A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
A small handful of member comments under Adam Freedman's post about the Ghailani verdict typify how the interrogation issue has caused some people's fevered imaginations to run truly wild. Because the interrogation methods used by the CIA were kept secret -- for good reason -- critics made up all sort of crazy ideas about what the government was doing. As the leaks of the internal government documents made clear, the CIA was only using methods of coercive interrogation that were used on thousands of our own soldiers to train them in case of capture. Obviously our armed forces would not torture its own soldiers.
These crazy accusations, I'm afraid, have been launched against me as well, even to the point where mal-intentioned kooks recorded a single sentence or two out of a long debate to try to pretend that I would support the most gruesome violence. This is of course false. If one were to listen to any of my statements in context, it would be clear that: a) I would never support torture; b) I think the CIA interrogation methods, which culminated in waterboarding, did not violate the anti-torture statute; c) the government never contemplated or ever used any interrogation method involving physical violence against an al Qaeda member; and d) under the Constitution, battlefield tactics including interrogation and detention decisions are for the President to decide as Commander-in-Chief.
To misinterpret the claim that the Constitution gives the President the authority to decide on military tactics and strategy as support for the idea that the President would authorize any and all forms of violence to gain a confession shows a fundamental inability to understand the difference between law and policy. This is a mistake many people make. To give an example: during the Cold War, the President had the constitutional authority, in my view, to decide on the use of nuclear weapons. He had the option to order a military strike that could have destroyed millions, if not billions, of lives. That doesn't mean that the President should or would exercise such an option, or that anyone would want him to.
For further explanations of my views, one can read my op-ed, "Behind the 'Torture Memos,'" stored at the AEI website, or consult my 2006 book, War by Other Means, which explains this in great detail.
- Comment (12)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (4)
Comments :
Feb '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
Last week I saw a video by a journalist who decided to undergo the waterboarding procedure, on camera. I suppose his aim was to show how truly torturous it was. But in my opinion, actually seeing the procedure (assuming it was the real thing) had the opposite effect.
First of all, if someone is willing to voluntarily subject themselves to something just to make a point, it can't be that horrible. (And I should note, this stunt has been voluntarily submitted to by several others trying to make the same point).
Second, what I saw on the video didn't look that horrible at all. Of course I imagine it felt horrible-- like drowning, so they say-- but unless there is some real permanent harm done, like medical complications from the inability to breathe, or provable permanent psychological harm, it hardly appears to rise to the level of "torture."
I supposed, though, that most viewers would read into that video whatever their existing prejudices happened to be. An opponent of waterboarding would probably see the same video and say how totally revolting, inhumane and torturous it proved waterboarding to be. To be sure, it's no walk in the park. But I'd say it's a good tool of last resort.
Of course there's the argument that it will make you say or do anything to make it stop. That is a weakness of using this technique. But I should think professional interrogators would know this and be smart enough to take it into account, making sure to weigh the information yielded against other known facts, and corroborating it before taking any rash action. It's a blunt tool, one that should be used as such only when necessary.
Edited on Nov 22, 2010 at 8:04pmMay '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
Based on the small bits of your work that I've read, I can safely say I trust you more than most of the writers at Slate, The Washington Post, and The New York Times combined (not that combining them would have any effect, since they tend to all sound like the same snooty leftist). This may be a case of damning with faint praise, but it's probably safe to assume a hearty majority of Ricochet readers are with me on this.
Your clarifications are appreciated, nonetheless!
May '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
I tend to draw the "torture line" beyond procedures that US fighter pilot trainees (all the "Top Guns") voluntarily undergo as part of survival school. I seriously doubt that the US military tortures its recruits.
Conor is free to make up his own mind, but the decision is all emotional, not rational- that's fine, but admit it.
May '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
Yes.
Jun '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
SEAN HANNITY: What do you say to the critics that always say, that if you are using enhanced interrogation people will say anything to make it stop, to make it go away [...]
MARC THIESSEN: One of the things that is actually, one of the biggest myths told about this program, we actually didn't use enhanced interrogation techniques to get intelligence. We used enhanced interrogation techniques to get them to cooperate. KSM started out being defiant then we waterboarded him then he was compliant. And they asked him during the enhanced interrogation technique, answers to questions they knew the answers to, to gauge whether he was now changed his mind and was going to cooperate and then the techniques stopped. The techniques lasted a couple of days.
HANNITY: I think it is hard for people to understand evil. [...]
THIESSEN: [...] one of the interrogators [...] said, that he had — he was with KSM late one night and KSM just said to him, you know, if I ever get out of this hole I'm going to slit your throat and kill your family and smiled while he said it.
( From: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,583842,00.html )
Edited on Nov 22, 2010 at 8:27pmMay '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
If my older brother and his friends had known about waterboarding in the early 80's, I would have been waterboarded daily.
Most younger brothers suffer more than jihadists under CIA care. No kidding.
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
That, Jason, is the loveliest sentence I've read all day.
May '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
John,
What is your position on "enhanced interrogation" of Supreme Court nominees?
I personally think it should be obligatory under the due process clause.
Cheers
Jun '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
I've yet to hear of anything coming out of either Iraq or Afghanistan that amounts to torture by US Troops -- including the rogue action at Abu Graibh. There simply are Americans who are willing to lose it all on a Potemkin principle when others' lives are immediately at stake -- if their lives or lives of their loved ones were immediately at stake they would sanction the EIT.
Water boarding is the combat equivalent of a parlor game.
Jun '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
Hey! Busy systems guy how come you get 283 words to express your comment and the paying customers are limited to 200 words. Buddy, you're the overhead around here, and you should remember that when you want to override rules you are paid to enforce, or give us all a 283 word limit.
May '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
Professor Yoo,
Thanks for taking the time to address this. As a critic of your position, I'd like to acknowledge both that you don't personally like or desire torture, and that the only legitimate disagreement here is your judgment about what the law permits the president to do. It is my understanding that in the appearance I linked in the other thread, you asserted that whether or not the law permits the president to crush the testicles of a child depends upon why he wants to do it.
Is my understanding -- which is shared by many -- accurate or mistaken? If it's the latter, I'll happily report as much. Indeed, I hope I am mistaken!
If it's the former, however, I have to insist that the law does not permit the president to crush the testicles of an innocent child -- or a guilty one, for that matter -- under any circumstances.
Oct '10
Re: A Clarification of Enhanced Interrogation
In related news from the UK, the govt is apparently going to make a settlement with several detainees who brought a suit alleging that MI5 and MI6 were complicit in extraordinary rendition and liable for whatever. It's upwards of 10 million pounds. A problem arose when the court tried to obtain intelligence files from the agencies as well as from U.S. sources.