and that they want those docs released…that’s pretty suggestive to me that it was likely worth it; more than just “actionable” 4, is total political speculation, and the fact that Pres Obama and others decided not to release pics today because of the blowback from releasing pics is very informative. This action tells me that all the “torture” stuff being tossed around by Dems politically, and by pundits, and by the ACLU, etc would have been better handled by not releasing the pics etc in the past, but rather investigating, then dealing with things quietly instead of the big political show that Obama started.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Since you’re the one contending that the CIA techniques are demonstrably similar to the Japanese techniques, the onus is on you to prove that through comparative analysis.
Even in the absence of videotapes, there is enough information out there to make the comparison.
I’ve read extensively about what the Japanese, and others, did. I’ve also read extensively about the CIA’s EITs. They are definitely not the same.
I await your analysis and the supporting documentation.
Your opinion Larry.
Waterboarding (as done by the CIA) clearly falls short of the “severe pain or suffering” definition.
That’s my opinion.
Considering the absence of video tapes that you yourself noted, where is your supporting documentation that “threats of” “death, physical pain, or suffering” were used?
Ah, yes. There’s the rub of this whole situation.
Attorneys are hired to give legal opinions to every president. They study, and document, the supporting facts in the law to provide opinions to every administration on virtually every issue from A to Z.
Now, suddenly, an attempt is being made to criminalize the rendering of legal advise.
When a situation arises where there is a gray area, will Obie be able to get the best legal advice available? Will future presidents be able to get unfiltered, unvarnished, independent advice uncolored by outside threat or pressure? Regardless of party, I certainly hope so.
An attorney should be able to read, interpret, and document his/her opinion and submit it without being subjected to prosecution in court or persecution in the court of public opinion.
Finally, it’s plainly obvious that Congress was briefed extensively on what was going on.
There were no secrets.
The information coming out of those briefings included statements to the effect of “are we doing enough” so, obviously, these members of Congress, including, but not limited to Pelosi, Feinstein, and Shumer felt that the techniques were appropriate.
As Shumer said “Do what you have to do.”
In the process of defending Pelosi, Feinstein inadvertently defended the entire program when she said “I don’t want to make an apology for anybody, but in 2002, it wasn’t 2006, 07, 08 or 09. It was right after 9/11, and there were in fact discussions about a second wave of attacks.”
The ginned up outrage on Capitol Hill is nothing more than kabuki theater at its’ finest.
The Critters supported the techniques when it was necessary, but now that it’s politically expedient they’re trying to sic the hounds on those who approved/performed the very things that they supported.
The Critters on the Hill and in the White House foolishly thought that they could play games with the CIA for political gain but a funny thing happened on the way to the hearings. The CIA decided to fight back. Someone at the CIA made sure that the necessary exculpatory information made its’ way into the light.
Funny how that happened, eh?
***********************
Larry, your most recent post raises an interesting point.
“Should the Obama Admin eschew the techniques in question?”
I say no.
I say that we should make it very plain to our enemies that we will do whatever it takes to protect our homeland. If that means that we have to get our hands dirty then so be it.
The Fed Gov’t has one responsibility, first and foremost above all others: Protect the homeland and it’s inhabitants.
The commitment of the Fed Gov’t to “We the People” supercedes any and all agreements or treaties which this country has entered into.
We are facing a brutal enemy, the likes of which we have never seen before in the history of our country. These people know no rules. They know no limits. We must not hamstring ourselves when battling them.
In my opinion, the moral obligation of the Fed Gov’t to protect us is far, far greater than any legal obligation which prevents a terrorist animal from having some water splashed on his face.
triz, I do know that Soufan was questioning Zubaydah, and my “lapdog” comment was not to Soufan, but towards our Congress members.
My point in my #7 comment remains. Soufan is declaring clairvoyance when he says what he’s doing would have worked better than waterboarding. First of all, there is nothing to say definitively that the information gained via waterboarding sessions is identical to what would be gained without. Only with vision of a parallel path.
What Soufan says is that Zubaydah was giving up some info, and insists he could have gotten the same results. Again, you are suggesting I believe that intel operatives came into an interrogation method that was successful (per Soufan), and decided to ignore what was working merely to have a bit of water fun. Personally I consider that accusation morally reprehensible from armchair spook wannabees. These guys have a dangerous and thankless job. And now it’s worse. They have a job where they are hamstrung with threats of investigations, exposure to the public and enemy alike, from the moral equivalency crowd (H/T to background friend for that…).
Feh… BS on that.
The second issue I have is you tend to use “torture” as an equivalent term for waterboarding. There is no agreement from me on that. If you want to speak maiming, I’ll agree. But no way you’ll convince me that waterboarding is at that level.
As far as the definition you wish to hold up… i.e.
By this definition, blindfolding the bastard is “torture”. Playing loud music is “torture”. Isolation is “torture”. Hang… mental abuse can be construed as anything a detainee finds offensive.
You might include frat/sorority inductee ceremonies in this as well. Shall we start charging college students with “torture”? How about our military trainers? Want to haul them thru the mud too? If an act is considered “torture”, then it matters not the reason that act was done.
All this vague legislative language makes for good political grandstanding, but wars are not conducted and won by following nanny feel-good rules… especially since the only nation that seems to be held to that standard is the one everyone loves to hate… the US.
One more time. You are not in the “need to know” category, and neither am I. And when this stuff endangers our military and intel operatives, I’m going to be right here, reminding those of you who feel you should be privvy to the behind the scenes details of our intel, that you are responsible for their deaths – just so you’ll sleep better at night.
As for what I do draw the line at, you’ll notice in my earlier comment, I quoted from the summary of MCA. Pull out the vague terms “torture” and “cruel and inhumane” as that is subjective. However the murder, multilation, maiming, rape, sexual abuse (not forced nudity) fits the torture description.
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
KSM was NOT waterboarded 87 times.
That lie has been refuted here over and over and over.
As was pointed out earlier on this thread, the contributors here are far too informed to fall easily for myth perpetuation.
Trizzlor, does this picture depict torture?
Pelosi and Dems KNEW, and this report admits it
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/04/24/17/IG_s_2004_report__as_released_to_ACLU.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf
So does this one…
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM119_090507_eitbriefings.html
These show that EIT is not “torture”-damn rough to be sure, but not “torture” like the Japanese
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/04/21/20/Detainees-main1.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf
http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2009/04/21/20/detainees-main2.source.prod_affiliate.91.pdf
Howdy Larry, Show me a Right To Know Law on National Security issues related to Current Operations that are keeping You Safe on the Left Coast.
Freedom of the Press is a 1st Amendment Right. With Rights come a few RESPONSIBILITIES.
Defense of the Nation is a RESPONSIBILITY of the President, including the current Pretender in Chief.
Presidential Oath: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
The one I took:
All commissioned officers in the United States military must make the following oath of office when they are appointed in the U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy or U.S. Marine Corps:
“I, (state your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United States (branch of service), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Well, in summary, the Domestic Enemies are the Fools that American Fools sent to Office.
The Foreign ones are sitting back and waiting for the Domestic Enemies to do their dirty work.
My Oath is for Life. Obama’s lasted for 2 minutes.
Ok? Questions?
The price a soldier paid for that public “need to know”… from Trooper’s link to Col. Nick Rowe’s story.
Yeah… you all “need to know” about intel. Then you also “need to know” what you are doing to those protecting the US.
Then you might want to know it was this same man who was assigned the mission to develop and implement the SERE training.
COL Rowe was my mentor, a friend and my Commander back in the day.
He knew about torture, resistance, escape and played poker like the devil and contributed his poker winnings to Army Emergency Relief.
Now..All of You Torture experts need to sit down and write a check to Army Emergency Relief or
Soldiers Angels and get that warm & fuzzy feeling that I don’t get from the NYC Fly By or the latest words that fly out of Biden’s or Obama’s pie holes to be flawlessly foolishly interpreted by a Bob.
Robert Gibbs, like Baghdad Bob.
Torture is relative. Moral Equivalency is Horse Dung on toast.
Bon Apetite!
I ordered the grilled ham & cheese and a Rolling Rock. Hah!
From: Old Trooper
The President swears to protect the Constitution of the United States, meaning that he swears to protect the laws of the land. The charge that Obama broke this oath two minutes after taking office is beyond spurious. It is a charge which is ridiculous on its face, and it reeks of pure partisanship, as opposed to serious debate.
I think that the issue of enhanced interrogation techniques goes beyond the simple question of “was it effective,” meaning did we obtain information which couldn’t be otherwise obtained.
There are certain weapons of war which are “effective,” but which are considered counter-productive to use. Poison gas being a great example.
I think that Scott and others have made a credible point that a number of prominent Dems in Congress have been trying to score political points — clumsily and hypocritically, in some cases — but this doesn’t mean that Obama’s decision to draw a clear line with regard to which interrogation techniques are permitted and are not constitutes a violation of his Oath of Office or indicates executive malfeasance. Obama’s position is not that different from that of John McCain, or even Lindsay Graham, for that matter.
Mike says that the onus is on me to “prove” this and that. I don’t have the resources or knowledge to “prove” anything regarding what precisely was done, but I have read the language of both the Torture Convention and the anti-torture law passed by Congress, and I think that the average citizen of the world, based on what is currently in the public domain, could justifiably conclude that the US has violated the intent of both international and domestic torture statutes. With due respect to Scott’s massive PDFs, I do think that the “damn rough” procedures used to obtain information would constitute torture under existing international and domestic torture statutes, in the minds of most people.
The attempt to “lawyer” the Bush administration out of culpability for violating international and domestic statutes strikes me as being quite similar to similar attempts to prove that Saddam did, in fact, possess the same WMD which were used to convince the world Iraq required regime change through war. Yes and No. Yes and No.
But let’s at least grant that Obama has not approached this irresponsibly. His position has been that rearward-looking witch hunts are not in order. His position is that certain harsh interrogation techniques are counterproductive and will no longer be used. He is supported in this view not only by liberal Democratic politicians but by a sizable number of credible people in the military, in intelligence, and on the other side of the aisle.
There are two ways of fighting terrorism. Terrorists are the world’s most renewable resource. Even Rumsfeld said that it’s impossible to kill or capture them faster than they are being replenished and renewed. It’s like Mickey Mouse in the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Each time Mickey chops up the broom into tiny pieces, the pieces come back to life and grow into ever more brooms to carry ever more water to drown Mickey.
The other method is the supply side approach. Reduce the rate at which terrorists are being recruited to Jihad and Islamic high rollers are motivated to donate money to terrorist organizations, while, at the same time, motivating the rest of the world to support us and to arrest and turn over terrorist suspects to our intelligence and police organizations.
When the rest of the world believes that we are in violation of international torture agreements, we assist in Jihadist recruitment and fundraising, and we make it politically difficult for foreign governments to be seen as our allies. This is a consequential problem for Pakistan, for example.
– Larry Weisenthal/Huntington Beach, CA
Larry, this is pretty simple:
They tried traditional interrogation methods, didn’t get actionable intel
They asked to be rougher
They got permission
They used EIT, and got actionable intel
That eliminates “traditional interrogation methods” as a solution to your “otherwise obtained” question. SO, what do you mean by “otherwise obtained” once traditional interrogation means have been tried/failed?
To Scott:
I was following the back and forth between you and Larry and you posted something that I feel is incorrect.
You said:
“They tried traditional interrogation methods, didn’t get actionable intel”
But according to Ali Soufan:
From Newsweek:
Last week Soufan, 37, now a security consultant who spends most of his time in the Middle East, decided to tell the story of his involvement in the Abu Zubaydah interrogations publicly for the first time. In an op-ed in The New York Times and in a series of exclusive interviews with NEWSWEEK, Soufan described how he, together with FBI colleague Steve Gaudin, began the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah. They nursed his wounds, gained his confidence and got the terror suspect talking. They extracted crucial intelligence—including the identity of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed as the architect of 9/11 and the dirty-bomb plot of Jose Padilla—before CIA contractors even began their aggressive tactics.
I think in fact there was some actionable intel gained from non EIT techniques.
Am I missing something?
Ron
Thanks Ron. Yeah, I dunno about Soufan’s Newsweek bit. Not sure I put credence in the FBI’s interrogation techniques. They failed pretty bigtime w Saddam and his cronies too. There definitely seems to be a divide between CIA and FBI accounts. The “torture memos”, however, describe how before EIT could be used, it had to be requested and approved at least (by my count) through 4 levels before it could be used. I would like to know more. I STRONGLY BELIEVE more documents should be released (particularly on what attacks were thwarted/lives saved, and how), but I think Dems are gonna balk. I spent the day yesterday putting together a timeline of briefings, and a partial list of Dems who knew about EIT/”torture” and did nothing. It’s HUGE. Worse yet, it re-opens the Bushliedpeopledied idea because the “torture” briefings were taking place at the same time the pre-war Iraq intel was being given to them (in HUGE amounts too apparently!). So, if Dems want to hold hearings where they try to bust Bush Admin people for knowing or allowing or authorizing EIT, then those people don’t just get asked “what did you know”, but also “when did you know it, ” and the answer to the latter will inevitably be on TV, “Why, I knew it the day I told you about it Madam Speaker[or Senator, or Congressman].” I can list (after I did my little timeline yesterday) at least half a dozen occasions (probably many more) when Dems were told right along w Repubs about EIT and pre-war intel on Iraq, OR many occasions when they read about EIT in the news, then had a closed door meeting w CIA and intel people, but did nothing. If Dems want to go there…I doubt I’m the only one w a list of their names. Kinda reminds me of the Monica Lewinsky bit when Larry Flint threatened to release the names of Repubs who had mistresses. Now it’s a list of Dems who knew about EIT, about 911 threats, about thwarted attacks, and about pre-war intel on Iraq’s WMD, ties to AQ, etc. Moreover…the Dems (who controlled Senate in 2002) specifically authorized CIA prison spending in their intel appropriations bills for 2003, and 2004 (maybe more). I cannot believe they authorized it, had a few members briefed on EIT, read about EIT in the press, and then just carte blanche authorized it w/out asking about it at some of the closed door meetings. No way.
In looking at the “torture memos” the various govt reports, the timeline, it occurs to me that the FBI was still VERY much out of the loop in 2002/2003.
I’m still waiting for just what anti-torture law passed by Congress you refer to, Larry. I provided some summary language for the MCA 2006, which totally belies what you say above as the interpretations of “torture” were to be clarified by Executive Order. So, since you say you’ve read “the language”, I suggest you tell us the name of the bill that was enacted to which you refer.
Otherwise the only language applicable is US Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113C, 2340 on Torture. It incorporates the latest legislative updates from Jan 2007.
Under the opening section of 2340, definitions: reproduced below it it’s *entirety*
Waterboard is not severe physical pain or suffering. Nor is it the threat of imminent death. The only way you can classify waterboarding as torture is by going the route of “mental suffering”. If you want to rely on that, there is little of anything that can be done that won’t meet the definition of “mental suffering” as it’s all subjective.
I call your absolute pronouncement of waterboarding as torture, based in US Code, the height of BS spin.
~~~
Ron, INRE your assumptions taken from Soufan’s quotes:
KSM was on the US radar because of his suspected involvement in the first WTC bombing by his nephew, Ramzi Yousef. They’ve been after him for quite awhile and, if you actually read Section 5 of the 911 Commission Report, you’d know he fled to Pakistan in 1996 to avoid US capture. The Pakistani’s picked him up in 2003 and handed him over to us.
So, pray tell, what was “actionable” about Zubaydah’s information that KSM was mastermind of 911? He did not provide the information for capture or whereabouts. And it was a man the US had already been chasing. KSM ultimately confessed his own participation in 911.
As KSM was no stranger to US intelligence, neither was Padilla. His relationship to Zubaydah was known, as well as his relationship to Muhammed Atef. Condi approved waterboarding of Zubahdah in July, and documents cite he was first waterboarded in August 2002. Bush officially declared Padilla an enemy combatant in June 2002.
Nor was Zubaydah the lone detainee giving information about Padilla.
Again, did he tell them anything they didn’t already know? And did Zubaydah… who another detainee said was against the dirty bomb plot as it may cause more problems for the jihad movement – find it oh so difficult to give up a guy who’s idea he was against?
I suggest that you are being led to believe (by Soufan) that he managed to get fresh new data out of Zubaydah. And I suggest that, based on documents I have read, what he offered up was merely yesterday’s appetizer, with no promise of a main course to follow.
@openid.aol.com/runnswim:
Actually, that was me, not Mike. If it will help you to distinguish between us, just remember that I’m the good looking one.
Larry, the only reason that I am asking you to prove your points is because you are the one who dashed in and made the comparison between Japanese waterboarding techniques and the EITs used by the CIA.
You’re the one who pointed out that there were waterboarding prosecutions following WWII.
You’re the one who says that what the CIA engaged in is comparable to what the Japanese did, so I’m asking you to prove that contention.
So far you’ve admitted that you haven’t read the torture memos.
You’ve admitted that you don’t have the resources or knowledge needed to “prove” anything.
Yet you feel that you have enough to accuse your fellow citizens of “torture”, a crime that carries a penalty up to, and including, imprisonment and the death penalty.
Interesting.
To Mata:
Well according to Ali Soufan:
“Soufan also showed him photos of a number of terror suspects who were high on the bureau’s priority list. Abu Zubaydah looked at one of them and said, “That’s Mukhtar.”
Now it was Soufan who was stunned. The FBI had been trying to determine the identity of a mysterious “Mukhtar,” whom bin Laden kept referring to on a tape he made after 9/11. Now Soufan knew: Mukhtar was the man in the photo, terror fugitive Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and, as Abu Zubaydah blurted out, ” the one behind 9/11.”
And:
“Soon enough, Abu Zubaydah offered up more information—about the bizarre plans of a jihadist from Puerto Rico to set off a “dirty bomb” inside the country. This information led to Padilla’s arrest in Chicago by the FBI in early May”.
And from Soufan’s Op-Ed in the New York Times:
“Defenders of these techniques have claimed that they got Abu Zubaydah to give up information leading to the capture of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, a top aide to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, and Mr. Padilla. This is false. The information that led to Mr. Shibh’s capture came primarily from a different terrorist operative who was interviewed using traditional methods. As for Mr. Padilla, the dates just don’t add up: the harsh techniques were approved in the memo of August 2002, Mr. Padilla had been arrested that May”.
So on the one hand yes they were already looking for KSM but they didn’t know he was the Mastermind behind 9/11 which I think is pretty darn important. Maybe you don’t. And according to the Newsweek article, Padilla was arrested because of Zubaydah’s confession which I would say is also pretty important.
If you read the last paragraph I listed, Soufan talks about the arrest of Mr. Shibh from a traditional interrogation and not the use of EITs.
My point was Mata that there was useful intelligence from traditional interrogations. You haven’t really provided anything that refutes that. Whether or not you personally feel the information gained was important is irrelevant. The FBI obviously felt it was important so perhaps you should take up your issues with what information is or is not important with them.
I was merely citing an account by an FBI interrogator who’s story so far hasn’t been refuted. Also if you read the rest of Soufan’s Op-ED he talks about the wall the existed between the FBI and the CIA prior to 9/11 was put back up because the FBI was not allowed to engage in those “questionable” techniques because guess what…the FBI thought those techniques were at worst illegal or at best questionable.
And besides all of that Mata, who knows what else could have been gotten from Zubaydah using traditional methods.
Ron
I for one don’t dispute this. However, I do point out-again-that the CIA doc released the other day shows that Congress was briefed on the actionable intel gained from EIT (specifically); put another way, EIT brought about actionable intel. Would that have been brought out via traditional FBI? Apparently not since-as Ron points out-it was tried before EIT. EIT wouldn’t have been requested and authorized if it hadn’t stalled.
Ron, I didn’t say what Soufan got was irrelevant or not useful. I said what they got was day old appetizer news…. they already had KSM on a capture list… no matter what he called himself in alter ego names. Zubaydah did not give information that led to his capture.
I also doubt it would come as a surprise that KSM was involved in the 2nd WTC bombing since he was also involved in the first failed attempt to bring the towers down. A confirmation also comes from KSM himself, as well as another detainee on that same issue. Was Zubaydah relevant? Yes. The sole reason for KSM’s capture, or even him being sought? Absolutely not. Earth shattering and actionable? Not in my armchair opinion.
And, as you finish off your post… “…who knows what else could have been gotten from Zubaydah using traditional methods.” That’s the point. Soufan is stating emphatically they *could* have gotten information using other methods, and the left is taking that as irrefutable fact. I’m saying that’s something only a clairvoyant could know. Fact is, what they were getting was somewhat helpful, but not necessarily actionable. It was a crumb from a breadstick.
To Scott and Mata:
Good point and good point.
And for the record I’m not saying that intelligence wasn’t gathered using EITs because it certainly was. I was just saying that it was also gained not using EITs as well.
And yes Democrats have a lot to answer for if they insist on investigations which by the way I’m against. I may not be in favor of using EITs, but I certainly don’t think anyone who did implement EITs should be prosecuted as they were at the time just trying to protect us.
I’d say EITs could be lumped in the same category as capital punishment (which I am also against). Some favor it’s use and cite it as a deterrent, while others believe it to be inhumane and ineffectual as a deterrent.
Good debate guys I thoroughly enjoyed your viewpoints.
Kind Regards
Ron
Thanks for sharing Ron. Sincerely!
🙂
@MataHarley: Mata, you’re claiming that this law is too broad while simultaneously arguing with Larry that there is no such law.
This is not “my” definition, this is the definition that the US ratified under Reagan and must therefore abide by according to the Supremacy Clause. Your straw-man arguments about hazing or SERE do not apply because those are performed on willing participants under no form of detention: in the same way that sex with a non-consenting adult becomes rape; these techniques practiced on a detainee become torture. You may not like this definition, or think that it forbids too many acts (loud music, blindfolding, etc.) but this is the legal definition in the United States unless you can show evidence to the contrary.
As for Soufan, I would suggest reading this article which summarizes yesterdays testimony, but here’s the gist. Not only does he explicitly state that actionable intelligence was obtained: “Within the first hour of interrogation,” Soufan said, “we gained actionable intelligence.” Soufan could not say what that information was because it remains classified.. But he also clearly demonstrates that EIT actually hindered intelligence gathering (sorry about the long quote):
There’s no clairvoyance here, in fact, this is probably about as clear-cut a comparison you can find. As I explicitly stated before, I don’t believe this was the result of sadistic interrogators “having fun with water” (although Abu Grhaib showed that low level soldiers are not immune from sadism), rather, I think pressure was put on the interrogators from Washington to use what they knew were ineffective techniques to obtain what were essentially confessions – and that’s one thing torture is good at.
Obviously this is just conjecture, and I agree with you that nobody here has the need to know the full story; likewise, Sufan’s story can be dishonest or incomplete just as Bradbury’s or Cheney’s or Pelosi’s. As we’ve seen with Cheney’s memos, selectively releasing information isn’t going to work, yet Soufan’s testimony clearly raises many questions about what the full truth is here. If a senior FBI agent was openly testifying that members of Obama’s administration had broken the law and that he had been told “half truths”, would you not be in favor of a special investigation?
triz, I am not arguing with Larry about “no law”. I have, in fact, provided the current text of US Code Title 18, plus the definitions, as well as the same subject addressed in the MCA of 2006.
Larry, on the other hand, is saying that the “anti-torture law passed by Congress” defines waterboarding as torture… but provides no text of the law to support his claims. Were waterboarding, via US law, so definitively described and labeled as torture, there would be no debate.
Try again, triz. Using your analogy, anything done to a detainee that he considers mental suffering is now “torture”. The act of waterboarding is either torture, or it is not. If our military beat a recruit within an inch of his life, is it not torture or assault and a crime, merely because he is a volunteer serving in our armed forces? What if they beat him within a foot or yard of his life? How much of a beating meets your threshhold between torture and criminal act, and voluntary training? How about if they hang him by his thumbs for days and he suffers permanent damage. Is that okay, merely because he or she enlisted in our armed forces?
Or do you just have this vague line just on waterboarding? Talk about “straw man”.
BTW, sex – consenting or not – and rape are not the same animal, and has little to do with the sexual act itself. Rape is not about sex. It’s about power. But to show you how totally off base you are, a man that has sex with a consenting 13 year old is still charged with rape.
INRE Soufan … “after a few days”… *days*?? I repeat, DAYS???? Did Soufan bother to say how many “days” it took before Zabaydah starting giving up info to Soufan, or is that not included? Soufan says they traded interrogation teams several times. If Soufan ever got what they wanted, within the time frame they felt they needed it, why do you think they replaced Soufan at all?
You seem to think their interrogations were all about getting a confession, however they had plenty of data on Zubaydah already. What they needed from him was not self-incrimination, but info that would lead to thwarting future attacks.
As I said, I have no problem that Soufan got some intel. But I have a real problem with those who suggest that replacement CIA interrogators came in, and decided to bypass a “working method”. You are – despite what you say – accusing these intel ops of dissing a proven plan merely to inflict what you consider torture. And I might point out that were a confession forthcoming to Soufan via his kinder/gentler methods, he would have had it in a timely fashion, and the replacement interrogators would not have been needed. Waterboarding did provide more info than Soufan did. Soufan does not argue that. He merely argues that, given enough time, he could have gotten it.
Soufan is all about presenting his methods as the only successful way to get the intel. And as I have said, Soufan is likely a very honorable man, but he is not a clairvoyant. Obviously they wanted info from Zubaydah that Soufan was *not* getting, hence the multiple changes in tactics and interrogation teams.
Now, let me ask you something… what makes you think a hard edge jihadi like Zubaydah is going to spill his guts merely because he may like his interrogators? Do you think Soufan was getting info that was genuinely hard to pull out? And you also might consider what Soufan was using as his bag of tricks… ala knowing his nickname. Think that info was obtained by buying some hard core AQ types some Mickey D meals and providing a few clean Korans and prayer mats? I’m not a “need to know” status, but I suggest that the data Soufan used to coax and trick what he did out of this detainee may have been achieved with methods you probably would not approve of. The threads go deep in entanglement here.
As far as Padilla… and KSM, for that matter… I already addressed both INRE Soufan’s added contributions. Whether KSM was the “mastermind behind 911” was less relevant because the US already had it on their platter to nail the sucker. Soufan’s info did not advance that one iota.
You also forget, since you didn’t read the links I supplied in that comment above, that there was another detainee that was also giving up info on KSM. And ultimately, it was KSM who confessed to his involvement. Had Zubaydah never said a word about KSM, the US still would have gotten him thru Pakistan, and still gotten to the bottom of it. Zubaydah’s comment about 911 was useful, but it wasn’t ultimately necessary.
INRE Padilla – prior to Zubahdah’s waterboarding, they already had data on Padilla, where he had been, what his specialty was, that he hung out with Atef… so they were quite aware of his expertise in dirty bombs. I also pointed out Zubaydah would give that up more easily since he did not approve of Padilla’s plan to use a dirty bomb because of backlash on the jihad movement.
But did Zubaydah’s info via Soufan expose a plot? Lead to Padilla’s capture? Nope. Padilla was arrested months before Zubaydah was ever waterboarded. Was he convicted and now serving his sentence because of information from Zubaydah? No…. the key piece of evidence was his application to an AQ training camp.
In fact, other than ID’ing a man the US already had in custody, Zubaydah’s info on Padilla was never used by the justice department… From a Sept 2006 NYTs story about Zubaydah:
In light that evidence used to convict Padilla contained nothing obtained from Zubaydah, I would question just how “actionable” his contribution was via Soufan.
@trizzlor.myopenid.com:
The Body of Principles that you’re waving around was never given treaty status so your Supremacy Clause argument falls apart right there.
Several sources I have located indicate that this Body of Principles is non-binding.
In fact, from what I have found, this Body of Principles is nothing more than a UN Resolution.
Another argument shot to hell.
Damn.
Don’t you just hate it when that happens?
@MataHarley:
You’re misreading the quote, Sufan is saying that the contract interrogators that used EITs did not get anywhere after several days, here’s the context to make it clearer:
We don’t (and shouldn’t) know what this intelligence was, and the time-line regarding KSM is very sketchy, with Soufan himself claiming that many of these memos were inaccurate; we do know, according to him, that the intelligence was quickly obtained and was actionable. Your doubts do not change the severity of these accusations. To your other point that “Waterboarding did provide more info than Soufan did. Soufan does not argue that. He merely argues that, given enough time, he could have gotten it.” In fact, he does argue just that in the quote you misread: “The new techniques [EIT] did not produce results, as Abu Zubaydah shut down and stopped talking“.
As for what kind of confessions the White House was looking for from these detainees? I suspect it was something like this, where, according to Duelfer, Cheney suggested that a detainee be waterboarded to extract an al-Qaida/Iraq connection.
My point is not that this is a smoking gun, but can you imagine a scenario with these kinds of primary source accusations against Obama where you would not argue for an investigation?
That’s the same Charles Duelfer who said Saddam was indeed a WMD threat, right?
I wonder if Cheney said “waterboarded” or if he said EIT should be used? There were several forms of EIT, and Speaker Pelosi says only waterboarding was torture.
triz, I read the entire article you linked. I am aware of the entire context… and it says, “after a few days of getting no information, and repeated inquiries”. This indicates to me that, after their first “few days”, the CIA interrogators turned the reins again over to Soufan to see if he could get more effective info.
It was then that Soufan pronouces he got the info about Padilla. Well, considering that what he got wasn’t useful for evidence for a guy the US already had in custody, how thrilled should they be that Zubaydah’s telling them something they already know, and does not advance their evidentiary arguments?
The timeline about KSM’s flight to Pakistan in 1996 to avoid US capture is “sketchy”? Boy, that’s news… Don’t see any overlap there, guy. We’re talking years that the US has been on KSM’s trail because of the 1993 WTC bombing. He did not magically become wanted the minute Zubaydah ID’d him.
Soufan says “memos are inaccurate”? Then why should we believe his?
You keep repeating Soufan’s comment about “shut down” inbetween the CIA/Soufan trade off interrogation teams. Yet it was only days. And ultimately, Soufan was out of there, and Zubaydah *did* talk. So Soufan’s statement that it doesn’t work is moot, and belies the facts. As I said, Soufan’s all about saying that he could have gotten the same info without waterboarding. That’s just a bolt out of the blue comment with no foundation in fact.
And just what does Windrem’s bias-morphed account of two Intelligence agents saying that the office of the veep suggested waterboarding an Iraqi suspected of knowing AQ-Saddam ties have to do with why they waterboarded Zubaydah? Stay on topic please. Talk about left field… geeez. This was a month after the US entry into Iraq. Waterboarding was not a hot topic, as Pelosi confirms. Why dig this up about a guy who was not waterboarded to dodge the specifics of one who *was* waterboarded?
As I said, they already had the skinny on Zubaydah… they didn’t need his confession, and in fact backed down his import in AQ to a different level.
@MataHarley: Sorry to split this in two, but these debates are turning into term papers. Back to your original point regarding torture: Using your analogy, anything done to a detainee that he considers mental suffering is now “torture”. My interpretation of that passage is that anything we as signatories consider abuse is now torture; including sensory deprivation, etc. As for beating/hanging, the point is weather the individual is consenting or not (otherwise, why is boxing legal?). If, in some bizzare scenario, a person was hung by his thumbs for days because he wanted/consented to it, I’m pretty sure this would not be prosecuted as torture. Knowing Hollywood, I wouldn’t be surprised if we find a Law & Order that covered this or some strange S&M incident. Likewise, while I agree with you that rape is about power and not sex, statutory rape exists because a child cannot actually consent to such an act in the eyes of the law.
BTW, I’m avoiding the KSM/Padilla debate because we don’t and likely will never have all the details. I’ve read Marc Thiessen‘s timeline as well as the rebuttals to it (and the rebuttal to the rebuttal) and there is just not enough declassified information to fully outline the situation, especially when people like Soufan claim that the information we do have is suspect.
@Aye Chihuahua: Thanks, I didn’t know this was non-binding and stand corrected; the treaty-level Convention Against Torture brings us back to the stale-mate over the definition of “severe”. While being non-binding, does this still not dictate a more explicit “in spirit” definition of torture, which would apply to the binding resolutions where it’s simply referred to as “torture” with no clarification? Otherwise, in what sense do we agree with the resolution by having signed it?
@MataHarley: You asked why I thought the interrogators would want a confession, I offered an example where EIT was purportedly justified to get a confession from another detainee. I suspect the same motivation was driving all of these interrogations.
triz, I did not ask why interrogators would want a confession from *any* one. I asked why they would want a confession from Zubaydah.
INRE your comments:
Your “pretty sure” falls flat, triz. Read up on junior drill Sergeant Jerrod Glass. Here’s more data on the aftermath of his training on volunteers.
You’re off on a dream tangent of you think torture ceases to be torture merely because they are conducted on a military inductee.
@MataHarley: The confession interrogators wanted from Zubaydah is the same – that of a link between al Qaida and Saddam. And I’m not stating this as fact, but as a plausible reason for taking Sufan off even though he was getting actionable intelligence.
My contention is not that torture stops being torture because the victim is enlisted, but only if he is a willing participant. The Glass incident is disgusting; but if two marines were involved in a boxing match and sustained similar injuries, that would obviously not be torture because they both were consenting participants.
If you are not stating this as a fact, why state it at all? However it’s preposterous to think they are merely looking for Saddam-Iraq links, and not intel on future attacks… their prime purposes for interrogation.
Your “willing” argument remains a pipedream, bent to suit your idea of torture is only torture under circumstances you deem as appropriate, and not the act itself. A recruit undergoing training is “a willing participant” by the very nature of his presence in the military. But it is not prosecuted because the military does not consider waterboard torture, and an interrogation act they are trained to resist. They don’t train them to resist hanging by thumbs because that *is* torture that causes physical, and possibly permanent harm. Boxing is a sport… not torture.
Olby was arguing that tonight too-based on some Vanity Fair gig. I have yet to read the Vanity Fair piece, but it’s more likely that (given the CIA’s inability/refusal to form a conclusion re regime ties in 2002 because they had no humint for 4yrs in Iraq) the admin wanted to know IF there was a tie rather than to just make one up. If they wanted to make one up…they’d have just said they had an NSA intercept, created some fuzzy audio tape, and played that as proof. Look at the number of intel reports re regime ties from the CIA in 2002. You’ll be surprised what they said:
‘we don’t know’
‘could be’
‘might not be’
‘we have no information ’cause we haven’t looked at the possibility since the 1998 UBL indictment said there was a tie (sec4)’
@MataHarley: I’m stating this because you wanted a potential explanation for why Sufan would be taken off even though his interrogation worked. Obviously neither of us know what happened and all of the underlying motivation – you claim that the only way Sufan was taken off was because he was ineffective, I claim that he was taken off because he wasn’t getting the information the White House wanted to get.
When it comes down to it, you’re assuming that that the people at the top were acting out of complete benevolence; my point is that there are now several high-level first hand accounts refuting this. Again, would you ever give this much benefit of the doubt to Obama in a similar situation?
No, no and no, triz. Soufan was taken off because he was not obtaining whatever specific and in depth info the CIA needed. He was “effective” to a point. But as I have repeated here many times here… like crumbs off a breadstick, or day old appetizers. Zubaydah was talking… just not giving up the main course, which is what the CIA was looking for.
Obama is a receiver of intel, not an interrogator. And I give Obama considerable latitude on keeping info classified for our national security, just as I did Bush. I applaud his decision to withhold the photos, however it does not negate the damage he did by voluntarily releasing the memos without holding it up and away from the ACLU and public… as it should have been… thru litigation. He caved for poll points. He then realized the error of his ways. Good… just wish he’d done it before screwing it up the first time.
@MataHarley: Soufan could not say what that information was because it remains classified. Unless you’re privy to something the public is not, your claims are based on assumptions and half-classified reports that are suspect. While the executive is meant to be the receiver of intel, it now looks like Cheney was intricately involved in deciding the kinds of interrogations should be carried out. I have and still agree with you that these documents should be classified; but if high level FBI and CIA officials were accusing Obama/Biden of impeding an interrogation to bolster their own political agenda, would you give him the same deference you are now giving Bush/Cheney? Would you not, at least, be in support of an investigation?
Let me get this straight, twiz. You’re telling me that my claims that the primary objective for interrogation is to get intel on future attacks is “assumption”, yet you say to me:
Spare me the assumptions lecture and apply your own “privvy to something the public is not” to yourself. Or perhaps, as Scott pointed out, you were inspired by Keith O’s diatribe this eve.
The same applies… the “it now looks like” is an assumption, but one with a twist. Cheney as VP is #2 guy to the CIC. They have a direct and legit say in what is being done for interrogation policy. However, that still makes the executive branch a RECEIVER of intel once that interrogation is complete. Methods and results are two different aspects.
But it’s good to find some… any… common ground that we both believe documents and details on our operatives methods and results should remain classified. Ultimately, my bottom line still remains the populous is not a “need to know” security cleared class.
Which then leads me to your other question. You do seem to be adamant to try and get some ODS out of me. No… I do not support airing our internal intel/executive branch battles of who knew what, when, what happened. I am not partisan about our military, our national security, or classified intel.
@MataHarley: Yes, this is what I’ve been trying to say – both my claims about the improper use of interrogation and yours about proper use are based on assumptions we’ve made from partially classified memos and documents written by self-interested parties. Obviously we can’t just keep selectively releasing this stuff into the open, so let’s have a special investigation to put these claims to rest.
Obviously you and I have fundamentally different views on what warrants an investigation rather than trusting it to work itself out through protocol. I’ll admit that I didn’t expect you to be consistent on this, but for that you have a lot of my respect.
IRONY ALERT
Obama Admin IS blocking efforts to find truth by blocking Cheney request to show (even redacted) docs that would show interrogations worked & saved hundreds of thousands of lives.
This line about assuming benevolence is wrong-not because of a political bias, but because at the time this was happening there is a historical, extremely well-documented case of lack of intel-a lack of which specifically led to the 911 attacks, was causing concern about other attacks, and later would lead to intel failures re Iraq. Recall that the Joint House/Sen intel committee inquiry into the 911 attacks revealed that between 1998 and 911, no more than 4 to 40 people in the entire intel community were tracking the entire AQ network, and from 1998-2003….there were ZERO human intel assets inside Iraq. That’s a bi-partisan investigation that says this, and I can point to three others that say it as well. There was almost no intel, and as such freaking out over concerns of a lack of intel isn’t pushing for a story (while the Olby’s of the world like to assume), but a very realistic matter. Like I said, if they wanted a false story…they could have just made one up.
To Mata:
Something to add to dabate:
I know waterboarding is torture – because I did it myself
By MALCOLM NANCE
Wednesday, October 31st 2007, 10:52 PM
Last week, attorney general nominee Judge Michael Mukasey dodged the question of whether waterboarding terror suspects is necessarily torture. Americans can disagree as to whether or not this should disqualify him for the top job in the Justice Department. But they should be under no illusions about what waterboarding is.
As a former master instructor and chief of training at the U.S. Navy Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School (SERE) in San Diego, I know the waterboard personally and intimately. Our staff was required to undergo the waterboard at its fullest. I was no exception.
I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people. It has been reported that both the Army and Navy SERE school’s interrogation manuals were used to form the interrogation techniques employed by the Army and the CIA for its terror suspects. What is less frequently reported is that our training was designed to show how an evil totalitarian enemy would use torture at the slightest whim.
Having been subjected to this technique, I can say: It is risky but not entirely dangerous when applied in training for a very short period. However, when performed on an unsuspecting prisoner, waterboarding is a torture technique – without a doubt. There is no way to sugarcoat it.
In the media, waterboarding is called “simulated drowning,” but that’s a misnomer. It does not simulate drowning, as the lungs are actually filling with water. There is no way to simulate that. The victim is drowning.
Unless you have been strapped down to the board, have endured the agonizing feeling of the water overpowering your gag reflex, and then feel your throat open and allow pint after pint of water to involuntarily fill your lungs, you will not know the meaning of the word.
How much of this the victim is to endure depends on the desired result (in the form of answers to questions shouted into the victim’s face) and the obstinacy of the subject. A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs that show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience, to horrific suffocating punishment to the final death spiral.
Waterboarding is slow-motion suffocation with enough time to contemplate the inevitability of blackout and expiration. Usually the person goes into hysterics on the board. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch. If it goes wrong, it can lead straight to terminal hypoxia – meaning, the loss of all oxygen to the cells.
The lack of physical scarring allows the victim to recover and be threatened with its use again and again. Call it “Chinese water torture,” “the barrel,” or “the waterfall.” It is all the same.
One has to overcome basic human decency to endure causing the effects. The brutality would force you into a personal moral dilemma between humanity and hatred. It would leave you questioning the meaning of what it is to be an American.
Is there a place for the waterboard? Yes. It must go back to the realm of training our operatives, soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines – to prepare for its uncontrolled use by our future enemies. Brutal interrogation, flash murder and extreme humiliation of Americans may now be guaranteed because we have mindlessly, but happily, broken the seal on the Pandora’s box of indignity, cruelty and hatred in the name ofprotecting America.
Torture advocates hide behind the argument that an open discussion about specific American interrogation techniques will aid the enemy. Yet convicted Al Qaeda members and innocent captives who were released to their host nations have already debriefed the world through hundreds of interviews, movies and documentaries on exactly what methods they were subjected to and how they endured.
Our own missteps have already created a cadre of highly experienced lecturers for Al Qaeda’s own virtual school for terrorists.
I agree with Sen. John McCain. Waterboarding should never be used as an interrogation tool. It is beneath our values.
Nance is a counterterrorism consultant for the government’s special operations, homeland security and intelligence agencies. A longer version of this essay appeared on http://www.smallwarsjournal.com/blog.