Re: waterboarding and “enhanced interrogation” – whether they constitute torture – my own view has long been the following:
- Under the law, “torture” is a matter of intent. For example, if a doctor is forced to operate on you without anesthetic, it probably isn’t torture. His intent is to save a life – yours – and he inflicts no more pain than is unavoidable for that goal.
- By analogy, “enhanced interrogation” is not torture if it’s done in the right way and time, to save people’s lives. If it’s honestly thought necessary to save lives, and is done no more than needed to acquire key information, it isn’t torture.
That’s my opinion. The key words are “if”, and “honestly”. In other words, it’s a slippery slope. The interrogators had better be honest, right, and in control of themselves. They can go too far, very easily. When they do go too far, we have to be honest ourselves – and put them on trial for any crimes or torts under the law.
Which brings me to this press release: Two CIA psychologists will be sued for allegedly going too far.
The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of Suleiman Abdullah Salim, Mohamed Ahmed Ben Soud, and the family of Gul Rahman, who froze to death in a secret CIA prison. They were [interrogated] using methods developed by the CIA-contracted psychologists, James Mitchell and John “Bruce” Jessen…
…the case is scheduled to go to trial on September 5 and expected to last two to three weeks.
Mitchell and Jessen helped convince the CIA to adopt…methods…including slamming them into walls, stuffing them inside coffin-like boxes, exposing them to extreme temperatures, starving them, inflicting various kinds of water torture, and chaining them in stress positions designed to inflict pain and to keep them awake for days on end…
Sadly, the article is biased (it’s the ACLU after all) in repeatedly calling all that “torture” before the trial. The point of the trial is to decide. I tried to edit out the bits where it’s decided prematurely. To continue:
Mitchell and Jessen trained other CIA personnel in their methods. In 2005, they founded a company — Mitchell, Jessen & Associates — that the CIA contracted with to run its entire [enhanced interrogation] program, including supplying interrogators and security for black sites and rendition operations. Mitchell and Jessen admitted as part of this lawsuit that the government paid the company $81 million over several years. The CIA let Mitchell and Jessen themselves evaluate the effectiveness…and the agency has since admitted that this was a mistake.
According to Mitchell and Jessen’s theory, if humans were psychologically destroyed through…abuse, they would become totally unable to resist demands for information…
The CIA adopted Mitchell and Jessen’s proposals, and in August of 2002, the agency secured Justice Department authorization in the so-called “torture memos,” which were later rescinded by the Justice Department…
The plaintiffs are suing Mitchell and Jessen under the Alien Tort Statute — which allows federal lawsuits for gross human rights violations…
Mitchell and Jessen may go with a “Zyklon B” defense – the idea that they were merely fulfilling their contracts, and it is others (namely CIA officials) who decided how to apply their methods.
As always, say what you think in the comments; I won’t necessarily be persuaded to your view; but I’m still interested to hear it.
“Enhanced interrogation” is great if you are a sadist. Have you ever been waterboarded? Do a little test in the shower sometime: Place a soaking wet washcloth over your nose and mouth and breath deeply. It isn’t enhanced interrogation, it’s torture. I have to agree with the guys who have experienced it and condemn “enhanced” anything.
Sincerely and respectfully, Robin
Thanks Robin.
The counter-argument is that what you describe is part of Navy SEAL training. But insofar as the CIA did it to the wrong people – or did it sadistically “because they could” – yeah, that’s torture.
I hope I don’t sound like I’m parroting an old talking point but I feel that it’s necessary regarding this case & not ILC post when I say; there is no comparison of enhanced interrogation to torture. Both descriptions are complete & self-explanatory. I read. I can imagine – & I do have the empathetic capability of understanding what things are in the context of reality. There is no comparison of waterboarding & other harsh interrogation procedures to the practice of pulling out nails, dismemberment, starvation to the point of disability, stabbing, bludgeoning & the other host of tools used by torturers throughout human history.
Also, I do see the very valid reason of “needing to get vital information” out of someone who is validly suspected of having that information, whether it’s of an immediate nature or not.
This conversation, set by Liberals, is meant to demean the moral policies of the US & the conversation is also set by trial lawyers intent on making a statement & a name for themselves as well earning as a giant payday.
It’s vital that any country in the West have the ability to at least try to force information out of very bad people or people who, on the face of it, are bad. The fact is, every country in the West does & will use harsh interrogation to protect their own countries or to gain a vital & important benefit for their protection. Whether it’s “legally” acceptable or not.
This case brings to (my) mind, OJ Simpson. While acquitting him of murder, he was subsequently punished by other means in order to bring resolution to the murder that he was obviously guilty. Yet, the important conviction was not achieved, which would have been another determent to murder.
To address ILC’s view that intent is necessary in order to define what is. That is a good formula for initially addressing & analyzing things in general, but specifically in this case it would not be needed, IMHO, because the actions of torture & harsh interrogation are (respectively) already defined. There is no need of analysis of sticking a fork into a nice rib eye.
This year, we’ve seen quite explicitly how the courts think to define the actions of other branches of government. Acquitting OJ was minor compared to what’s been done regarding immigration & the damage done to country & the judicial system’s own self were they to find in favor of bad people, who’ve refurbished themselves to the point where they think they can grab as much money as possible from the US taxpayer.
True. The counter-argument would be that a sadist can re-purpose just about anything, as a torture.
Agreed.
That’s the thing; they over-use the word, flinging it without regard to context, intent or actual practice. So real torture gets harder to recognize, as one must stay alert against all the hyperbole and anti-U.S. propaganda.
Yes. What we have with Mitchell and Jessen, SEEMS (on one side’s press release) to be that they took millions in taxpayer money to advise on the over-interrogation of some people who weren’t necessarily all that bad or didn’t have info. “Mistakes were made.” What do we do about the mistakes?
+1 for not failing to point out the slippery slope, there.
As I see it, one dimension oft overlooked by the proponents (or opponents) of “enhanced interrogation” or its more unabashed cousin called “torture”, is… timing.
Whether you are on the receiving end, as an innocent or as a self-conscious criminal, or on the provider one, as a honest law enforcer or as a sadist minion of the power you answer to… one has to ponder as to why it happens in the first place, wrt. collecting “information”.
How about being quicker or smarter at obtaining your information about whatever you investigate, without recourse to test your fellows’ physical resilience?
Imo, I really do think these practices are often nothing but a poor alternative to compensate for more skillful and intelligent way to investigate and obtain information from people, legitimately or not.
Hence why I suppose the most prone to like torturing are often sadist brutes simply delighted to have wonderful excuses to carry out their disturbing hobby.
The receiving end is also often caught off guard:
the poor, starving protesters in Venezuela recently had the idea to show their contempt for their new dictator by throwing poop bombs / poopotov cocktails at the anti riot police.
Guess what happened only weeks after when the same police caught some of these “enemies of the revolution”.
Reports of these sickos forcing their newly captured dissidents to eat cold pasta with poop. Take away: not only something is wrong with the torture professionals, but something is so wrong that it is only a matter of time until they leverage ideas to the worst that mankind can do.
@5 That being said, granted, true it is, though:
torture is a tough ethic and moral issue on the right, only.
On the left, at worst it is only them being forced to put social justice in tangible application — but hey, most often, it simply doesn’t / cannot happen, of course.
Perhaps my thoughts are a bit obtuse, but I will attempt to be clear.
It is important to understand the fad of “lifeboat” ethics. A person is challenged to be in a lifeboat with limited room and limited supplies and the waters are full of people needing to be saved. The issue is not one of ethics. It is one of survival and there is no rule book of ethics to guide you.
“Torture” is nearly impossible to define as something more definite than a relatively broad concept. When interrogators are being trained, they learn about various psychological quirks/weaknesses to uncover and how to capitalize on using fears to induce cooperation. For instance, fear of spiders can be very powerful.
The application of physical pain has long been considered “cruel” and therefore against moral bounds. Waterboarding causes a realistic panic and fear of drowning. It brings on an extreme psychological “trauma” which has the effect of helping to make the decision of cooperation or continuing the panic and fear. From my understanding of the process and the precautions, “waterboarding” is no more torture than is sleep deprivation and other fear inducing techniques.
So, we have known terrorists locked up and they have valued information concerning terrorism methods, locations, events, participants, financing, etc. locked up inside their brains.
The real issue concerns what is ethical to ask the interrogator to “live with” in extracting the information. Because of that standard, for a century or more, we have gone along with “rendition.” We let allied nations who will do interrogation we won’t do take on the job. Clinton for instance, found the Bulgarians to be particularly useful for rendition and a CIA prison was set up there with the Bulgarian “specialists” preparing the subject for CIA interrogation. As an aside, the French are still the very best at getting information from terrorists. They are not more clever; they employ a wider range of “techniques” than any other Western nation.
I think ILC has a valid point. However; from my perspective as not being someone who necessarily thinks that everything can be resolved or that the usual “what can we do so this doesn’t happen again” response is the correct response each & every time a perceived inequity occurs – I would say that there must be enhanced protections within our national defense posture that forbids punitive action by foreign entities, i.e., money grabs, political posturing, the agenda of an enemy, etc. I’m saying any audit or remonstration be confined to our own organizations. In this case, the military. Otherwise, the element of fear is obviously lessened in our enemies.
We all know (or should) that it’s not the policy of the United States to act in an immoral manner. A morality that is not universal but which is confined to the West. This should be enough for our own people to say, we will look at this. It is not for you to effect resolution, judgment or use our own institutions to effect the same. This has been our policy in the past. It’s a good policy. However; our courts tend to side with parties that we do not have jurisdiction & the tendency to not think about OUR country first & foremost is either absent or rare.
That said, there is no reason non-binding complaint by a foreign body or individual cannot be lodged against a perceived inequity, misdeed or crime. It is a freedom of speech that we must allow instead of ignore. It also serves a purpose within our own country. That an inequity won’t be swept under the rug, which has been a tradition of our past.
Let’s not forget that one of the components of American Exceptionalism is that we do adhere, when possible, to a universal morality. Unlike every other country on this planet.
Point out, if you dare, what you think we’ve done wrong. But, America First – please.
Thanks, ILC, for the chance to rant. I do get your point. We have our own Mister Magoo’s that we send out to do what’s necessary. A fix would be to find out what happened, if possible. Otherwise, find someone else to do the job & retire that inept Mister Magoo ourselves.
This is kind of an aside, but the debate over whether this is torture or not is similar to my war on the expanded use of the term “bullying”.
When I was growing up, I was bullied. I mean I was cornered, threatened and punched in so that I would submit to the demands of the bully.
I never considered being called names or being laughed at bullying. They are clearly rude, and can, if done repeatedly, be considered harassment. But they fall short of the physical abuse I had to put up with.
Which is why I scoff at the term “cyber bullying”. Until such time as they make computers where actual physical contact can occur, it might be rude, it might be stalking, it might be harassment, but it is not bullying.
So too, with this. When you see people who have had bones broken, nails removed, branded, whipped, all in an effort to obtain submission and information. They come out of it permanently scarred.
Waterboarding? I’d never want it done to me, and I probably would not forget it. But, would I be permanently harmed? That to me is the dividing line.
Tough one, anyway:
would waterboarding be enough to question the genius ISIS “fighters” who filmed themselves as they condemned (and duly sentenced) to death 19 girls and women by setting them on fire burned alive in a cage after they refused to serve as sex slaves?
Thanks guys. I think I see part of the problem.
“Torture” as traditionally understood, is the infliction of *physical injury and/or pain*. Thus “pulling out nails, dismemberment, starvation to the point of disability, stabbing, bludgeoning & the other host of tools used by torturers throughout human history.” All of which is outlawed.
So, techniques were developed to inflict *mental panic and/or exhaustion*. Part of the question is, whether/when those should be used, or whether/when they should be called torture.
(Another part of the problem is, of course, hypocrisy. Some lefties call any interrogation “torture” because, deep down, they’re rooting for the Islamic terrorist to stay strong. But if a right-wing Other were being interrogated – say, a male police officer or business person or libertarian anarchist – they could go quickly for the “enhanced” interrogation.)
I am ambivalent on enhanced interrogation. My concern comes down to the fact that, at the very least, you are causing a large amount of psychological stress, which may be compounded with physical force at times. Most people probably don’t have the stomach to inflict the mental strain and physical duress that comes with enhanced interrogation on other humans. So my question is, who does? I’m sure there have to be some CIA interrogators who view their work as unpleasant and regrettable, but necessary. But what about those who enjoy it, sadists who get to hide behind the flag and the cause of national security as they indulge their appetites with government approval?
My second question is, if these acts do qualify as torture, and we do them to innocents, does that not count as some sort of martyrdom? Hell, even if we do it on the guilty and they resist, have they not become martyrs?
And on another note… the Inquisition was forbidden from spilling blood, as that was the qualification for torture in the Middle Ages and Renaissance. So they had to get creative with their tactics, but we would still consider many of their techniques torture today- and they also figured out how to hold people in positions to hit pressure points and dislocate limbs. So I think there’s also a letter of the law vs. spirit of the law element to all this. And an ends vs. means element too.