Rationalizing Torture

When it comes to harsh interrogation methods, the ends do not justify the means

Steve Chapman | August 27, 2009

Americans are practical people, which is why they tend to pay heed when Dick Cheney says the harsh methods used by the CIA on suspected terrorists were not merely efficacious but indispensable. The intelligence derived from these interrogations, he assures us, "saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks."

Did they really? The report released Monday, done by the CIA's inspector general back in 2004, didn't support Cheney's claim. It said "there is no doubt" that the detention and questioning of detainees "has been effective."

Most conservatives, however, don't want to hear any naysaying. They have lined up in vociferous defense of the Bush administration and every tool it adopted in the war on terrorism. And they are up in arms over Atty. Gen. Eric Holder's decision to open a preliminary inquiry into whether laws were broken by the CIA.

In this, they have two basic lines of argument. The first is to mock the idea that anything done by the agency amounted to torture. A Wall Street Journal editorial said, "Millions of Americans will be shocked to learn that these unshocking details are all that the uproar over 'torture' is about." In the New York Post, Ralph Peters groused that the CIA was being castigated for "rudeness to mass murderers."

But there is really no doubt that the agency engaged in severe cruelty. No less an authority than last year's Republican presidential nominee regards waterboarding as torture. The IG's report noted that though the method was permitted under specified conditions, the interrogators overstepped those limits.

It was not the only brutal practice. The report says a CIA officer choked a prisoner till he was nearly unconscious—then revived him so he could be choked some more. It says an interrogator revved a power drill to frighten a naked, hooded prisoner. CIA personnel reportedly lifted one detainee up by his arms, which were tied behind his back, causing one employee to fear his shoulders would be dislocated.

The agency's guidelines, we learn, authorize interrogators to slam a prisoner up against the wall "20 or 30 times consecutively." They may force captives to stay awake for as long as 180 hours—seven and a half days. They may force them to stand or kneel in painful positions for long periods.

If none of that shocks you, consider this: More than 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody over the last eight years, and the CIA has been implicated in some of the deaths. Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey says dozens of prisoners were "murdered."

The other conservative defense is that these methods were used only against people who had it coming. "They are terrorists who killed hundreds and thousands of Americans," insisted Seth Leibsohn on National Review Online.

But being innocent was no protection against violent abuse. CIA officers told the IG that accusations "unsupported by credible intelligence may have resulted in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques without justification." (my emphasis)

Innocent, guilty—what difference does it make? To many people, anything the government does is justified if it might save American lives. Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, put it baldly: "We should do whatever we have to do."

He would get an argument from Ronald Reagan, who signed an international ban on torture, which made no allowances for grave security threats. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture," it says.

Reagan undoubtedly knew what modern conservatives forget—that once you rationalize torture, there is no logical place to stop. If threatening a prisoner with a power drill is permissible, why not drilling holes in him? If choking is OK, why not strangulation? If threatening to kill a detainee's children passes muster, why not actually killing them? If 30 wall slams don't do the job, why not 100?

Many modern conservatives, unlike Reagan, are willing to incinerate every civilized principle to avert the possibility of harm—and they think the public agrees. But if that's true, let's stop pretending America is the home of the brave.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

Mister DNA|8.27.09 @ 7:21AM|#

But if that's true, let's stop pretending America is the home of the brave.

I've already stopped pretending America is the Land of the Free, so you're not asking much here.

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 7:24AM|#

its ok as long as i have a rationalization

|8.27.09 @ 7:46AM|#

that once you rationalize torture, there is no logical place to stop.

First, the article repeatedly uses as examples incidents that apparently weren't rationalized, and were beyond the guidelines. (And ones that I personally certainly agree are torture.)

But in any case, as an abstract argument I don't see a logical place to stop in with the "once you rationalize torture, there is no logical place to stop" slippery slope argument, either. Once you rationalize holding someone against their will, is there a logical place to stop? (Or once you rationalize putting some people in Supermax prisons like ADX Florence.) Once you rationalize any sort of interrogation at all, even following the Army Field Manual, is there a logical place to stop? Even once you rationalize being willing to kill the person instead of capturing him, is there a logical place to stop? If your argument is "involuntary incarceration isn't torture, but the other things are," then you're begging the question. After all, the entire dispute is about where the line is between torture and not torture.

Certainly opposing all war and/or involuntary incarceration is consistent. Otherwise, you have to draw a line somewhere and say that there is a place to stop, logical or not, and that two things appear quite close but one is allowed and the other is not.

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 8:00AM|#

Even once you rationalize being willing to kill the person instead of capturing him, is there a logical place to stop?

Yeah.

Ty|8.27.09 @ 8:01AM|#

I'm digging the Reagan love around here the last couple of days.

mr simple|8.27.09 @ 8:46AM|#

I don't know if there was anything posted about this, but it seems like the next step on the path that this rationalization of torture takes us.

Chinny Chin Chin|8.27.09 @ 8:51AM|#

Retired Army Gen. Barry McCaffrey says dozens of prisoners were "murdered."

How does McCaffrey know this? Does he, as a adjunct professor and TV talking head, receive secret squirrel briefings?

Or could it be that he's simply got a military rank, and is an authoritative-sounding figure to quote?

roystgnr|8.27.09 @ 8:54AM|#

If we're trying to invoke the name of someone conservatives should respect, we don't have to stop at Reagan. This isn't the first time in history that the most powerful nation in the world decided to invade the Middle East and start torturing and killing prisoners who hadn't been given fair trials. In fact, I recall reading a Good Book about one of the previous incidents. The hero in that one did want His torturers to be forgiven, but not to be *emulated*.

Mad Max|8.27.09 @ 9:03AM|#

'Rep. Peter King, a New York Republican, put it baldly: "We should do whatever we have to do."'

If only there were something a member of Congress could do to change the law so that intelligence officers who interrogated terrorist suspects would be exempt from the torture statute.

Maybe Rep. King should propose a bill to accomplish what he wants. Maybe he should have introducted such a bill when his party was in power. Maybe he should have proposed his bill as an amendment to the USA PATRIOT Act, when public sentiment was in favor of harsh antiterrorism methods.

Even if he believed that the law already authorized these interrogation methods, Rep. King could have proposed a 'declaratory amendment' that torturing alleged terrorists is OK - so that namby-pamby liberals wouldn't have any legal excuse to prosecute the ؟heroic, patriotic torturers. ؟

But King obviously doesn't want the responsibility. He wants to leave policy changes to the executive, cutting Congress out of the loop. This kind of abdication of responsibility is disgusting. For all his brave talk, he just wants to pass the buck - there's courage for you!

|8.27.09 @ 9:07AM|#

Max, I don't think King is being that sly. I think he is just running off at the mouth to show Real americans that he hates hime some damn dirty islamic terrorists just like they do.

|8.27.09 @ 9:37AM|#

No, none of that shocks me. I was in the Marines. We practiced strangle holds until we passed out - to know how it felt and to know how to do it right. We stayed awake for days on end in grueling conditions. I had my head slammed with a rifle. Etc. etc. etc.

Those torture methods are trivial compared to what a combatant EXPECTS on the battlefield! It always blows me away how shocked politicians and civilian commentators are by what they perceive to be torture. U.S. military TRAINING is tougher than this.

|8.27.09 @ 9:43AM|#

Hugh Akston|8.27.09 @ 9:44AM|#

No, none of that shocks me. I was in the Marines. We practiced strangle holds until we passed out - to know how it felt and to know how to do it right. We stayed awake for days on end in grueling conditions. I had my head slammed with a rifle. Etc. etc. etc.

plisade, your Tuff Guy cred is secure. But unlike you, the detainees cannot call it quits and walk out if they don't enjoy such treatment.

Marian Kechlibar|8.27.09 @ 9:47AM|#

Plisade, you underwent that training voluntarily. That is a big difference, isn't it?

I knew a girl who was an active BDSM freak, and her sexual practices would make CIA look like freshmen. It is OK if she practises that on a consensual partner.

The government agents doing it on a captive is not the same situation, and it will not have the same result.

|8.27.09 @ 9:47AM|#

"once you rationalize torture, there is no logical place to stop."

That is a moronic statement. Thacker covers this pretty well.

Another point however is simply what is torture? Do we torture our own soldiers? Is something that a person would volunteer to endure for the sake of training be considered torture? Or is the exact same act somehow different when used against someone's will?

I personally would draw the line, politically, at not significantly or permanently injuring people. Also, by both standards, (no significant or permanant injury, and anything we're willing to subject our soldiers to is ok) waterboarding is ok. Load music, cold, and sleep deprivation would definitely be ok. Bad, or little food, bad company, half naked women, pink bellies, uncomfortable positions, and disrespect for your culture, religion, beard, strangely short thumb, or whatever, are all well within bounds.

Most people who grew up in any culture were subjected to worse "tortures", in grade school than I've heard people complain was torture. I've been subjected to worse, on soccer teams and in the Army than all, with the possible exception of water boarding, of what we allowed under Bush. People need to get over their silliness.

|8.27.09 @ 9:53AM|#

Where did all these murders take place? I don't think it was in GITMO, I've read only about a couple, including one that they tried to pin on the SEAL team that captured the prisoner, rather than the CIA.

Did they mainly happen in foreign prisons? If so that would be an indictment of rendition used to move prisoners to a place they could be interrogated outside the limits, but not the particular methods within the limits.

And yes, the slippery slope argument is weak, very weak. You realize the Red Cross defines good cop bad cop as torture? They use the same slippery slope argument. It's mentally stressful therefore torture.

Marian Kechlibar|8.27.09 @ 9:53AM|#

Or is the exact same act somehow different when used against someone's will?

Of course it is. That is the difference between liberty and its absence.

Hugh Akston|8.27.09 @ 9:55AM|#

It's about time someone mentioned the Supermax; how can you naysayers who constantly glad-hand each other re "torture" not be outraged at the deprivation that exists there? A little consistency would be nice.

franz, if you'd kindly link to any statement made by naysayers to the effect of "I heartily endorse the treatment of prisoners in Supermax facilities but roundly denounce the treatment of War on Terror detainees at the hands of the CIA" then your point will be cheerfully conceded.

Until then I will point out that limits of space and patience prevent us from mentioning every single relevantly similar case in order to dissuade your craving for red herring.

|8.27.09 @ 9:55AM|#

Hugh, "Tuff Guy cred"? I wasn't bragging; I'm no tough guy. I was comparing Marine training to the methods of torture outlined in the article. FWIW, I'm very much against the wars that the U.S. are in.

And to both yourself and Marian, you can't just walk away from a contract with the Marines. Besides that, if you take up arms and participate in a war, you are a "consensual partner".

JohnD|8.27.09 @ 9:56AM|#

Speaking as an ex-marine and combat veteran, Hugh knows damn little about the marines. You don't just decide to walk out. Your ass will end up in federal prision for desertion if you do.

But the detainees did have the option of not becoming murderous terrorists. They deserve a hell of a lot more punishment then they get.

Hugh is a card carrying, bleeding heart, asshole

|8.27.09 @ 9:57AM|#

aelhues -- Do you really not understand that sometimes "the exact same act" is, in fact, "somehow different when used against someone's will"? Boxing vs. battery; sex vs. rape, etc.

Marian Kechlibar|8.27.09 @ 10:03AM|#

JohnD, you have a point regarding the consensuality of service in the military.

However, as I read your comment, I understand that you deem the actions done on the detainees as an adequate punishment. That is not the defense that CIA themselves invoke: they say that it was necessary from the intel-gathering point of view.

Should not punishments on captives be determined by law, rather than by the interrogaters?

Which kinds of physical punishments are acceptable for you and which are not?

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 10:04AM|#

Speaking as an ex-marine and combat veteran, Hugh knows damn little about the marines. You don't just decide to walk out. Your ass will end up in federal prision for desertion if you do.

No, but I think he's saying that Marines voluntarily signed up for a grueling sort of mental and physical challenge. Sort of like the truly harsh stuff SF and SEAL candidates volunteer for.

I also don't believe every detainee is actually a badass high-level terrorist.

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 10:10AM|#

They deserve a hell of a lot more punishment then they get.

I also don't see how you can be "punished" without a trial, if you're talking about detainees and not prisoners.

|8.27.09 @ 10:10AM|#

I absolutely do understand the idea that for another subject matter the difference of consent can and does make all the difference. However, for this subject in particular, it's almost the opposite. An Army soldier who agrees to go through seer school is doing so only to prepare themselves for the possibility of being in similar situations later. An enemy, caught trying to kill our soldiers, is already being held against their will. They don't have the luxury of freedom, and liberty. They gave that away. Arguing the point that acts are torture because it's against their will is the real slippery slope here. Keep it up, and we won't be allowed to resist them. We wouldn't want to do anything against their will!

My point was simply that I think it's pathetic to complain about what methods we use against those enemies we capture, attempting to gain intel, that are the same we subject our own people to, simply for the sake of training.

Hugh Akston|8.27.09 @ 10:11AM|#

Art covers it nicely. I will only add that I have to carry a card for my bleeding-heart ass hole. It's a medical condition.

|8.27.09 @ 10:12AM|#

But unlike you, the detainees cannot call it quits and walk out if they don't enjoy such treatment.

Can a soldier?

If someone volunteers to be a soldier/terrorist, and harsh treatment is a foreseeable result of volunteering, then why do was say that the soldier volunteered for the harsh treatment but the terrorist didn't?

Marian Kechlibar|8.27.09 @ 10:17AM|#

I also don't believe every detainee is actually a badass high-level terrorist.

Art, this is an often-overlooked aspect of the whole enterprise.

The CIA officers operating in A-stan etc. do not have enough local knowledge to determine the status of the suspects well enough. They must rely on local trusted collaborators, and these people may be rats.

One of my old relatives from rural Slovakia (deceased recently) was framed as a German collaborator in 1945. The accusation had no merit, the real problem was a missing hen and the resulting feud between two families. Fortunately, the investigators were at least Slovaks themselves and lack of the language barrier and ability to conduct some serious investigation in the place helped to clear him.

Nevertheless, there was a real possibility of gallows for him - for a missing hen. In 1945, the justice system was, let us say, not very prudent. The masses of recently liberated people demanded blood of the guilty, and got it fresh and in adequate amounts...

The conditions in A-stan do not allow for good enough investigation, and people of unknown status definitely do not deserve punishments as such.

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 10:21AM|#

R C Dean,

I will also say that for military training, there is an end date, a graduation, that one can look forward to as a goal at the end of the tough times.

I'll say like this...in a normal war, I guess you should expect to be treated in kind by the enemy, so I guess if captured I should expect to be waterboarded and forced to stay awake for days, but not beheaded.

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 10:23AM|#

To clarify, I'm not saying I agree with either of those eventualities, I was just elaborating on R C Dean's point about how fucked up shit is.

The Angry Optimist|8.27.09 @ 10:31AM|#

If someone volunteers to be a soldier/terrorist, and harsh treatment is a foreseeable result of volunteering, then why do was say that the soldier volunteered for the harsh treatment but the terrorist didn't?

For the same reason you don't think someone carrying marijuana "volunteered" to go to jail.

T|8.27.09 @ 10:33AM|#

Goddamn. Are we going to rehash this again?

Let's just do checklists. Here's the one for the pro-enhanced interrogation crew:

( ) It's not really torture because
( ) Nobody's being ass-raped, electrocuted, or set on fire
( ) We do worse to our troops in training
( ) They deserve it
( ) It's necessary for our continued survival
( ) Some lawyers say it's not really torture
( ) It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is

Did I miss anything?

|8.27.09 @ 10:33AM|#

if captured I should expect to be waterboarded and forced to stay awake for days, but not beheaded.

And I'd be perfectly happy with that, if I could actually expect it. However, nearly all of the groups that we have pitted our military against, did not live up to any standards, let alone ours.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 10:37AM|#

CIA personnel reportedly lifted one detainee up by his arms, which were tied behind his back, causing one employee to fear his shoulders would be dislocated.

That, my friends, is what is known as strappado:

Strappado is a form of torture in which the victim's hands are first tied behind their back, and then he or she is suspended in the air by means of a rope attached to wrists, which most likely dislocates both arms. Weights may be added to the body to intensify the effect and increase the pain. (Source: Wikipedia article on strappado, emphasis added)

For those who want to argue that this "rough treatment" is not torture, you've got some explaining to do when much of it is a good deal rougher than strappado, which is an almost quintessential example of torture.

If it's not torture, would it be OK for the enemy to do to our soldiers?

Otherwise admit that you're OK with torture, just as long as Team Good do it, but it's heinously evil when Team Bad do it and that it's OK when the Team Good do it, even if the person they're doing it to turns out to be totally innocent. You know, to make an omelette and all...

|8.27.09 @ 10:40AM|#

someone carrying marijuana "volunteered" to go to jail.

If the person is aware that going to jail is the result of being caught, in a way, they did. It may not be considered a fair law, but it is still the law.

A person who chooses to risk their life to kill others in a military or cross nation action, usually realizes that the consequences of being caught are incarceration, interrogation, possible torture, and death.

Hugh Akston|8.27.09 @ 10:40AM|#

To skip right to the end of this "are you feeling dejå vu?" debate, I will say that, if the US is going to sink to dehumanizing people in order to defend itself from some nebulous/dubious threat, then its not clear why the country is worth defending in the first place.

I'm off to work. Flame away, sock puppets.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 10:41AM|#

However, nearly all of the groups that we have pitted our military against, did not live up to any standards, let alone ours.

If I tried that reasoning with my mother when I was three I'd have had a sore butt. Why should I expect to get away with it now?

@Hugh: +1

|8.27.09 @ 10:46AM|#

The employee reported that the person was lifted by his arms, while they were tied behind his back, and by his own statement essentially confirms that the detainees shoulders were not dislocated. By putting forward strappado, something which didn't occur in the alleged scenario, and stating without basis that much of what the CIA did was worse, you are simply making accusations without basis.

The list of activities used in harsh interrogations, included nothing worse, or even as bad as shoulder dislocation. Unless you consider water boarding worse, which I certainly don't.

|8.27.09 @ 10:50AM|#

Just to be clear (again).

(1) I'm not in favor of torture.

(2) I'm also not so sure that some of the interrogation techniques that are cavalierly thrown in the torture box deserve the term, as it tends to dilute what should be a very strong condemnation.

(3) I think what we should have been doing all along is some kind of expedited due process on "detainees" (meaning, within a few days). If they are, in fact, found to be illegal combatants, then they are war criminals and should be executed. Immediately. If we find we got the wrong guy, they should be released. Immediately.

The executions can be stayed pending cooperation with our inquiries, although I note that doing so would be "torture" under some definitions (the whole "credible threat of death" thing).

|8.27.09 @ 10:52AM|#

If I tried that reasoning with my mother when I was three I'd have had a sore butt. Why should I expect to get away with it now?

I'm completely baffled as to your point here. Unless you think that that statement you quoted was supposed to be a defense of torture. If so, maybe if you stick with wouldn't be so confused.

We should do what is right regardless of what our enemy does. However, we sometimes need to do things that make squeamish people like you uncomfortable, in order to protect our lives and freedoms.

|8.27.09 @ 10:54AM|#

shit, the above statement maybe if you stick with wouldn't be so confused, was meant to have "the context", in the middle.

T|8.27.09 @ 10:55AM|#

We should do what is right regardless of what our enemy does. However, we sometimes need to do things that make squeamish people like you uncomfortable, in order to protect our lives and freedoms.

Yeah, there's the problem, right there. Those things that make "squeamish people" uncomfortable? A lot of them aren't right.

The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 10:57AM|#

I had to say "oh, come the fuck ON" when I read this:

"Brutal Interrogation Technique Exposed - Blowing Cigar Smoke At Terrorist Suspects"

http://www.kxmb.com/News/Nation/427007.asp

"Take that, terrorist! This second-hand smoke might give you health problems! We have more cigars!"

Shit. This kind of thing denigrates the actual argument.

pragmatist|8.27.09 @ 11:02AM|#

Ethical principles and "rights" aren't ends in themselves. They are tools created by men to serve a purpose. I'm more than fucking willing to throw human rights out the window if it means saving a city.

Not for a slight chance of preventing a minor "terrorist attack" through. But purely because I think the bad would outweigh the good.

|8.27.09 @ 11:04AM|#

"""I was comparing Marine training to the methods of torture outlined in the article."""

Art-pog beat me to it.

I too am a former Marine. And I call bullshit on your claim. Yeah, I had my rifle slammed against my head, forced to bend and thurst in a closed room with bleach poured on the floor, I was punched in the stomach by one of my DIs. Even had some fun with a type of stress position slyly called watching TV. Still can't believe I fell for that one. And yes, had much fun with that great choke hold too. Which, by the way, is a very good technique But the big differneces? I was with family that I knew had my back and was concerned with my improving my welfare. I knew what they were doing was trying to build my confidence in handling possible future situation. It doesn't compare to what we have done in the name of anti-terror.

I made a tongue and cheek example of how to better improve SERE school to make it more accurate in another thread. Let's not let them know they are going, maybe tell them they were not accepted. Then kidnap them off base, stip, shackle and hood them, slam their head against the door of the van, take them to a place with a small room and where the interrogators are of Middle Easter decent and use little english. And that's just the morning of day one.

|8.27.09 @ 11:09AM|#

Not to mention that Marine Corps bootcamp is so stressful, that one day, far after my enlistment, they adopted the silly stress card crap, where a recruit was given cards that he could hand the DI to force the DI to back off.

And to add to my above post, I knew I had a future, bootcamp would end, and I would live the rest of my life a better person for the experience.

Hobo Chang Ba|8.27.09 @ 11:09AM|#

Let me say first of all that I am a vigorous opponent of torture so the words to follow are devil's advocacy. The thing that keeps getting stuck in my craw about the whole torturing terrorists thing is that - well, we haven't gotten attacked again, and I don't personally have the knowledge to know if information revealed via torture contributed to this fact. My internal moral debate: if the non-lethal torture of several people saved one life, was it worthwhile?

At the same time, I had an alternate plan that would provide for rule of law and keep the blood off the hands of the government: process terrorists through the legal system, split them up across federal prisons and place them in cells with the worst, most brutal federal prisoners as roommates. Then offer to give them protective custody if they cooperate and tell us what they know. If they don't, I'm doubting they'll last very long (especially since they'd replace child molesters on the bottom of the "shower buddy" totem pole). I just didn't think keeping all the national security threats confined in the same space was a very safe idea, and I still think there are better ways to get them to talk without torture.

T|8.27.09 @ 11:10AM|#

Shit. This kind of thing denigrates the actual argument.

No doubt about it. The one that got me was some HR org got their panties in a twist when we wrapped some Muslim in an Israeli flag. OMG! Torture!

Yeah, not so much. Neither is having female GIs smear fake menstrual blood on detainees, or any number of more creative things they've done. The torture debate got defined downwards in a huge fashion by including the crap about "mental distress".

But this doesn't change the fact that some of what we are doing is beyond the pale, and qualifies as torture under our laws.

|8.27.09 @ 11:10AM|#

""""Brutal Interrogation Technique Exposed - Blowing Cigar Smoke At Terrorist Suspects""""

Just another person who thinks torture is ok.

|8.27.09 @ 11:13AM|#

Those things that make "squeamish people" uncomfortable? A lot of them aren't right.

Right? By who or what's definition? What objective standard are we using here? Last I was told we were no longer a Christian nation, so who's standards of right and wrong do we stand by?

|8.27.09 @ 11:18AM|#

"""Last I was told we were no longer a Christian nation, so who's standards of right and wrong do we stand by?"""

Well if we follow the path of evil to fight evil, we are no longer good, but evil ourselves. One can use ultilitarian ethics to justify our evil acts but at the end of the day, it's just two evil groups fighting. We would torture Christ if we felt it was worth it.

"""who's standards of right and wrong do we stand by?"""

A rational human standard? yeah, yeah, who defines that?

|8.27.09 @ 11:23AM|#

I said yesterday on the other thread that i understand all the quibbling over what is or is not tortue. Where I question the use of the allowed methods is in the accuracy of intel obtained with those methods.

You give me 3 weeks where I and a few close friends can use the allowable methods used by our govt and its representatives, and I guarantee that any man here, in my custody, will confess to raping babies and plotting to kill the president.

|8.27.09 @ 11:29AM|#

TrickyVic, not every student entering SERE training here comes out the other side fit for duty. Some, even in such a controlled environment and knowing going in that it is a training excercise, breakdown to the point of being unfit for duty.

T|8.27.09 @ 11:37AM|#

Right? By who or what's definition? What objective standard are we using here?

We've got a law. Let's start with that.

|8.27.09 @ 11:37AM|#

Which methods are those Ben, you going to put me in a room with a caterpillar? As for your guarantee, I call BS. You don't know me, or anyone else on here, or what kind of things we've endured.

Additionally, I keep hearing about how torture never begets good intel. However, that has been proven wrong in real life cases. The fact that many will confess to anything is completely beside the point. They aren't trying to get people to confess, they are looking for leads, and corroboration. They don't use statements given in an interrogation as the sole source. Clearly an enemy will lie, and mislead if possible. You really think the CIA doesn't understand that?

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 11:38AM|#

@aelhues, did you read the quote I posted? That is the exact definition of strappado. Unless you want to get pedantic about whether a rope was used, which isn't stated, but which doesn't make much difference to the experience. It was strappado: RTFQ!

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 11:39AM|#

Strappado does not require the dislocation of the shoulders, although that often happens. The act of suspending by the arms that are tied behind the back is strappado, so I really have no idea how you can read something that matches the definition of strappado and say it wasn't strappado. Do you also look at the sun and say that it isn't there?

|8.27.09 @ 11:40AM|#

We've got a law. Let's start with that.

We did, and then people later said, that what they decided was within the law was objectively wrong. Now they are looking into prosecuting those who used harsh interrogations within the law, and the lawyer types who evaluated the standards and decided differently than those more compassionate ones who came after.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 11:44AM|#

aelhues, regarding the three-year-old reasoning, I've looked back over the context you want me to read, and I'm not sure what you were arguing. It sure sounded like the "the other guys do worse things so we are justified in what we did" sort of reasoning, but if you didn't mean that, my apologies. That's the way I read it in any event.

The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 11:45AM|#

"Just another person who thinks torture is ok."

Sorry, Vic, but you're incorrect. I was opining on shit that ISN'T torture, being fobbed off as the real thing.

|8.27.09 @ 11:45AM|#

suspended in the air by means of a rope attached to wrists

It's not the rope, but the point of force applied. I can pick up a person by the arms in such a way as to make them uncomfortable with no risk whatsoever of injuring them. The rope, or even the tied wrists has nothing to do with it.

However, since that wasn't even the point of my response, you failed completely to respond in any meaningful way.

"""Additionally, I keep hearing about how torture never begets good intel. However, that has been proven wrong in real life cases."""

Examples?

The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 11:47AM|#

"But this doesn't change the fact that some of what we are doing is beyond the pale, and qualifies as torture under our laws."

Right you are, T. Unfortunately, the left has gotten us into this mindset that ANYTHING short of hot cocoa and fluffy pillows, is "torture".

T|8.27.09 @ 11:48AM|#

Y'know, fuck it. I'm tired of this argument. I don't see anybody's opinion changing, and we apparently disagree on some fundamental aspects.

Let's discuss whether or not kicking puppies is a bad thing. Maybe we can come to some agreement there.

|8.27.09 @ 11:52AM|#

"""I can pick up a person by the arms in such a way as to make them uncomfortable with no risk whatsoever of injuring them."""

Placing muscle and bone in positions that are uncomfortable DOES risk injury. That's what the uncomfortable feeling is telling you.

Anyone who knows joint manipulation techniques, such as those used in ju-jitsu and Aikido, knows the difference between doing the technique correctly and breaking the joint is just a small amount of pressure. Even doing the techniques correctly has a risk of injury.

To claim no risk of injury is BS. How much risk is debatable.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 11:53AM|#

Did they mainly happen in foreign prisons? If so that would be an indictment of rendition used to move prisoners to a place they could be interrogated outside the limits, but not the particular methods within the limits.

If it happened in foreign prisons, would not the foreign rulers have primary jurisdiction?

For example, I heard that the CIA operated black sites in Thailand. If detainees were tortured in Thailand in violation of Thai law, then the Thai government will seek extradition of the offenders.

Should not punishments on captives be determined by law, rather than by the interrogaters?

It depends on what legal protections the captives have.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#

aelhues:

So your point in telling me that strappado wasn't used wasn't to say that strappado wasn't used? Please excuse me for being confused if what you wrote wasn't your point. In any event, the fact that the CIA personnel were worried that the detainees shoulders would be dislocated is pretty convincing evidence that it was strappado.

Now maybe your point was this:

The list of activities used in harsh interrogations, included nothing worse, or even as bad as shoulder dislocation. Unless you consider water boarding worse, which I certainly don't.

I might have considered that one of your points, but it was pretty obvious that wasn't the one I was responding to, so I can't understand why you're taking me to task for rightly pointing out that the first point you made was full of shit and ignoring the other one.

However, to that point: enough people died in custody that clearly things were going on worse than shoulder dislocation, unless you consider dislocation worse than death, which I don't.

|8.27.09 @ 11:57AM|#

"According to the Bush administration, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed divulged information of tremendous value during his detention. He is said to have helped point the way to the capture of Riduan Isamuddin (AKA Hambali), the Indonesian terrorist responsible for the 2002 bombings of night clubs in Bali. According to the Bush administration, he also provided information on an Al Qaeda leader in England.[137]"

I know many will dispute this, because you think that the CIA just wants to defend their right to torture people, cause the CIA is evil.

|8.27.09 @ 11:58AM|#

"""Unfortunately, the left has gotten us into this mindset that ANYTHING short of hot cocoa and fluffy pillows, is "torture"""

Compared to the right which is trying to convince us that nothing we do is torture, even if it goes beyong the Bybee/Yoo memos and ends in death. That's how silly this debate has become.

I have to agree with T.

|8.27.09 @ 11:59AM|#

Aelhues, The CIA IG report clearly stated that it could not be deterimine if the torture actually worked.

You can take your arguement up with them.

The Libertaraian Guy|8.27.09 @ 12:02PM|#

T | August 27, 2009, 11:10am | #

Yeah, if you're talking about the post reference above, I'll agree with T as well.

There's silliness on both sides, Vic. The left is a bunch of candyasses who think EVERYTHING is torture, and the right tries to justify everything as NOT torture.

|8.27.09 @ 12:03PM|#

Not to mention that Marine Corps bootcamp is so stressful, that one day, far after my enlistment, they adopted the silly stress card crap, where a recruit was given cards that he could hand the DI to force the DI to back off.

Not actually true (though I heard the same rumors when I was in the Army).

Why are all the pro-enhanced-interrogators on this thread so intent on ignoring the whole "we don't know who's guilty and who's innocent when we use these techniques on them" point? Seriously, and I'll bold-face this because I think it's kind of important, "detainee" does not equal "terrorist".

|8.27.09 @ 12:07PM|#

""""""Unfortunately, the left has gotten us into this mindset that ANYTHING short of hot cocoa and fluffy pillows, is "torture"""""

I question that. I've seen a report that mentions techniques used such as secondhand smoke, but the only article I've seen claiming they were torture is from the rightwing trying to claim the left is up and arms about it. Post a link if you got one. Sure, the anti-smoking crowd may try to make that claim, Mike Huckabee would probably agree, since he passed a law in AR to make it illegal to smoke with children in the car. Don't want to torture our children.

Sure I argee that if someone is making the claim that secondhand smoke is torture it's BS.

The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 12:10PM|#

I did post a link, Vic, specific to the "cigar smoke torture" question.

I despise the far-right and the far-left, this isn't a defense of either side. They both suck marmoset cock, IMO.

|8.27.09 @ 12:10PM|#

aelhues, I didn't say the intel obtained was never accurate, I said that the accuracy is questionable due to the methods used to extract it.

|8.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#

Mensch, yes I stated it wasn't strappado, based on what you said. The person was lifted by his ARMS, while his wrists were tied. Correct? The definition of strappado you provided was lifting someone with a rope tied to their wrists. Those are clearly different. If the interrogator took precautions to not dislocate the shoulders, then I wouldn't have any problem with it, and would not consider it strappado based on the definition you provided. However, as I said, that wasn't the point I was making. Which you did finally get to.

A+B=/C

Death+incarceration=/torture. Nor does it necessarily mean people were even treated poorly. People die for all kinds of reasons. In order for you to support your point that worse things were going on, you are going to have to do better than that.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 12:11PM|#

Jake Boone, agreed 100%. The assumption on the right seems to be that they wouldn't be there unless they were guilty, so we can do what we want to them. If we somehow knew they were guilty I wouldn't feel so bad about this (I still wouldn't like it at all), but the fact is that we don't know make it all the worse.

The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 12:12PM|#

Vic, a Google search of the phrase "CIA cigar smoke torture" turned up around 91,000 hits. Feel free to sift through them, I went with the first one I found earlier this morning.

I have to get back to work so Uncle Sam can have some of my money. Have a government-approved day!

|8.27.09 @ 12:16PM|#

Sorry Ben, I took your point, and conflated it with the silliness I usually hear.

It is of course accepted that intel gained from any enemy, is suspect, regardless of how it was gained. The point is trying to use a method that is quick, and likely to gain the most useful nuggets of truth to compare with other intel, in order to gain advantage and save lives.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 12:16PM|#

aelhues, two things:

1. Last time I checked the wrists were part of the arms, so there is nothing say that it wasn't the wrists. Even if it was the forearms, the effect is the same and most people would consider it strappado. You are being pedantic on this point...

2. Not hard to find at all: start here for one. This was a prisoner in CIA custody who died from his treatment.

Now I've provided what you asked for, you are going to have to argue somehow that worse things weren't going on or argue that it was OK for that to happen.

Tony|8.27.09 @ 12:18PM|#

I just love these strained, nuanced threads about the US GOVERNMENT TORTURING PEOPLE. I suppose if a tax were imposed on the detainees there'd be broad consensus.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 12:18PM|#

By the way, that one is clearly strappado, and the article even uses the alternate name for it: "Palestinian hanging".

So there, unless you want to argue that the Wikipedia article and its sources are lying, answers to both your points: yes, there was strappado and yes, prisoners were killed in custody (versus dying from natural causes).

No it's your turn to put up.

|8.27.09 @ 12:21PM|#

"""Not actually true (though I heard the same rumors when I was in the Army)."""

I'm glad it's not true. I thought the concept was bullshit. But I can see how the concept of stress cards would really work in boot camp.

DI: If you feel you will be too stressed out and need relief you can get some stress cards. If you think you need them, form a line to the right.

Some recruits form a line and are marched out the door. At about 19:30 you seem them coming back into the squadbay covered head to toe in mud.

They actually did that when I was in boot camp. It wasn't stress cards, but the chaplin gave a speech about how tought it was and not everyone can handle it and if you wanted to leave form a line on the side, they would let you quit and go home. A few people from my platoon got in the line. Later that evening they came back to the squad bay covered head to toe in mud. I was laughing my ass off. It's still funny.

Craig|8.27.09 @ 12:22PM|#

But the detainees did have the option of not becoming murderous terrorists. They deserve a hell of a lot more punishment then they get.

I don't have any sympathy for murderers and terrorists who get severely punished, but there are several issues with condoning routine torture (however severe) of prisoners:

1. How do we know they are all guilty? How many innocent people are you willing to torture as collateral damage?

2. Do you trust the government to determine who has it coming? What if unscrupulous or evil people rise to positions of power in our government (or already have)?

3. Doesn't the Constitution prohibit cruel or unusual punishment, even for the convicted?

4. Doesn't the Constitution require the government to assume prisoners are innocent until proven guilty, and afford them a speedy public trial by a jury? Where in the Bill of Rights is the government allowed to bypass this process for individuals it claims are terrorists? Or for foreigners?

5. Would you rather live in a country where the government doesn't have to convict suspects in a public jury trial before it punishes them?

6. If the detainees are not suspected criminals, aren't they then prisoners of war and subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention? Aren't treaties ratified by the Senate part of US law, as authorized under the Constitution?

7. Wasn't the US government founded by people who believed our rights come from our Creator, not from government?

8. Isn't the threat of a totalitarian government that arrests, detains, tortures, and executes people without having to prove their guilt before a jury a much greater threat to our freedoms than a loosely organized and largely ineffective band of terrorists? Which threat has been more severe and affected more people throughout human history?

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 12:22PM|#

Vic, a Google search of the phrase "CIA cigar smoke torture" turned up around 91,000 hits. Feel free to sift through them, I went with the first one I found earlier this morning.

I read it.

The problem is that the definition of torture is being dumbed down.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 12:26PM|#

3. Doesn't the Constitution prohibit cruel or unusual punishment, even for the convicted?

Those convicted in American courts.

It does not apply at all to foreign terrorists held in black sites in Romania or Thailand.

Doesn't the Constitution require the government to assume prisoners are innocent until proven guilty, and afford them a speedy public trial by a jury? Where in the Bill of Rights is the government allowed to bypass this process for individuals it claims are terrorists? Or for foreigners?

It can bypass this for foreigners in foreign countries.

If the detainees are not suspected criminals, aren't they then prisoners of war and subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention? Aren't treaties ratified by the Senate part of US law, as authorized under the Constitution?

That depends on if the detainees are combatants or noncomnbatants.

Note that combatants are only entitled to POW protections if they bore arms openly and wore some semblance of uniform.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 12:28PM|#

Craig, you have summed up the points nicely. Unfortunately some here, even those who call themselves libertarians, will simply ignore those points. You can't reason with those who willfully ignore the arguments. (Of course, they would argue that we are willfully ignoring the need to keep us safe from evil does.)

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Michael Ejercito,

So, would it be OK if our government had flows the Enron execs to Thailand and tried them there under Thai law? To me the fact that the captives were under U.S. control means that they were under U.S. jurisdiction. Any attempt to take them elsewhere to escape that is legalism in its worst form.

-Arle

|8.27.09 @ 12:30PM|#

Libertarian Guy

The link you posted is a guy making fun of it, not actually claim it was torture. I googled as you suggested after looking a dozen the only claim I found was that it was an unauthorized technique. The arugment is that it was unauthorized, not that it was actually torture. But if you find something different feel free to post the link.

At least we agree that the arugment has become bullshit by both sides.

|8.27.09 @ 12:36PM|#

Guilty? Guilty of what? I don't assume any of them are guilty in a legal sense. However I think it's silly to assume that the military and CIA just pick up random people off the streets and shuffle them off to waterboard them. The problem we have is that in a traditional war, incarceration of uniformed soldiers would be accepted as normal, legal, and right. Interrogation of higher profile soldiers would likewise be normal, legal and right. However, we have an enemy that hides in religious buildings, hospitals, and among the UN. They send women and children in to blow us up. The amongst their own people seemingly hoping we'll kill a few, just for some bad press for us. Because of all this we are in a moral quandary. We don't have the uniforms on them to make it black and white. They force us into situations where we have to spend a lot more time and money to accomplish the same goals. At least if we want to avoid killing innocents as much as technologically and humanly possible. Intelligence in this situation is even more vital than in past conflicts. We and innocents pay dearly for bad intel that is acted upon.

Sure there have been some people in Guantanamo that have been released as innocents. Do any of you really think that there have been people who, by your definitions, have been tortured that weren't in a war like struggle with our military?

Tony|8.27.09 @ 12:37PM|#

aelhues way to dismiss the entire history of western democratic governing principles.

|8.27.09 @ 12:39PM|#

"""That depends on if the detainees are combatants or noncomnbatants."""

It's not about what rights they detainees have, it's about how Americans are limited by Congress

""To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water; ""

Why would Congress be given the ability to make the rules if no one has to follow them?

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 12:42PM|#

So, would it be OK if our government had flows the Enron execs to Thailand and tried them there under Thai law? To me the fact that the captives were under U.S. control means that they were under U.S. jurisdiction. Any attempt to take them elsewhere to escape that is legalism in its worst form.

Only those Enron execs who were Thai subjects temporarily in the U.S. on a worker visa.

Renditions were never used on U.S. citizens, nor even permanent resident aliens.

The problem we have is that in a traditional war, incarceration of uniformed soldiers would be accepted as normal, legal, and right. Interrogation of higher profile soldiers would likewise be normal, legal and right.

Interrogation of captured soldiers is not permitted under the Geneva Conventions. This includes Taliban fighters who were captured while fighting and wearing some semblance of uniform.

I googled as you suggested after looking a dozen the only claim I found was that it was an unauthorized technique. The arugment is that it was unauthorized, not that it was actually torture. But if you find something different feel free to post the link.

Maybe terrorists captured in Afghanistan should be sent to Egypt, where they can be subject to Egyptian authorized techniques, as what happened to Shawki Salama Attiya after he was captured by Albanian authorities with assistance from the CIA.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 12:43PM|#

It's not about what rights they detainees have, it's about how Americans are limited by Congress

To which article of the UCMJ are CIA covert agents subject?

|8.27.09 @ 12:46PM|#

aelhues, It is well known that many of those capture were bought (reward money) from rival warlords, without us really knowing if they were in fact enemies. We just took someone's word. My guess is that they are the ones being released.

|8.27.09 @ 12:49PM|#

Mensch, you are referring to an event that the Military and US government admitted was outside of what we allow. People were prosecuted for that event. I'm sorry if I assumed you were referring to actions taken that we considered within the law, and haven't prosecuted people for.

|8.27.09 @ 12:53PM|#

Vic, I'm aware that there are allegedly those who were in essence sold, and in some cases innocent. However I would tend to assume that those are the least likely to have any valuable information, as well as be the most likely for us to suspect they might not actually be our active enemies.

|8.27.09 @ 12:55PM|#

Tony, did you completely misunderstand my post, did I write something that means something completely other than what I meant, or are you simply being obtuse? I seriously don't have a clue what you are referring to.

|8.27.09 @ 1:03PM|#

"""To which article of the UCMJ are CIA covert agents subject?"""

None. Since they are not military.

I don't believe agents of the state can work lawlessly, and I do believe that the state can place restriction on their agents even overseas.

I guess one could argue that since they were on Afghani soil, they could be procecuted in Afghani court, under Afghani laws. If Afghanistan so desired.

T|8.27.09 @ 1:09PM|#

However I would tend to assume that those are the least likely to have any valuable information, as well as be the most likely for us to suspect they might not actually be our active enemies.

Hey, aelhus, did we figure out they didn't do anything or have actionable intelligence before or after the enhanced interrogation? Because that's KIND OF THE FUCKING POINT.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 1:09PM|#

If it's not torture, would it be OK for the enemy to do to our soldiers?

Only if those enemies that we tortured were soldiers.

The people subject to enhanced interrogation techniques are no more soldiers than Nick Berg was.

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 1:11PM|#

Sure there have been some people in Guantanamo that have been released as innocents. Do any of you really think that there have been people who, by your definitions, have been tortured that weren't in a war like struggle with our military?

Yes, as has been discussed on Reason postings before. And no, I'm not going to give you references.

It's easy in restrospect to argue that these were "outside what we allow". That's an escape valve that can be used to sweep away all sorts of nasty things as long as you don't leave a paper trail. These weren't rogue agents, but individuals employed by and acting under the mantle of the U.S. government and who received protection after the fact until it became politically expedient to let them go. They did those things because they believed that they were OK. Which raises the obvious question of why they thought their actions were OK. either than or the government is hiring sadistic thugs with no controls.

If Manadel al-Jamadi had done anything short of died from what was done to him, we wouldn't have heard about it and no discipline would have happened to those who did it. It was part of an endemic culture culture among CIA interrogators. Saying that they acted on their own and that what they did was "outside what we allow" after the fact is a get out of jail free card and pretending that they did this on their own without reference to a system that encouraged them is intellectually dishonest.

I'd find it a lot more convincing if the CIA had acted before the events became public knowledge. Then I would buy your argument, but otherwise, no, it doesn't hold water.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 1:12PM|#

I guess one could argue that since they were on Afghani soil, they could be procecuted in Afghani court, under Afghani laws. If Afghanistan so desired.

Indeed they could.

The SOF agreement does not cover covert agents.

Being captured and tried by foreign governments is part of the risk.

|8.27.09 @ 1:13PM|#

So if a CIA agent is kill oversees, the killer broke no law which he could be tried for in the US. Correct?

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 1:14PM|#

Do you really think that, given we know that a number of the people we captured weren't even fighting against the U.S., that we didn't do anything like torture to any of them who didn't actually do anything? Since we didn't know if they were bad guys or not, I don't see how we could have avoided it. To take your contention seriously would demand that we believe our government agents had an infallible sense of guilt and never made a mistake at all. Given what we know about people and the government, I think you're arguing or the impossible.

err, arguing for the impossible

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 1:15PM|#

Many CIA covert agents had been killed or gone missing, the circumstances being kept classified.

|8.27.09 @ 1:17PM|#

T, other than the Abu Ghraib problem, have you heard of anyone who was subjected to enhanced interrogation and the released? How many people have supposedly been waterboarded?

"In December 2007 CIA director Michael V. Hayden stated that "of about 100 prisoners held to date in the C.I.A. program, the enhanced techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three."

That doesn't answer my question.

|8.27.09 @ 1:22PM|#

I'd find it a lot more convincing if the CIA had acted before the events became public knowledge. Then I would buy your argument, but otherwise, no, it doesn't hold water.

While your point has merit, and I can certainly agree that those involved may never have been prosecuted, I thought we were talking about policy, not individual incidents.

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 1:23PM|#

Oh please. This is the guy who tried to kill Qaddafi.

I doubt Reagan would have applied the Army Field Manual (you're not allowed to lie to them, but if terrorists don't cooperate you can give them... the silent treatment!) to Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Reagan was against actual torture, not the fucktarded modern redefinition of it as "anything uncomfortable."

Untermensch|8.27.09 @ 1:27PM|#

While your point has merit, and I can certainly agree that those involved may never have been prosecuted, I thought we were talking about policy, not individual incidents.

I'll try to remember that and take some consolation from it if a group of cops beat me up some day. After all, that wouldn't be policy...

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 1:30PM|#

I'll try to remember that and take some consolation from it if a group of cops beat me up some day. After all, that wouldn't be policy...

If we're not talking about policy, then the argument is... what? We should release all the terrorists since someone might abuse them in custody?

|8.27.09 @ 1:32PM|#

Do you really think that, given we know that a number of the people we captured weren't even fighting against the U.S., that we didn't do anything like torture to any of them who didn't actually do anything?

Yes. It simply makes sense that if mot detainees were not subjected to enhanced interrogation, that those with the most uncertain background were the ones that were simply held until more was known. Why waste time on unknowns when there were those held that were known to have contacts and information.

In addition, this is the list of techniques used:

1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes them
2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap to the face aimed at causing pain and triggering fear
3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage
4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours
5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius)
6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over them. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt

With these pansy techniques (except waterboarding) listed under the enhanced title, a regular interrogation must have been reasonably comfortable.

So, yes I think my assumption it perfectly reasonable, and not expecting the impossible as you stated.

|8.27.09 @ 1:33PM|#

If we're not talking about policy, then the argument is... what? We should release all the terrorists since someone might abuse them in custody?

Obviously!

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 1:35PM|#

TallDave, I'm sure you know the difference between "policy" and "nudge *wink *wink 'policy'".

Art-P.O.G.|8.27.09 @ 1:39PM|#

With these pansy techniques (except waterboarding) listed under the enhanced title, a regular interrogation must have been reasonably comfortable.

With the exception of #1, which probably wouldn't even work on me, I'm not sure why you think these techniques (sans waterboarding) are "pansy".

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 1:39PM|#

But the report reached no judgment on "enhanced interrogation techniques," saying, "The effectiveness of particular interrogation techniques in eliciting information that might not otherwise have been obtained cannot be so easily measured."

Oh FFS Chapman, at least pretend to have a clue. It's been widely reported that KSM became the CIA's best friend only after waterboarding.

Does anyone here seriously think he would cracked under the 19 techniques approved in the Army Field Manual like "flattering the ego" or

"When employing this technique, the (interrogator) says nothing to the source, but looks him squarely in the eye, preferably with a slight smile on his face," the guide says, urging the interrogator not to be the first to break eye contact.

Oooh. I don't know how anyone outlasts that. I think I saw that techniuqe in Zoolander.

|8.27.09 @ 1:41PM|#

"""Why waste time on unknowns when there were those held that were known to have contacts and information.""

You don't know what they know, until you torture them a little. ;-)

Abu Asshole, whatever his name is, was waterboarded 83 times because they thought they could get more information. This was after he gave up what he knew.

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 1:41PM|#

TallDave, I'm sure you know the difference between "policy" and "nudge *wink *wink 'policy'".

Yep. 20 years to life.

|8.27.09 @ 1:49PM|#

Vic, are you referring to Abu Zubaida? Or KSM?

In either case, the "Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times" is very misleading. When they said 183, they meant 183 individual pours of water, not 183 sessions. Even KSM stated he was only waterboarded 3 times (I think, might have been 4 or 5).

|8.27.09 @ 1:53PM|#

Abu Zubaida.

Maybe we should bump up the number of pours per session at SERE school.

Here is what Ali Soufan had to say about Abu Asshole ( I can still use asshole can't I, ;-))

"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."
http://www.newsweek.com/id/195089/output/print

|8.27.09 @ 1:56PM|#

183 divided by 5 equals 36.6

Anyone here been to SERE school and what to comment if repeating what they went through 36 times equates to torture?

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 1:59PM|#

Abu Asshole, whatever his name is, was waterboarded 83 times because they thought they could get more information.

Each "time" is one instance of pouring a bucket over his head, which only takes a few seconds. This is probably about 5 minutes of actual waterboarding.

It's not like they took the guy out and waterboarded him for an hour every day for three months.

TallDave|8.27.09 @ 2:02PM|#

Interesting tidbit: one of the pilots on 9/11 had been waterboarded.

Lt Tom "Stout" McGuinness of the VF-21 "Freelancers" went through S.E.R.E. training during my tenure. But when it came down to the crisis moment, his "interrogators" did not give him the waterboard. They merely went into the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 11, slashed Tom's throat, and flew the first aircraft into the North Tower of World Trade Center on 9/11.

|8.27.09 @ 2:03PM|#

"Ali Soufan, later testified to Congress that Zubayda was producing useful information in response to conventional interrogation methods and stopped providing accurate information in response to torture."

In other words, they made a tactical error. It seems like he was willing to talk, and did to some degree, and was less, or not helpful after.

However, Ali Soufan didn't seem to like the CIA taking over, or their tactics. Despite his testimony the CIA claims to have learned quite a bit from Abu Asshole :)

T|8.27.09 @ 2:06PM|#

The collar will be used later; according to CIA guidelines for interrogations, it will serve as a handle for slamming the detainee's head against a wall.

After removing the hood, the interrogator opens with a slap across the face -- to get the detainee's attention -- followed by other slaps, the guidelines state. Next comes the head-slamming, or "walling," which can be tried once "to make a point," or repeated again and again.

"Twenty or thirty times consecutively" is permissible, the guidelines say, "if the interrogator requires a more significant response to a question."

Left that out of your list, aelhues. Maybe that's 2.a. in your taxonomy.

|8.27.09 @ 2:16PM|#

Sorry, wasn't on the official release that I found, however I do remember seeing it before.

Here is a definition that was released in a seperate document, along with the really scary stuff like putting harmless insects in their cell:

Walling: The detainee is slammed into a wall. "Walling is performed by placing the detainee against what seems to be a normal wall but is in fact a flexible false wall. The interrogator pulls the detaineee towards him and then quickly slams the detainee against the false wall." The false wall exaggerates the sound, making the contact apparently sound worse than it is.

Marian Kechlibar|8.27.09 @ 2:20PM|#

Intelligence in this situation is even more vital than in past conflicts.

I am not so sure. Intelligence has always been vital in modern wars. Think Coventry or Gallipoli.

|8.27.09 @ 2:24PM|#

Marian, yeah, I wasn't sure that was written well. More what I meant is that there is such an abundance of small threats, and much more concern over collateral damage that intel is likely much more plentiful, more frequently lies, and needs to be more precise to avoid innocent casualties.

JB|8.27.09 @ 2:30PM|#

Certainly opposing all war and/or involuntary incarceration is consistent. Otherwise, you have to draw a line somewhere and say that there is a place to stop, logical or not, and that two things appear quite close but one is allowed and the other is not

Yup. I also think Chapman misses the point that abuses of some sort are going to happen in wartime. Just another reason why war is not a fun thing. Many conservatives and others get upset about the 'torture' debate not because they support 'torture', but because it isn't kept in context. Actions against a few hundred people somehow get more attention than actions that affect thousands and millions.

PETE|8.27.09 @ 3:05PM|#

I knew this thread would deliver.

|8.27.09 @ 3:31PM|#

"""Despite his testimony the CIA claims to have learned quite a bit from Abu Asshole :)"""

I'm not sure if the CIA has seperated what they learned before wateringboarding and after waterboarding. Counting what Soufan learned without the harsh methods, the CIA would be truthful (dare I use that word with talking about the CIA) that they did in fact learn quite a bit.

Abu Asshole has a much better ring to it,

I really don't give a rats ass about Abu Asshole or KSM, I'm concerned about what our government thinks it can get away with when they feel justified. If we are a nation of laws, and believe in god given unalienable rights, then utilitarian ethics can't be applied.

|8.27.09 @ 3:54PM|#

I have no doubt that lives were saved by the torture preformed by the CIA. I also have no doubt that it is still morally indefensible. Liberty and freedom are not free of danger and hazard, but are well worth the cost. The cost to our freedom and our liberties is to high to allow it. I believe in the home of the brave, not the fearful brutal.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 6:45PM|#

I really don't give a rats ass about Abu Asshole or KSM, I'm concerned about what our government thinks it can get away with when they feel justified. If we are a nation of laws, and believe in god given unalienable rights, then utilitarian ethics can't be applied.

There is always the option of rendition.

That was how a terrorist cell in Albania was broken up.

|8.27.09 @ 6:52PM|#

*applause*

The Libertarian Guy|8.27.09 @ 7:39PM|#

TVic, I have to admit, I was in a bit of a hurry between work intervals. Upon further reflection, many of the links are not all that useful.

Michael Ejercito|8.27.09 @ 9:59PM|#

So then the CIA should not torture Americans or anyone inside the borders of America.

|8.28.09 @ 5:39AM|#

To put the comfort of terrorist scum above the lives of millions of Americans and other people around the world is morally obtuse beyond comprehension. Fortunately the vast majority of the American people have too much common sense to share the views of ideological extremists and armchair moral purists.

As for the rule of law, the law itself allows for unwritten exceptions in extreme circumstances.

The most basic human right is the right of self-defense. The Islamo-fascist terrorists are at war with this country, and we have the right to fight back will all necessary means.

Sadly, there will always be free-riders like Steve Chapman who make mock of heroes who guard us while we sleep.

Jesus|8.28.09 @ 8:06AM|#

The tortures were far worse than they corporate media has talked about. Genital slicing with razors, rape, rape of family members and children. Sensory depravation alone can cause a human mind to just plain break. These tactics, oddly enough, cause severe memory loss. Our torture leaders are justifying an intelligence gathering tactic that induces memory loss? Does that make sense? Of course not.

The justifiers of torture just don't get it. They don't want to get it. They get off on it. And, hey, they're A-rabs anyway. If they didn't bomb the trade center they probably bombed somethin' right.

What if you're some innocent schmuck in some crap hole desert town and some guys show up in a truck with machine guns and grab you and turn you over to an American check point saying This guy's a terrorist now pay us our 5,000 dollar bounty? It happened. A lot. 100's maybe even thousands of times.

Torture doesn't work to gather intel. So why do it? To terrorize the rest of us with their penchant for random brutality. Best to just not cross paths with them. Keep your mouth shut. Don't attract attention or make waves or it could be you getting your balls cut up with a razor next.

Historically that keeps people in check for a... for a while.

Michael Ejercito|8.28.09 @ 11:21AM|#

The tortures were far worse than they corporate media has talked about. Genital slicing with razors, rape, rape of family members and children. Sensory depravation alone can cause a human mind to just plain break. These tactics, oddly enough, cause severe memory loss. Our torture leaders are justifying an intelligence gathering tactic that induces memory loss? Does that make sense? Of course not.

Who were the victims of these tortures?

Who were the perpetrators?

Where did these tortures happen?

Art-P.O.G.|8.28.09 @ 1:10PM|#

Sadly, there will always be free-riders like Steve Chapman who make mock of heroes who guard us while we sleep.

Do you realize that there are varied views and debates about torture in the defense community?

|8.28.09 @ 5:39PM|#

Conspiracy nutcases .....

Whatever America does is BAD!

Perhaps our troops should never capture anyone on the battlefield, just take their word they'll "go and sin no more." And, we should insist on the same from our allies.

|8.29.09 @ 2:20AM|#

Jim, I think it's time for you to stop eating paint chips.

Art-P.O.G.|8.29.09 @ 7:44AM|#

|8.29.09 @ 4:03PM|#

Compared to the treatment given to prisoners in their home country, our government is telling the world that we welcome terrorists - even if we catch you, we won't do anything bad to you, no matter how many people you have aided in killing.

|8.30.09 @ 3:24PM|#

First, torturing would-be mass murderers is NOT a disqualifying feature of civilisation. I'm happy for men like that to be tortured under certain specific circumstances, and we all know what those circumstances are.
Second, sending a Hellfire into a house in the NWFP doesn't seem more humane to me than torturing a man to get actionable intelligence. Third, Obama will not forego the current regime of enhanced interrogation and permit a 9/11 on his watch. So carry on bleating for whatever it is worth, which is nil.

DragonScorpion|9.5.09 @ 8:55AM|#

~"The report says a CIA officer choked a prisoner till he was nearly unconscious-then revived him so he could be choked some more. It says an interrogator revved a power drill to frighten a naked, hooded prisoner. CIA personnel reportedly lifted one detainee up by his arms, which were tied behind his back, causing one employee to fear his shoulders would be dislocated.

The agency's guidelines, we learn, authorize interrogators to slam a prisoner up against the wall "20 or 30 times consecutively." They may force captives to stay awake for as long as 180 hours-seven and a half days. They may force them to stand or kneel in painful positions for long periods." ~ Steve Chapman

Gee, sure sounds like a lot more than mere "rudeness". But then, these people are "murderers", right? Or, at least accused murderers. Or, scratch that. More like suspects of alleged terrorism, to be perfectly honest about it. Most of which were, and many of which still are, held without charge.

~"The other conservative defense is that these methods were used only against people who had it coming. "They are terrorists who killed hundreds and thousands of Americans," insisted Seth Leibsohn on National Review Online." ~ Steve Chapman

Yeah, a little reminder to Seth at National Review, regardless the crime, people are innocent until proven guilty. Even the Nazis had their day in court. Of course, I realize that's why the pro-torture thugs keep insisting on labels like "enemy combatants" and the use of gulags which are beyond national and international laws. I think we have to be concerned about attempts to invoke 'special circumstances' in which the government must employ 'extra-constitutional powers' to 'protect national security'...

~"Many modern conservatives, unlike Reagan, are willing to incinerate every civilized principle to avert the possibility of harm-and they think the public agrees. But if that's true, let's stop pretending America is the home of the brave." ~ Steve Chapman

Well said! Chicken-hawks like Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, John Yoo, et al. are nothing more than fear-mongering, jackbooted cowards.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements