CIA 'Torture'

[Triticum]

Triticum,

I don’t have time to read all of the links you posted; however, I don’t think you understood or ignored what I meant by these techniques were effective – which the released memorandum clearly indicate that they were. Simply contending in a dismissive and highhanded manner that these techniques are ineffective, and therefore should not be used, is not a valid argument.

Maggie,

Welcome to the fray. I am sorry if I came across as highhanded and dismissive. That was not my intention. If you take some time to read through this thread, you may find that I am not here to belittle others, but to challenge arguments and to have mine likewise challenged. That, and to kill some time/procrastinate until basketball season returns. I do not hesitate to admit that I am not an expert on this subject, and that I, like everybody else here, do not have all the information available to make a completely informed analysis. We have to rely on commonly accessible media and the opinions and statements of those that do have access to information that we do not, as well as good old fashioned common sense.

I understood that you meant that these techniques were effective, and have addressed the issue in this thread, and will reiterate my rebuttal. I dispute your claim that the inefficacy of these techniques is an invalid argument (it may or may not be the strongest argument, but it is not invalid), and it has a lot to do with part of your next statement:

(The point) was (to) get intelligence you can check against other intelligence. I think it is reasonable to assert that those interrogated say many false things, but they say true things too, which can be verified. This is a point which almost always gets ignored.

Traditional interrogation methods get good information, more effectively, without all the moral and legal problems. There is a difference between being able to obtain any sort of good information, even if only once in a while, which I do not dispute happened, and being the most efficient technique. One of the main reasons that abuse is inefficient is that it produces those many false statements that you reference. The process of sorting out what is true and what is false can take a lot of manpower, resources, and time that would be better spent elsewhere, especially in a time-sensitive scenario. True, cross-referencing and sifting through the BS has to occur no matter what, but is far more wasteful when most of what you're hearing is BS. And dollars to doughnuts that most of the unreleased/unedited documents detail wild goose chases. Another source of inefficiency of abusive interrogation techniques is that captives become more defiant, resentful, and uncooperative the longer these techniques are applied, and therefore less likely to produce actionable intelligence in an appropriate timeframe. Finally, when Al Qaeda is recruiting newbies, it helps their cause to be able to hold up abusive practices, especially those that are Islam-specific, to strengthen their caricature of us as "The Great Satan." In this sense (and others), these techniques are not only inefficient but also counter-productive. I did not develop this argument on my own. It is the written statement of the seasoned veterans of intelligence professionals whom I linked/quoted twice in this thread. Could they be wrong? Sure, but it makes sense to me. Could they be a small but vocal minority amongst the intelligence professional community? I suppose it's possible, but I doubt it--if anybody can direct me to contrary opinions of experienced experts, I will read them with an open mind.

The point of the interrogations at issue, for example, was not to get "false confessions" (such as the Soviets, North Vietnamese, et als - routinely did) or confessions of any kind.

As to your suggestion that we did not/do not/would not use these methods to extract false confessions, at the very least it has to be considered when evaluating whether or not we should authorize any of these practices for the future. Call me cynical or distrustful of big government if you like, but I can imagine quite easily how a federal government (of either/both party) could use coerced confessions to retain power by occasionally claiming (at a politically expedient time) to have foiled a plot that never existed based solely on the confession of somebody under duress, the important details of course which have to be hidden from the public for national security concerns. I am not going to argue that this did or didn't happen, just that it's plausible.

Furthermore, in this case I think it is important to note that these particular subjects believe, as a religious matter, that is permissible to provide information when they individually have reached a point where they can no longer resist the psychological and physical hardships of their interrogation. Obviously, it then becomes an interrogator’s job to push the subject to his limits so that cooperation is no longer betrayal but permitted according to his religious beliefs. Can that be achieved short of torture? Sure. Can it be achieved without coercive interrogation techniques? Probably not, considering the belief system of the subjects our interrogators dealt with and will deal with in the future.

The experience of Ali Soufan shows that traditional interrogation techniques can work not in spite of the belief system of these people, but because of it:
Ali Soufan, interrogator

Robert McFadden, a U.S. naval criminal investigator who also worked on the Cole bombing, says that Soufan could quote Qur'anic passages to radical jihadist prisoners, challenging them about the meaning of the prophet's words and ultimately gaining enough trust to engage them in extended conversations about their lives. "It's amazing the amount of information that came out of his interviews," says McFadden.

Again, I have no objection to the moral argument against torture — if you honestly believe something amounts to torture. But the "ineffective" line is a convenient cop out, no matter how confidently you bluster otherwise. It is a canard that only distracts from the relevant moral question and burnishes the already high gloss of sanctimony coming from certain quarters.

Are you suggesting that only moral arguments are valid? Or are you suggesting that utilitarian arguments do not fall under the specter of moral arguments? Or did I just propose a false dilemma to you? And yes, I do believe these things amount to torture according to my understanding of what the law says (again, I'm not a lawyer). If not, why do them at all? If our current law defining torture is inappropriate, then the recourse should have been (and should still be) to change the law, not to issue a memo saying it'll be ok to ignore the law.


Aside: I hope to have enough free time coming up to address the various questions and comments that various posters have put forth. I will, just be patient. Civil discussions go to the head of the line.

[ShockBand]

From what I've read of former CIA agents (can't recall where), the reliability of information gathered from someone under duress has a tendency to be less reliable then when coercion tactics are used. No matter whether you call the tactic torture or aggressive interrogation, it would seem fairly logical that the one being "pressured" might say anything to make the torment stop.

While I know we need to be able to get good intelligence, the fact that we might have to use these tactics brings me absolutely no joy. It is another example of humanity at its worst, as is war. Even when a war is just and necessary, it is still evil.

[Triticum]

Regarding the politics of this issue:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124087403668161211.html

Thanks for posting that.

Agreed. It's an interesting article.

Our Founders didn't look to outsource our most controversial public issues to appointees. They established institutions and arrangements that would hold those who have power accountable to the American people. And when the people's lawmakers believed the people's president was misinterpreting the law, the Founders expected the former to stand up and do something about it.

I approve wholeheartedly of Congresspeople that uphold the ideals of our country. It's too bad there's so few of them on both sides of the aisle. But appointees do serve a function in doing a lot of the legwork that would preclude our Senators and Reps from doing a job (some would say that we'd be better off if they don't do their jobs...)

Trying to get something to pass that you know won't is just grandstanding. It happens all the time.

So why don't they want to make waterboarding illegal now? Because it already is illegal.

[Triticum]

Answer the questions. Why didn't your boys and girls object earlier and what is a good outcome?

I hope you don't mistake me for a Pelosi fan or a Democratic apologist. I am neither. I don't know why they didn't mount a serious objection earlier. I can speculate that either 1: they didn't really know what was going on or 2: they (some of them) were complicit in illegal acts or 3: there was nothing they could do. 4: They did mount a serious objection and we aren't aware of it. Any other options to add to the list?

A good outcome would be to stop using questionable and/or illegal practices. A good outcome would be to make it clear to all presidents and legislators, past, present, and future, that it is unacceptable to break the law just because you're elected. If that is done by trial or by new legislation or just by enforcing the powers our Congress already has, then so be it. I would also like to see anybody that knowingly broke the law prosecuted. I doubt the latter will happen, I hope the first will but I retain some skepticism.

[Maggie]

Triticum,

If you like, I have a few comments for you but that will have to wait until the morning – at the very least. While I wrote that you were being “highhanded and dismissive”, please know that I was referring only to your argument.

I’ll grant you this much – you are actually one of the few I have encountered on this forum that is actually seems interested in formulating their own opinion. If so, good for you.

[JohnnieBallgame]

Maggie,
Please run for President and see if Sub is interested in being your VP! Your rational responses and decorum settle my blood pressure and give me hope for the future.

War is evil, the effects on the "winners" are sometimes as painful as to the losers. With that being said, there are times when it is necessary and justified. IMHO the same can be said for interrogation techniques.

I am having a really difficult time understanding why pictures are being released and information provided by BO, that only serves to weaken America's standing in the world. I truly believe that in Obama's mind it is all about him gaining favor in the world not the good of the USA.

I have to go calm down again...with the current President of the USA....I stay pissed off most of the time! I cannot see a logical explanation for airing 'dirty laundry" , even if that is what you think it is!

I hope all my fellow Shockers are well (even those of you I disagree with), I have been extremely busy.

[kcshocker11]

Answer the questions. Why didn't your boys and girls object earlier and what is a good outcome?

I hope you don't mistake me for a Pelosi fan or a Democratic apologist. I am neither. I don't know why they didn't mount a serious objection earlier. I can speculate that either 1: they didn't really know what was going on or 2: they (some of them) were complicit in illegal acts or 3: there was nothing they could do. 4: They did mount a serious objection and we aren't aware of it. Any other options to add to the list?

A good outcome would be to stop using questionable and/or illegal practices. A good outcome would be to make it clear to all presidents and legislators, past, present, and future, that it is unacceptable to break the law just because you're elected. If that is done by trial or by new legislation or just by enforcing the powers our Congress already has, then so be it. I would also like to see anybody that knowingly broke the law prosecuted. I doubt the latter will happen, I hope the first will but I retain some skepticism.

Well put! If Pelosi is in the rat pack than she should be prosecuted too 8)

[Triticum]

Triticum,

If you like, I have a few comments for you but that will have to wait until the morning – at the very least. While I wrote that you were being “highhanded and dismissive”, please know that I was referring only to your argument.

I’ll grant you this much – you are actually one of the few I have encountered on this forum that is actually seems interested in formulating their own opinion. If so, good for you.

Thanks! Of course, message boards and life happen at different speeds. Take your time!

[Maggie]

Triticum,

I have to do this quickly because I have a busy day – so please excuse any typographical errors, ect.

First, I think it is necessary to address the legality of these coercive interrogation techniques. While it is perfectly acceptable to point out that “torture” is illegal whether or not the interrogation techniques at issue constitute “torture” is not well settled. The legal status of these techniques is ambiguous at best. Otherwise why would our elected representatives in Congress deem it necessary to attempt to clarify the torture statutes to explicitly ban “coercive interrogation”, including waterboarding? If the law is so clear why didn’t they object when they were informed that the CIA intended to use these techniques?

With regard to the political side of this matter, I find it perplexing that our President has indicated that no CIA personnel will be prosecuted for their actions, but Bush administration officials might be if the AG decides it is worthwhile. Are we to take it that the Obama administration's position is that waterboarding is not a crime, but ordering it to be done, or approving its being done, is? Is President Obama claiming there's an open question as to whether Justice Department lawyers can be prosecuted for providing legal opinions? As an aside, the past memorandum issued by Justice with regard to this issue did not “ignore” the law as you stated.

The fact is coercive interrogation techniques are not illegal under US law. In this context your belief that these techniques should be illegal is of no consequence because we are talking, right now, about past acts. You can argue that it is a fundamental wrong but you can’t argue that it is currently illegal. Should the law be changed – maybe. Will the law be changed – I doubt it. If the Democrats did change the law (which they have had the power to do for some time) it would not serve their overall political agenda. Besides, deep down I think they like the law just like it reads.

Now lets consider, in short order, your argument that “traditional interrogation methods” are more effective and more efficient than “coercive interrogation techniques” (hereinafter “CIT” because I am tired of typing it full out) – in this particular arena. I am no expert on interrogation; however, it seems to me to be self evident that if what you are arguing is an absolute truth then there would be no debate. I prefer to believe, and in fact I know, that many of our public servants in the CIA take their job of protecting our Country very seriously. I prefer to believe that they want to obtain reliable actionable intelligence in the most effective and efficient manner possible. Therefore, if CITs are not the best methods to obtain this information, from certain subjects (keep in mind CITs were not used universally), then why use them at all? Perhaps our CIA officers just like to see these people suffer needlessly despite the national security implications. Perhaps they get a kick out of wasting tax payer dollars on “wild goose chases”. The fact is these officers thought it was necessary to use CITs, in certain situations with certain subjects, because they believed it was the most effective and efficient (and maybe the only way) of gaining actionable intelligence quickly. Notably, I believe that the use of CITs with these particular subjects ceased after a certain period of time. Why? Well, simply put the longer these individuals were in custody the more “stale” the information these people might have would be. Time was of the essence and I am compelled, at this time, to defer to professional judgment of the CIA.

Again, there is an immense difference between using CITs to gain a confession and using CITs to obtain information that you will verify through other sources (which incidentally you would have to do in any case). I am not going to speculate on whether our public servants would covertly pursue a political end at the behest of the political party in power through the extraction of a false confession. I’m not that far off the deep end.

Finally, I never suggested that a moral argument in the only valid argument; however, I believe that this issue distilled to its essence is a fundamentally moral consideration otherwise it would not be an issue.

EDIT:
On the legality of this issue, I think I might need to explain add a little more: As I wrote before - torture is a crime and is illegal; interrogation is not a crime and is legal.

The meaning of the word torture as with all crimes is defined by law. An analogous example involves killing another person: The act of taking someone’s life is not a crime in and of itself; however, murder is, because there are instances where an individual kills someone but the act is not criminal. My point is to clarify that torture is illegal only when the elements of that crime are satisfied; it is a legal term of art.

Thus, there is illegality only when the facts show that specific acts were committed with a specified mental state that satisfies the definition of what society has collectively deemed "wrong" in the torture statute. The issue is that the definition of “torture” is open to interpretation; therefore, the acts by the CIA could have been considered, and in fact were considered, legal at the time they were committed. Or put simply: It was concluded that the coercive interrogation techniques used did not meet the legal definition of “torture” and therefore the CIA officers were not committing illegal acts.

[Maggie]

Find the irony in what, apparently, Thomas Friedman now recognizes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/opinion/29friedman.html?_r=2

[Denny Crane]

Find the irony in what, apparently, Thomas Friedman now recognizes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/op...dman.html?_r=2

So is the great Tom Friedman now admitting that Iraq was a good thing? Is that what you are talking about, Maggie?

[Maggie]

Find the irony in what, apparently, Thomas Friedman now recognizes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/op...dman.html?_r=2

So is the great Tom Friedman now admitting that Iraq was a good thing? Is that what you are talking about, Maggie?

Yes - sort of. Well I think at the very least he is admitting that the war in Iraq did have some positive benefits with regard to the War on T……, sorry…whatever we are supposed to call it now.

There is one more “admission” of sorts in there. Hint: It is related to the subject of this thread.

[SB Shock]

I'm suprised that the Administration have not decided to investigage and prosecute the Americans who after the Malmedy massacre in WW2 chose not to take prisoners (even after the Germans properly surrendered).

[Triticum]

Triticum,
...please excuse any typographical errors, ect.

I am not a grammar terrorist, and you do not appear to be a grammar infidel. I enjoy well written opinions like yours.

I have a hard time believing that these interrogation techniques do not meet a legal standard of torture. I think this can be a complicated legal question, and I am no lawyer, but I do believe this is US law:

Any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

This and some following text quotes were taken from here: http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/18usc23402340a2.htm
Actions which fall short of torture may still constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 16. The difference is not in their legality, but in the punishment.

Furthermore,

The Senate attached the following understanding to its resolution of advice and consent to ratification of the CAT:

The United States understands that, in order to constitute torture, an act must be specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering and that mental pain or suffering refers to prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from (1) the intentional infliction or threatened infliction of severe physical pain or suffering; (2) the administration or application, or threatened administration or application, of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality; (3) the threat of imminent death; or (4) the threat that another person will imminently be subjected to death, severe physical pain or suffering, or the administration or application of mind altering substances or other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or personality.

Granted, there are some terms in there that are subject to some interpretations (severe, prolonged, suffering, etc.), but I think it would take some serious mental gymnastics to convince oneself that at least some of these techniques do not qualify as illegal, especially waterboarding, stress positions, and sensory deprivation. Indeed,

as the Senate Foreign Relations Committee explained in its report recommending that the Senate consent to ratification of the CAT:
The [CAT] seeks to define "torture" in a relatively limited fashion, corresponding to the common understanding of torture as an extreme practice which is universally condemned. . . .
. . . The term "torture," in United States and international usage, is usually reserved for extreme, deliberate and unusually cruel practices, for example, sustained systematic beating, application of electric currents to sensitive parts of the body, and tying up or hanging in positions that cause extreme pain.

Not only does the law seem clear as it applies to our present situation, there is precedent for prosecuting waterboarding. See kcshocker11's post on page 7 (Mon Apr 27, 2009 10:29 pm) for some more info on that subject. We could argue indefinitely on the definition of torture and whether or not these acts constitute torture. Whatever opinions you, I, or Justice departments hold are ultimately irrelevant unless challenged in a court of law.

...why would our elected representatives in Congress deem it necessary to attempt to clarify the torture statutes to explicitly ban “coercive interrogation”, including waterboarding? If the law is so clear why didn’t they object when they were informed that the CIA intended to use these techniques?

I think that attempt to explicitly ban waterboarding was not a legitimate attempt, but rather political grandstanding.

With regard to the political side of this matter, I find it perplexing that our President has indicated that no CIA personnel will be prosecuted for their actions, but Bush administration officials might be if the AG decides it is worthwhile. Are we to take it that the Obama administration's position is that waterboarding is not a crime, but ordering it to be done, or approving its being done, is? Is President Obama claiming there's an open question as to whether Justice Department lawyers can be prosecuted for providing legal opinions?

Agreed. I also find it perplexing, especially considering even President Bush said, referring to Iraqis, that "just following orders" is no excuse. If anything, I think this, unfortunately, is a sign that in the end nobody will face any real consequences. I hope I am wrong.

As an aside, the past memorandum issued by Justice with regard to this issue did not “ignore” the law as you stated.

You're right, that's a poor choice of words on my part. The law was not ignored. If anything, it was studied very carefully in an attempt to avoid legal penalties from clearly illegal acts, or at least pass the punitive burden elsewhere, as in the case of the Abu Ghraib soldiers.

...it seems to me to be self evident that if what you are arguing is an absolute truth then there would be no debate.

Not any meaningful debate, anyway. The only absolute truth is that there are no absolute truths.

I prefer to believe, and in fact I know, that many of our public servants in the CIA take their job of protecting our Country very seriously. I prefer to believe that they want to obtain reliable actionable intelligence in the most effective and efficient manner possible.

I prefer the same belief. I have nothing but respect for people that dedicate their lives to the service of our country, even though I do not always approve of their actions.

Therefore, if CITs are not the best methods to obtain this information, from certain subjects (keep in mind CITs were not used universally), then why use them at all? Perhaps our CIA officers just like to see these people suffer needlessly despite the national security implications. Perhaps they get a kick out of wasting tax payer dollars on “wild goose chases”. The fact is these officers thought it was necessary to use CITs, in certain situations with certain subjects, because they believed it was the most effective and efficient (and maybe the only way) of gaining actionable intelligence quickly.

I don't doubt that any of the interrogators thought they were doing the right thing. That belief was probably reinforced by orders or approval from higher ranks. Even if individual interrogators did have misgivings about the techniques, if they had authorization or orders, then it's easier to justify the action. It's amazing what people will do if they feel they have approval: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment It will be interesting to hear more and more first-hand accounts come forth in the coming months and years.

Notably, I believe that the use of CITs with these particular subjects ceased after a certain period of time.

On what do you base that belief? I'm not questioning the validity of the statement, I just would like to know where you got that.

simply put the longer these individuals were in custody the more “stale” the information these people might have would be.

Which begs the question why these techniques were initiated after months of successful traditional questioning, at least in the case of Ali Soufan & Abu Zubaydah.

I am compelled, at this time, to defer to professional judgment of the CIA.

As am I. That's why I provided several examples of CIA agents (and FBI and military) that denounce these techniques.

Again, there is an immense difference between using CITs to gain a confession and using CITs to obtain information that you will verify through other sources (which incidentally you would have to do in any case). I am not going to speculate on whether our public servants would covertly pursue a political end at the behest of the political party in power through the extraction of a false confession. I’m not that far off the deep end.

Of course a discussion on this would be speculative. I just think it's worth consideration as a possible motive for ordering torture. I'm not saying that's what Bush and Cheney's motives were, just that if we do ever approve enhanced interrogation as a country, it's something that should have careful checks to avoid further misuse.

Finally, I never suggested that a moral argument in the only valid argument; however, I believe that this issue distilled to its essence is a fundamentally moral consideration otherwise it would not be an issue.

OK. My point was simply that the efficacy of torture is part of my moral equation. If torture were 100% effective, or even the most effective technique available, this discussion might be taking a different direction.

[Triticum]

I hope all my fellow Shockers are well (even those of you I disagree with), I have been extremely busy.

:goshocks: