| Chapter Fifteen of Pax Americana: The Military Industrial Complex and the War On Terror by Danny Quintana |
| Torture, Abuse and the Law By Danny Quintana and Torrin Nelson |
America's Founding Fathers were among some of the most intelligent and well read men in their day. Benjemin Franklin was a scientist as was
Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was a gentleman scholar. Alexander Hamilton was simply brilliant and would have given world class advice to
any administration at any time in history. George Washington had chrisma and leadership that is sorely missed today. These men were
learned scholars and had world class courage. They understood science, politics, history and the necessity to limit the power of leaders to
cause harm. They also understood that the use of torture had existed throughout history and they envisioned America as an enlightened
utopia.
Thomas Jefferson. John Adams was a gentleman scholar. Alexander Hamilton was simply brilliant and would have given world class advice to
any administration at any time in history. George Washington had chrisma and leadership that is sorely missed today. These men were
learned scholars and had world class courage. They understood science, politics, history and the necessity to limit the power of leaders to
cause harm. They also understood that the use of torture had existed throughout history and they envisioned America as an enlightened
utopia.
IDespite the numerous national, international laws and conventions against torture and abuse as a means of interrogation, the Bush
Administration has been advised that the mistreatment of prisoners is legal. In a February 2002, letter to the President, former Attorney
General Ashcroft attempted to address the question non-combatants being entitled to legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.
According to Ashcroft:
Administration has been advised that the mistreatment of prisoners is legal. In a February 2002, letter to the President, former Attorney
General Ashcroft attempted to address the question non-combatants being entitled to legal protection under the Geneva Conventions.
According to Ashcroft:
United States Bill of Rights (1789), Amendment 8 “ ...nor (shall) cruel or unusual punishment be inflicted."
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."
Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention"no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on
a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused "
UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957), Rule 31 "Corporal punishment, punishment
by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments shall be completely
prohibited..."
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination “... to guarantee the right
of everyone, without distinction to race, color or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably
in the enjoyment of the following rights:" (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State
against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or
institution..."
America Convention on Human Rights (1969) "...All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."
UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1975) "No State may permit or tolerate torture...Exceptional circumstances
such as a state of war ...or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or
other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."
UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), Article 5 "No law enforcement official may inflict,
instigate or tolerate any act of torture...nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior order or
exceptional circumstances...as a justification of torture...In this code of conduct, the term "law enforcement
officials is said to include all officer of the law who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest
or detention." 1
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), Article 5 "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel,
inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."
Geneva Conventions (1949) Article 99, Third Convention"no moral or physical coercion may be exerted on
a prisoner of war in order to admit himself guilty of the act of which he is accused "
UN Minimum Standards for the Treatment of Prisoners (1957), Rule 31 "Corporal punishment, punishment
by placing in a dark cell, and all cruel, inhumane or degrading punishments shall be completely
prohibited..."
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination “... to guarantee the right
of everyone, without distinction to race, color or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably
in the enjoyment of the following rights:" (b) The right to security of person and protection by the State
against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or
institution..."
America Convention on Human Rights (1969) "...All persons deprived of their liberty shall be treated with
respect for the inherent dignity of the human person."
UN Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading
Treatment or Punishment (1975) "No State may permit or tolerate torture...Exceptional circumstances
such as a state of war ...or any other public emergency may not be invoked as a justification of torture or
other cruel inhumane or degrading treatment or punishment."
UN Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement Officials (1979), Article 5 "No law enforcement official may inflict,
instigate or tolerate any act of torture...nor may any law enforcement official invoke superior order or
exceptional circumstances...as a justification of torture...In this code of conduct, the term "law enforcement
officials is said to include all officer of the law who exercise police powers, especially the powers of arrest
or detention." 1
The problem with Ashcroft’s legal advice was it jeopardized all future American interventions in the Third World. All foreign countries have to
do is declare our troops “unlawful combatants” and they will not be protected by international law. To get around the constraints of
international law, the Bush Administration hired private military contractors to do some of the interrogations of detainees. This has led to a
host of legal troubles. Private military contractors present a gray area of the law. Since private military contractors have been asked to
interrogate detainees, the CIA asked the justice department for a legal opinion on exactly what limits there are on interrogations.In an
unprecedented break with every previous administration and counter to every legal principle our country stands for, the Bush Justice
Department wrote a 50 page legal opinion that basically argued torture was legal when conducted outside the of the United States. The
summary of this outrageous legal opinion written by Jay S. Bybee while he was at the Justice Department reads as follows:
Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. Sections 2340-2340A
do is declare our troops “unlawful combatants” and they will not be protected by international law. To get around the constraints of
international law, the Bush Administration hired private military contractors to do some of the interrogations of detainees. This has led to a
host of legal troubles. Private military contractors present a gray area of the law. Since private military contractors have been asked to
interrogate detainees, the CIA asked the justice department for a legal opinion on exactly what limits there are on interrogations.In an
unprecedented break with every previous administration and counter to every legal principle our country stands for, the Bush Justice
Department wrote a 50 page legal opinion that basically argued torture was legal when conducted outside the of the United States. The
summary of this outrageous legal opinion written by Jay S. Bybee while he was at the Justice Department reads as follows:
Re: Standards of Conduct for Interrogation under 18 U.S.C. Sections 2340-2340A
America, with the concept of freedom of thought and
liberty of expression, was truly a revolutionary state. It
would set a higher standard. America adopted the 8th
Amendment which clearly and unequivocally prohibits
“cruel and unusual punishment”. This enlightened view
of human conduct became the standard that helped
change the world. This legal standard was later adopted
by most civilized nations. Because of that solid legal
foundation, we do not allow illegal evidence obtained by
torture to be admissible in a court of law. As a direct
result of the American Revolution and the 8th
Amendment, the laws against torture and abuse are
recognized nationally and globally. These laws are part
of the legal framework and are set forth in numerous
statutes and international conventions.
liberty of expression, was truly a revolutionary state. It
would set a higher standard. America adopted the 8th
Amendment which clearly and unequivocally prohibits
“cruel and unusual punishment”. This enlightened view
of human conduct became the standard that helped
change the world. This legal standard was later adopted
by most civilized nations. Because of that solid legal
foundation, we do not allow illegal evidence obtained by
torture to be admissible in a court of law. As a direct
result of the American Revolution and the 8th
Amendment, the laws against torture and abuse are
recognized nationally and globally. These laws are part
of the legal framework and are set forth in numerous
statutes and international conventions.
“It is my understanding that the determination that Al Queada and Taliban detainees
remains firm. However, reconsideration is being given to whether the Geneva Conventions
III on prisoners of war applies to the conflict in Afghanistan. There are two basic theories
supporting the conclusion that the Taliban combatants are not legally entitled to Geneva
Convention protection as prisoners of war: 1. During relevant times of combat,
Afghanistan was a failed state. As such it was not a party to the treaty, and the treaty’s
protections do not apply.
2. During relevant times Afghanistan was a party to the treaty, but Taliban combatants are
not entitled to Geneva Conventions III prisoners of war status because they acted as
unlawful combatants.2
remains firm. However, reconsideration is being given to whether the Geneva Conventions
III on prisoners of war applies to the conflict in Afghanistan. There are two basic theories
supporting the conclusion that the Taliban combatants are not legally entitled to Geneva
Convention protection as prisoners of war: 1. During relevant times of combat,
Afghanistan was a failed state. As such it was not a party to the treaty, and the treaty’s
protections do not apply.
2. During relevant times Afghanistan was a party to the treaty, but Taliban combatants are
not entitled to Geneva Conventions III prisoners of war status because they acted as
unlawful combatants.2
The CIA wanted to conduct more aggressive interrogations than had previously been allowed prior to September 11, 2001. Bybee was trying
to find a legal way out of the difficulty presented by the detainees who were being “aggressively” interrogated at various military facilities
controlled by the U.S. worldwide. Are the detainees “prisoners of war” and thereby protected by the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is
a party? Or are they “non-combatants” and excluded for legal protection? The Geneva Conventions were written at a time when nation states
were the primary actors in world affairs. International criminal organizations were not thought of when the Conventions were drafted. In the mid
1800’s when the First Geneva Convention was drafted, international travel was a slow cumbersome affair. Most people lived and died within
50 miles of where they were born. The only real international criminal organizations were pirates. But as our technology improved and jet
travel became routine, crime has been able to spread throughout the world. As stated previously, the most obvious mistake we have made
globally and nationally is to call these criminals “terrorists”. Through the mass media we have given political status to criminal acts of private
individuals.
The law applies to individuals. The intent of these international agreements in prohibiting torture of prisoners is to protect individuals from the
excesses of government action. The international agreements prohibiting the mistreatment of prisoners were not intended to protect
“nations”. After all, nations are legal fictions, like all ideas good or bad, the legal fictions of Iraq and Afghanistan, exist between our right and
left ears. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, humans are non-fiction, living breathing life forms. The fact that we may not like the ideas of other
humans does not put them outside the protections of international and national laws prohibiting torture and abuse. The Bush Administration
has turned national and international law on it’s head. The legal opinion justifying torture was widely criticized by legal scholars nationally and
internationally. As law professors Kathleen Clark and Julie Mertus observe:
to find a legal way out of the difficulty presented by the detainees who were being “aggressively” interrogated at various military facilities
controlled by the U.S. worldwide. Are the detainees “prisoners of war” and thereby protected by the Geneva Conventions to which the U.S. is
a party? Or are they “non-combatants” and excluded for legal protection? The Geneva Conventions were written at a time when nation states
were the primary actors in world affairs. International criminal organizations were not thought of when the Conventions were drafted. In the mid
1800’s when the First Geneva Convention was drafted, international travel was a slow cumbersome affair. Most people lived and died within
50 miles of where they were born. The only real international criminal organizations were pirates. But as our technology improved and jet
travel became routine, crime has been able to spread throughout the world. As stated previously, the most obvious mistake we have made
globally and nationally is to call these criminals “terrorists”. Through the mass media we have given political status to criminal acts of private
individuals.
The law applies to individuals. The intent of these international agreements in prohibiting torture of prisoners is to protect individuals from the
excesses of government action. The international agreements prohibiting the mistreatment of prisoners were not intended to protect
“nations”. After all, nations are legal fictions, like all ideas good or bad, the legal fictions of Iraq and Afghanistan, exist between our right and
left ears. Unlike Iraq and Afghanistan, humans are non-fiction, living breathing life forms. The fact that we may not like the ideas of other
humans does not put them outside the protections of international and national laws prohibiting torture and abuse. The Bush Administration
has turned national and international law on it’s head. The legal opinion justifying torture was widely criticized by legal scholars nationally and
internationally. As law professors Kathleen Clark and Julie Mertus observe:
 | |  | |  |
| These laws are briefly summarized as follows |
"You have asked for our Office’s views regarding the standards of conduct under the
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code.
As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of conduct of interrogations
outside of the United States. We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts
inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether
mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture
within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further conclude that certain
acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the
requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A’s proscription against torture. We conclude
by examining possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation
methods violate the statue.(emphasis mine)." 3
Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment as implemented by Sections 2340-2340A of title 18 of the United States Code.
As we understand it, this question has arisen in the context of conduct of interrogations
outside of the United States. We conclude below that Section 2340A proscribes acts
inflicting, and that are specifically intended to inflict, severe pain or suffering, whether
mental or physical. Those acts must be of an extreme nature to rise to the level of torture
within the meaning of Section 2340A and the Convention. We further conclude that certain
acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the
requisite intensity to fall within Section 2340A’s proscription against torture. We conclude
by examining possible defenses that would negate any claim that certain interrogation
methods violate the statue.(emphasis mine)." 3
The Convention Against Torture provides that "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 for torture." And Common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions provides that the rights and duties concerning fundamental humane
treatment apply whether a person detained is a prisoner of war, unprivileged belligerent,
terrorist or ordinary civilian. It's hard to believe that the memo was poorly researched, so it
makes one wonder whether the Justice Department was being disingenuous. A lawyer who
is arguing to a court is allowed to be disingenuous because it is up to the judge to
evaluate that argument against the adversary's and decide what the law is. But a lawyer
who is writing an opinion letter is ethically bound to be frank. 4
whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public
emergency, may be invoked as a justification for torture." And Common Article 3 of the
Geneva Conventions provides that the rights and duties concerning fundamental humane
treatment apply whether a person detained is a prisoner of war, unprivileged belligerent,
terrorist or ordinary civilian. It's hard to believe that the memo was poorly researched, so it
makes one wonder whether the Justice Department was being disingenuous. A lawyer who
is arguing to a court is allowed to be disingenuous because it is up to the judge to
evaluate that argument against the adversary's and decide what the law is. But a lawyer
who is writing an opinion letter is ethically bound to be frank. 4
This disastrous legal opinion gave a green light to the subsequent abuse and torture which took place in Iraq, Afghanistan and caused great
embarrassment as well as endangered out troops in the field. To reward Jay S. Bybee for the mediocre legal advice he provided our country,
the Bush administration has appointed him as a Federal judge. But the problem remains. In a very brutal world, how do we properly
interrogate international criminals who clearly want to kill innocent individuals?
There is a debate raging right now, in halls of government, on talk-shows, and in living rooms and dining rooms across our country. The
debate is on a matter of great importance and severe implications: Torture. Is it right? Is it being used? Should it be used? Don’t “they”
deserve to be treated as badly as they would treat us?
All these questions and many more are being hotly contested by people who ultimately have good intentions at heart. The problem isn’t in
their loyalties. It’s in their application of the fight. And in this case, more so than any other issue I can think of, the factors of perception and
morality play vital roles.
But what is torture? And for that matter what is abuse? Or physical coercion?Who the hell cares! My apologies if I seem a bit irritated by the
debate on what is acceptable and what isn’t. I’ve just been up to my interrogator ears in muck…raw sewage, if you will…because of
people who think it is more important to define the parameters of torture, as opposed to doing what is right to actually win the War of
Intelligence, which is a part of the War on Terrorism.
You see, in order to provide intelligence to the leaders who make decisions, which affect people around the world, we need to harvest reliable
information. Information in and of itself does not save lives and in most cases will endanger it, if the information cannot be trusted. What
makes the information unreliable?
When I was a child, I knew that other children would sometimes bully smaller kids. These bullies would grab some poor kid and put them in a
headlock, giving them noogies until the little kid said “Uncle.” The lesson learned was that if you were strong enough to put pressure on
someone not capable of withstanding that pressure, you could pretty much get them to say anything you wanted them to. In today’s world of
lies and half-truths, we face the same dilemma when applying pressure on detainees and prisoners to give us answers to our questions. If
you hang a guy up by his armpits, yell at him in various languages, place a hood on him and make him feel like a pitiful little ant, is that
torture? Who the hell cares
embarrassment as well as endangered out troops in the field. To reward Jay S. Bybee for the mediocre legal advice he provided our country,
the Bush administration has appointed him as a Federal judge. But the problem remains. In a very brutal world, how do we properly
interrogate international criminals who clearly want to kill innocent individuals?
There is a debate raging right now, in halls of government, on talk-shows, and in living rooms and dining rooms across our country. The
debate is on a matter of great importance and severe implications: Torture. Is it right? Is it being used? Should it be used? Don’t “they”
deserve to be treated as badly as they would treat us?
All these questions and many more are being hotly contested by people who ultimately have good intentions at heart. The problem isn’t in
their loyalties. It’s in their application of the fight. And in this case, more so than any other issue I can think of, the factors of perception and
morality play vital roles.
But what is torture? And for that matter what is abuse? Or physical coercion?Who the hell cares! My apologies if I seem a bit irritated by the
debate on what is acceptable and what isn’t. I’ve just been up to my interrogator ears in muck…raw sewage, if you will…because of
people who think it is more important to define the parameters of torture, as opposed to doing what is right to actually win the War of
Intelligence, which is a part of the War on Terrorism.
You see, in order to provide intelligence to the leaders who make decisions, which affect people around the world, we need to harvest reliable
information. Information in and of itself does not save lives and in most cases will endanger it, if the information cannot be trusted. What
makes the information unreliable?
When I was a child, I knew that other children would sometimes bully smaller kids. These bullies would grab some poor kid and put them in a
headlock, giving them noogies until the little kid said “Uncle.” The lesson learned was that if you were strong enough to put pressure on
someone not capable of withstanding that pressure, you could pretty much get them to say anything you wanted them to. In today’s world of
lies and half-truths, we face the same dilemma when applying pressure on detainees and prisoners to give us answers to our questions. If
you hang a guy up by his armpits, yell at him in various languages, place a hood on him and make him feel like a pitiful little ant, is that
torture? Who the hell cares
It’s not important if this is torture or simply abuse, or even the seemingly neutral term of “coercion,” because what it invariably does is make
the source want to say anything to get the pain, pressure or physical discomfort to stop. They look at the person applying the pressure,
abuse, or torture – whichever term you prefer – as the source of their problems and not the answer to them. This is the last thing that a good
interrogator wants to be perceived as, because it means that we have not gained the willing cooperation of the source. Willing cooperation is
the only type of cooperation that can be used in ascertaining whether information given was reliable or not. And reliable information is the
only form of information that should be used by our leaders to make proper decisions.
Instead of focusing on what we can or cannot do to prisoners and detainees we should rather focus on what we can do to ourselves to make
us the best interrogators we possibly can be. When you send a Reservist, Guardsman, or even an Active Duty interrogator half way around
the world to a foreign land they know almost next to nothing about, you are asking for trouble. When you tell that interrogator to make life or
death decisions on people who’s language they do not understand, culture they do not know, and the plausibility of their information, you are
asking for trouble. When you tell inexperienced interrogators that certain techniques are okay, they can misunderstand the instructions, get
carried away with the advice, or fall into a pit of cynicism and sadism that is completely justified by the necessity of the mission. The ends do
not justify the means.
We have to ask ourselves, “Why are we sending troops around the world and capturing people, sometimes in their own countries, then
sending them to prison camps, interrogation centers, and detention facilities?” The answers are many and often complicated, but there is
one factor that is crystal clear. Perception is everything.
Whether we are interrogating people in what we consider acceptable conditions, subjecting them to authorized pressures or coercion, the fact
remains; how their countrymen perceive the treatment is far greater than how we view it. It gets especially tricky when we do things that
offend or humiliate individuals in our custody. Why? To many people who would otherwise be convinced to work with us in our noble causes,
we have alienated thousands and tens of thousands of people. First, we alienate them because of what they perceive to be harsh treatment.
Second, we doubly offend them by not looking at the situation from their perspective and simply tell them to “get over it.” This idea that if it is
not offensive to us, it shouldn’t be offensive to everyone else is so arrogant and self –aggrandizing that it makes my head swim. If we are to
truly go in to other countries around the globe with noble purpose, then we must at in every way possible to reflect those noble intentions.
The thing that really gets me is when people justify our actions in Iraq with the response, “Well, under Saddam it was much worse.” How in
God’s name can we be so out of touch with reality that we have to compare our actions with those of a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship? Of
course it was worse under Saddam! There isn’t anything I can think of that would be worse than Saddam! So why in God’s name are we
comparing ourselves to one the lowest moral example? We should instead be looking to compare ourselves with the most moral examples in
history and doing everything thing we can to one up them!
the source want to say anything to get the pain, pressure or physical discomfort to stop. They look at the person applying the pressure,
abuse, or torture – whichever term you prefer – as the source of their problems and not the answer to them. This is the last thing that a good
interrogator wants to be perceived as, because it means that we have not gained the willing cooperation of the source. Willing cooperation is
the only type of cooperation that can be used in ascertaining whether information given was reliable or not. And reliable information is the
only form of information that should be used by our leaders to make proper decisions.
Instead of focusing on what we can or cannot do to prisoners and detainees we should rather focus on what we can do to ourselves to make
us the best interrogators we possibly can be. When you send a Reservist, Guardsman, or even an Active Duty interrogator half way around
the world to a foreign land they know almost next to nothing about, you are asking for trouble. When you tell that interrogator to make life or
death decisions on people who’s language they do not understand, culture they do not know, and the plausibility of their information, you are
asking for trouble. When you tell inexperienced interrogators that certain techniques are okay, they can misunderstand the instructions, get
carried away with the advice, or fall into a pit of cynicism and sadism that is completely justified by the necessity of the mission. The ends do
not justify the means.
We have to ask ourselves, “Why are we sending troops around the world and capturing people, sometimes in their own countries, then
sending them to prison camps, interrogation centers, and detention facilities?” The answers are many and often complicated, but there is
one factor that is crystal clear. Perception is everything.
Whether we are interrogating people in what we consider acceptable conditions, subjecting them to authorized pressures or coercion, the fact
remains; how their countrymen perceive the treatment is far greater than how we view it. It gets especially tricky when we do things that
offend or humiliate individuals in our custody. Why? To many people who would otherwise be convinced to work with us in our noble causes,
we have alienated thousands and tens of thousands of people. First, we alienate them because of what they perceive to be harsh treatment.
Second, we doubly offend them by not looking at the situation from their perspective and simply tell them to “get over it.” This idea that if it is
not offensive to us, it shouldn’t be offensive to everyone else is so arrogant and self –aggrandizing that it makes my head swim. If we are to
truly go in to other countries around the globe with noble purpose, then we must at in every way possible to reflect those noble intentions.
The thing that really gets me is when people justify our actions in Iraq with the response, “Well, under Saddam it was much worse.” How in
God’s name can we be so out of touch with reality that we have to compare our actions with those of a brutal, totalitarian dictatorship? Of
course it was worse under Saddam! There isn’t anything I can think of that would be worse than Saddam! So why in God’s name are we
comparing ourselves to one the lowest moral example? We should instead be looking to compare ourselves with the most moral examples in
history and doing everything thing we can to one up them!
Recently, an article from the New York Times, dated July 30, 2004 stated
WASHINGTON, July 30 - A senior leader of Al Qaeda who wascaptured in Pakistan several
months after the Sept. 11terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence,
since discredited, that Iraq had provided training inchemical and biological weapons to
members of theorganization, according to American intelligence officials.
Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykhal-Libi, a member of Osama bin
Laden's inner circle,recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before theyhad
become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powelland others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that
involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.
WASHINGTON, July 30 - A senior leader of Al Qaeda who wascaptured in Pakistan several
months after the Sept. 11terrorist attacks was the main source for intelligence,
since discredited, that Iraq had provided training inchemical and biological weapons to
members of theorganization, according to American intelligence officials.
Intelligence officials say the detainee, Ibn al-Shaykhal-Libi, a member of Osama bin
Laden's inner circle,recanted the claims sometime last year, but not before theyhad
become the basis of statements by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney,
Secretary of State Colin L. Powelland others about links between Iraq and Al Qaeda that
involved poisons, gases and other illicit weapons.
This goes hand in hand with instances where I saw intelligence reports, written by interrogators who had used tactics, which did not gain the
willing cooperation of the source, being discredited by later analysis or proper interrogation procedures. You see, if you beat on a guy long
enough, he will admit to being Usama bin Laden in disguise.
Another way to look at how we conduct interrogation operations is to ask us the worst-case scenario. What is the worst thing that could
happen from our actions in this location? What if a news camera team snuck in a hidden camera, or some aerial reconnaissance vehicle
caught us from afar? Well, if you immediately start to cringe from having to go public with your activities, then you really need to reexamine
your motives. I say this because in the case of Abu Ghraib a worst-case scenario pretty much did transpire. If everyone at that facility had
acted in a moral and ethical manner – and I’m not just referring to the MP guards on the hard site – there would have been no scandal poster
child of the Middle East. If you ask any Arab on the street, and many others around the world, what they think about Abu Ghraib Prison,
prepare for a lot of hatred. It has become a nexus of everything that others think is wrong with America. It is America’s hubris. It doesn’t
matter about what really happened or didn’t happen. The perception is there and the American people will suffer because of it. The War on
Terrorism will suffer from this far more than it could have ever benefited from what little intelligence may have been gathered there.
This is the fault of a whole slew of people. From the top leadership, who authorized memos to be written on what brutal or coercive measures
should be allowed, to mid-level leadership who did not know how to properly interpret the guidance from above to ensure strict adherence to
proper procedure, to individual interrogators or analysts who took measures into their own hands and abused prisoners, some of whom were
innocent. They all did these things in the name of morality, in the name of a higher cause, but if you have to resort to immoral practices to
justify moral causes, you blacken the very cause for which you are fighting.
In our system of interrogation we categorize each and every prisoner or detainee on two factors: Knowledge and Cooperation. Each factor is
broken down into three levels. Combining these two grades allows us to place each person we speak with into areas of priority for
exploitation. The most cooperative and most knowledgeable sources are considered to be 1-A, whereas the least cooperative and most likely
to know nothing important are considered 3-C. Many of the problems we are facing today are from the way in which we assign the priority of
exploitation. For example, a lot of leaders now believe that it is of greater benefit to go after the least cooperative sources, because surely
they must have great amounts of knowledge. Going after less cooperative sources requires great amounts of time, energy and concerted
efforts, in order to “break” their resistance to interrogation. But we only have a limited amount of resources to conduct interrogations. In Abu
Ghraib we had about 16 or 17 interrogation teams to process over a thousand possible sources. At GTMO the ratio was a little more in favor
of the interrogators. At Abu Ghraib, while attention was dedicated to try and break the difficult sources, many sources that had information
and wanted to cooperate were being forgotten. And with each day they had to sit in the mud and filth of the tent city, every day that they had
to eat bug-infested meals, or walk through sewer water to get to the port-a-potties, these otherwise cooperative sources found more reasons
to not like the Americans and not give any assistance.
Saddam Hussein was found and captured on 14 December 2003. People throughout Iraq and America cheered at the news. The military
leadership was also very happy. They thought that tons of useful information could now be gleaned from Saddam and we could make great
inroads in our struggle against the insurgency. But months later, after enormous amounts of resources had been dedicated to interrogating
Saddam, we discovered that very little information had been garnered. He had given lots of information about the background of the Ba’ath
Party, his struggle, and the plight of the Iraqi people. But when it came to actually providing information of intelligence value, the results
were disappointing. This doesn’t surprise me. If we had captured Hitler in World War II, I think he would have had lots to say, but not a lot to
actually help us to pacify his country. No, instead the leadership should concentrate on people who have to gain by cooperating with us. We
have to get to these people as quickly as possible. They are out there. There are everywhere in the world. But if we focus on the least
cooperative sources of information, we lose the fleeting opportunity to get the reliable information from people who want to give it.
I have interrogated or debriefed hundreds of sources throughout my career, I have written numerous reports for the intelligence community,
and not once have I ever had to resort to brutal or questionable tactics. It has not always been easy to do my job, and when you come face
to face with someone who you know has killed your fellow countrymen, and would gladly do so again, it is tough to restrain oneself. But the
best thing we can do with them is to not treat them with pain, humiliation, or offense. No, the best thing we can do is to treat them as a friend,
a brother, a trusted confidant. Once we have gained their cooperation, we take that information they give us and we defeat their friends and
colleagues who are still out there, planning to kill us and our friends. Lives are on the line. This is no time for “cowboy mavericks” to take out
their frustrations on our prisoners, just because they don’t know how to properly win these people over. In order to win this war, instead of
focusing on what we can do to the enemy, we need to rather focus on what we need to do to ourselves.
Throughout history there have been previous civilizations and governments who have used some pretty harsh and brutal tactics; the Jesuits
of the Inquisition, the Iroquois, the Nazis, the Soviets, and our own judges during the Witch Trials. We remember the people for their brutal
tactics, for the crimes against humanity, which they perpetrated. But they were all doing so for a higher purpose in their minds. For the
Soviets and Nazis, it was for political and racial ideologies. For the Jesuits it was for religious piety and adherence to God. For all of these
people they have committed immoral acts for the higher cause. How are we going to be remembered by our successors? How are we going
to be remembered when American power in the world wanes? Because eventually American power will fade and some other group will come
to the forefront. How will we be thought of in the history books? Unless we demand strict adherence to the rule of International Law, the
Geneva Conventions, and absolutely moral integrity, our posterity will suffer the consequences of our mistakes.
It all boils down to perception. And right now in the eyes of the world the perception of Abu Ghraib Prison is not very good. In order to win
their war the enemy need only paint us as inhumane. For us to win, we must always stay on the moral high ground. What we need is an
alternative to defense spending and war. Adherance to international law is a choice. And alternatives to invading other countries requires
leaders who have a long term vision that does not include short term political gain.
willing cooperation of the source, being discredited by later analysis or proper interrogation procedures. You see, if you beat on a guy long
enough, he will admit to being Usama bin Laden in disguise.
Another way to look at how we conduct interrogation operations is to ask us the worst-case scenario. What is the worst thing that could
happen from our actions in this location? What if a news camera team snuck in a hidden camera, or some aerial reconnaissance vehicle
caught us from afar? Well, if you immediately start to cringe from having to go public with your activities, then you really need to reexamine
your motives. I say this because in the case of Abu Ghraib a worst-case scenario pretty much did transpire. If everyone at that facility had
acted in a moral and ethical manner – and I’m not just referring to the MP guards on the hard site – there would have been no scandal poster
child of the Middle East. If you ask any Arab on the street, and many others around the world, what they think about Abu Ghraib Prison,
prepare for a lot of hatred. It has become a nexus of everything that others think is wrong with America. It is America’s hubris. It doesn’t
matter about what really happened or didn’t happen. The perception is there and the American people will suffer because of it. The War on
Terrorism will suffer from this far more than it could have ever benefited from what little intelligence may have been gathered there.
This is the fault of a whole slew of people. From the top leadership, who authorized memos to be written on what brutal or coercive measures
should be allowed, to mid-level leadership who did not know how to properly interpret the guidance from above to ensure strict adherence to
proper procedure, to individual interrogators or analysts who took measures into their own hands and abused prisoners, some of whom were
innocent. They all did these things in the name of morality, in the name of a higher cause, but if you have to resort to immoral practices to
justify moral causes, you blacken the very cause for which you are fighting.
In our system of interrogation we categorize each and every prisoner or detainee on two factors: Knowledge and Cooperation. Each factor is
broken down into three levels. Combining these two grades allows us to place each person we speak with into areas of priority for
exploitation. The most cooperative and most knowledgeable sources are considered to be 1-A, whereas the least cooperative and most likely
to know nothing important are considered 3-C. Many of the problems we are facing today are from the way in which we assign the priority of
exploitation. For example, a lot of leaders now believe that it is of greater benefit to go after the least cooperative sources, because surely
they must have great amounts of knowledge. Going after less cooperative sources requires great amounts of time, energy and concerted
efforts, in order to “break” their resistance to interrogation. But we only have a limited amount of resources to conduct interrogations. In Abu
Ghraib we had about 16 or 17 interrogation teams to process over a thousand possible sources. At GTMO the ratio was a little more in favor
of the interrogators. At Abu Ghraib, while attention was dedicated to try and break the difficult sources, many sources that had information
and wanted to cooperate were being forgotten. And with each day they had to sit in the mud and filth of the tent city, every day that they had
to eat bug-infested meals, or walk through sewer water to get to the port-a-potties, these otherwise cooperative sources found more reasons
to not like the Americans and not give any assistance.
Saddam Hussein was found and captured on 14 December 2003. People throughout Iraq and America cheered at the news. The military
leadership was also very happy. They thought that tons of useful information could now be gleaned from Saddam and we could make great
inroads in our struggle against the insurgency. But months later, after enormous amounts of resources had been dedicated to interrogating
Saddam, we discovered that very little information had been garnered. He had given lots of information about the background of the Ba’ath
Party, his struggle, and the plight of the Iraqi people. But when it came to actually providing information of intelligence value, the results
were disappointing. This doesn’t surprise me. If we had captured Hitler in World War II, I think he would have had lots to say, but not a lot to
actually help us to pacify his country. No, instead the leadership should concentrate on people who have to gain by cooperating with us. We
have to get to these people as quickly as possible. They are out there. There are everywhere in the world. But if we focus on the least
cooperative sources of information, we lose the fleeting opportunity to get the reliable information from people who want to give it.
I have interrogated or debriefed hundreds of sources throughout my career, I have written numerous reports for the intelligence community,
and not once have I ever had to resort to brutal or questionable tactics. It has not always been easy to do my job, and when you come face
to face with someone who you know has killed your fellow countrymen, and would gladly do so again, it is tough to restrain oneself. But the
best thing we can do with them is to not treat them with pain, humiliation, or offense. No, the best thing we can do is to treat them as a friend,
a brother, a trusted confidant. Once we have gained their cooperation, we take that information they give us and we defeat their friends and
colleagues who are still out there, planning to kill us and our friends. Lives are on the line. This is no time for “cowboy mavericks” to take out
their frustrations on our prisoners, just because they don’t know how to properly win these people over. In order to win this war, instead of
focusing on what we can do to the enemy, we need to rather focus on what we need to do to ourselves.
Throughout history there have been previous civilizations and governments who have used some pretty harsh and brutal tactics; the Jesuits
of the Inquisition, the Iroquois, the Nazis, the Soviets, and our own judges during the Witch Trials. We remember the people for their brutal
tactics, for the crimes against humanity, which they perpetrated. But they were all doing so for a higher purpose in their minds. For the
Soviets and Nazis, it was for political and racial ideologies. For the Jesuits it was for religious piety and adherence to God. For all of these
people they have committed immoral acts for the higher cause. How are we going to be remembered by our successors? How are we going
to be remembered when American power in the world wanes? Because eventually American power will fade and some other group will come
to the forefront. How will we be thought of in the history books? Unless we demand strict adherence to the rule of International Law, the
Geneva Conventions, and absolutely moral integrity, our posterity will suffer the consequences of our mistakes.
It all boils down to perception. And right now in the eyes of the world the perception of Abu Ghraib Prison is not very good. In order to win
their war the enemy need only paint us as inhumane. For us to win, we must always stay on the moral high ground. What we need is an
alternative to defense spending and war. Adherance to international law is a choice. And alternatives to invading other countries requires
leaders who have a long term vision that does not include short term political gain.
1. Amnesty International, Stop Torture at:
www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/us_international_standards.html
2. Office of the Attorney General, Washington D.C. 20530, February 1, 2002 Letter to President Bush from Attorney General John Ashcroft
online at:http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/jash20102ltr.html
3. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C. August 1, 2002, Memorandum for Alberto R.
Gonzales, Counsel to the President. (emphasis mine)Washington Post, Online at
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf
4. Torturing the Law, The Justice Department's Legal Contortions on Interrogation By Kathleen Clark and Julie Mertus, Washington Post,
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page B03 online at:www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54025-2004Jun19.html
www.amnestyusa.org/stoptorture/us_international_standards.html
2. Office of the Attorney General, Washington D.C. 20530, February 1, 2002 Letter to President Bush from Attorney General John Ashcroft
online at:http://news.findlaw.com/wp/docs/torture/jash20102ltr.html
3. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Washington, D.C. August 1, 2002, Memorandum for Alberto R.
Gonzales, Counsel to the President. (emphasis mine)Washington Post, Online at
www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/dojinterrogationmemo20020801.pdf
4. Torturing the Law, The Justice Department's Legal Contortions on Interrogation By Kathleen Clark and Julie Mertus, Washington Post,
Sunday, June 20, 2004; Page B03 online at:www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54025-2004Jun19.html
| imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. 8th Amendment, U.S. Constitution |
