• news
  • WEDNESDAY MAY 30 2007 6:00 AM

Bush Administration Even Sucks at Torture



Remember the controversy back in 2004-2005 about then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales’ big hard on for the use of torture when dealing with the detainees at Guantanamo Bay? Remember how he wrote memos arguing that the Geneva convention does not apply to the detainees and Gitmo and thus it was alright to torture the everloving heck out of them to elicit information? Remember how Bush’s cronies in the White House and the DoJ all signed off on this plan despite opposition from the State Department and Colon Powell?

Well, turns out that they’re not only sadistic bastards with a faulty grasp on international law, but they are also totally shit when it comes to torturing people.

As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies are arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.

The psychologists and other specialists, commissioned by the Intelligence Science Board, make the case that more than five years after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has yet to create an elite corps of interrogators trained to glean secrets from terrorism suspects.

While billions are spent each year to upgrade satellites and other high-tech spy machinery, the experts say, interrogation methods — possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda — are a hodgepodge that date from the 1950s, or are modeled on old Soviet practices.


"Soviet practices"? Classy. Apparently, in Soviet Russia water boards you!

Anyway, these so-called “scientists” and “experts” base these findings not only on long-standing principles of international law and morality, but on the notion that (despite the bill of goods that Jack Bauer is selling you,) torture just flat doesn’t work. Especially ineffective are the types of torture we’ve been using in Gitmo and around the world for the past five years.

In meetings with intelligence officials and in a 325-page initial report completed in December, the researchers have pressed a more practical critique: there is little evidence, they say, that harsh methods produce the best intelligence.

“There’s an assumption that often passes for common sense that the more pain imposed on someone, the more likely they are to comply,” said Randy Borum, a psychologist at the University of South Florida who, like several of the study’s contributors, is a consultant for the Defense Department.
[…]
[S]ome of the experts involved in the interrogation review, called “Educing Information,” say that during World War II, German and Japanese prisoners were effectively questioned without coercion.

“It far outclassed what we’ve done,” said Steven M. Kleinman, a former Air Force interrogator and trainer, who has studied the World War II program of interrogating Germans. The questioners at Fort Hunt, Va., “had graduate degrees in law and philosophy, spoke the language flawlessly,” and prepared for four to six hours for each hour of questioning, said Mr. Kleinman, who wrote two chapters for the December report.

Mr. Kleinman, who worked as an interrogator in Iraq in 2003, called the post-Sept. 11 efforts “amateurish” by comparison to the World War II program, with inexperienced interrogators who worked through interpreters and had little familiarity with the prisoners’ culture.


The Bush Administration eschewing proven, researched methods of international relations in favor of half-cocked aggression? Quelle Surprise!

These were not the only broadsides the Bushies took from experts in regards to the administration’s torture policy. Other swipes included one at the vast amount of resources that were directed at justification of the policy rather than creating one with an acceptable level of efficacy.

Robert F. Coulam, a research professor and attorney at Simmons College and a study participant, said that the government’s most vigorous work on interrogation to date has been in seeking legal justifications for harsh tactics. Even today, he said, “there’s nothing like the mobilization of effort and political energy that was put into relaxing the rules” governing interrogation.


The White House’s counter to this avalanche of rebukes is essentially “we didn’t torture anyone, and if we did it wasn’t really that tortur-riffic.” While this explanation flies in the face of the clear weight of the evidence showing excessively harsh treatment is common in Gitmo, I do give them some credit for at least attempting to make an argument that their tactics were legal beforehand. It’s a morbidly refreshing change from just brazenly breaking the law and then clumsily attempting to justify it later as was the case with the domestic spying situation.

Still, it is worth noting that Bush is in the process of finalizing a long-overdue executive order that would officially outlaw some of the more controversial techniques like waterboarding. On the other hand, the order is expected to authorize several techniques that, according to the New York Times’ piece, “go beyond those allowed in the military by the Army Field Manual.” One is forced to wonder whether the advice and critiques offered by this panel of experts will be reflected in the Administration’s new torture policies. We’ll have to wait to find out, but knowing them I sincerely doubt it.

Finally, my personal favorite criticism of the way the White House came upon their interrogation policy comes from one if their own. In this case, a former aide to Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice.

In an April lecture, Philip D. Zelikow, the former adviser to Ms. Rice, said it was a grave mistake to delegate to attorneys decisions on the moral question of how prisoners should be treated.


Asking your lawyer about questions of morality is a grave mistake indeed. Especially if that lawyer is Alberto Gonzales.

Hat tip: Necia

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next

Comments
LostLucy

LostLucy

USA
December 2006

MAY 30, 2007 06:29 AM

I can see them now...

hellomrworld

hellomrworld

Westbrook, ME
December 2003

MAY 30, 2007 06:34 AM

It is interesting how few experts this adminstration asks for in policy ...

Look at the Iraq war .. and now the mess at Gitmo ..

The two things which have hurt our national reputation the most ...

JoLeigh

JoLeigh

SUICIDEGIRL

Florida, USA

MAY 30, 2007 06:36 AM

"we didn't torture anyone, and if we did it wasn't really that tortur-riffic."



surreal surreal surreal

OctEgon

OctEgon

Tustin, CA
July 2005

MAY 30, 2007 07:19 AM

I'm sure the torturers had previous jobs such as Dog Competition Announcer and Zeppelin Pilot, so clearly, they're qualified for this type of bullshit.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

MAY 30, 2007 08:30 AM

JoLeigh said:
"we didn't torture anyone, and if we did it wasn't really that tortur-riffic."



surreal surreal surreal



That was kind of a joke.

Sort of, anyway.

Chainlink

Chainlink

Key West, FL
August 2005

MAY 30, 2007 08:34 AM

Subrosa said:
Asking your lawyer about questions of morality is a grave mistake indeed.



ha !

Quirky

Quirky

Birmingham, AL
October 2005

MAY 30, 2007 08:52 AM

Subrosa said:

JoLeigh said:
"we didn't torture anyone, and if we did it wasn't really that tortur-riffic."



surreal surreal surreal



That was kind of a joke.

Sort of, anyway.



Well written article, Brosa. Bravo.

That said, I wanna see a TshirtHell.com shirt that has "Torturriffic!" on it.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAY 30, 2007 09:00 AM

Torturific. It's spelled t-o-r-t-u-r-i-f-i-c. Jeez, man, get yourself a copy editor or something, 'Brosa.

Coliwali

Coliwali

I'm lost
February 2003

MAY 30, 2007 09:06 AM

I think I've linked to this in every argument about torture I've been in. But it's worth reading and sums up nicely everything that's wrong with our current treatment of POWs from the war on terror and also how to fix it. Suggestions for Japanese Interpreters

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAY 30, 2007 09:23 AM

Coliwali said:
I think I've linked to this in every argument about torture I've been in. But it's worth reading and sums up nicely everything that's wrong with our current treatment of POWs from the war on terror and also how to fix it. Suggestions for Japanese Interpreters


That's always worth reading, and the contrasts between the American Way then and now never cease to be sobering (though that cuts both ways, of course - racial ideas back then were a good deal uglier, for instance).

But I don't think it's so much common sense that generates the idea that punishment yields compliance, as much as it is an unexamined (an unsupportable) notion that our emotional reactions, particularly anger, will generate the desired result rather than resistance or false compliance. The evidence of thousands of years of recorded history is remarkably easy to dismiss in the heat of the moment, especially under the influence of a few decades of horrible Schwarzegger movies and a few years of '24.'

It's always depressing to see with what facility we regress to unthinking savagery. Oh, well.

RileyStClair

RileyStClair

Los Angeles, CA
September 2006

MAY 30, 2007 09:29 AM

chainlink said:

Subrosa said:
Asking your lawyer about questions of morality is a grave mistake indeed.



ha !



+1

tech29

tech29

I'm lost
July 2004

MAY 30, 2007 10:14 AM

I once read a book by an ex British army officer who was involved in a series of conflics while station all over the Middle East. He mentioned torture in interagations and how it never worked EVER. If you harm someone enough they are going to tell you something ...anything. History has shown its not a valid inteligence tool, befriending a prisoner then slowly but painlessly turning them more over to our way of thinking ( whatever that means ) and then helping turn others always proved successful in his experience.

It was skill the British Army perfected as were his claims, they turned every Jihadist they needed to into an ally. Now having said that some of the nasty ones had to get a pass for their crimes that ment killing inoccents and large amounts of destruction had to be forgiven and forgotten. Politics is a bitch anywhere i guess it was all about building a better future.

The_Libertine

The_Libertine

Canada
April 2007

MAY 30, 2007 10:50 AM

when will people learn that torture ONLY works in the realm of 24 and NOWHERE else... sure, people will blabber like babies when you hurt them but what makes the obtained info true? nothing.

Zarth

zarth

Seattle, WA
December 2004

MAY 30, 2007 10:58 AM

Apparently never - or, more accurately, people used to know that, at least in the West, but it's easily forgotten. Even the British that tech29 mentions didn't comport themselves so honorably when dealing with Irish prisoners.

herbancowboy

herbancowboy

Houston, TX
June 2004

MAY 30, 2007 11:51 AM

My dad read me on old poem written by a Sikh once. (Sikhs had waged a defensive war against Pathans.) The poem was from some time in the first half of the 19th century.

The Sikhs were winning this particular stage of the war--only one Pathan fortress remained to antagonize the Sikhs. Then, the Sikhs captured a pair of Pathans and brought them before the Sikh general. The Sikhs tried to bribe the men with riches and comforts, but they would not reveal the location of the fort. They refused to sell out their people.

Finally, the older of the two Pathans relented. He explained that he was the father of the other captured man, and he would gladly give the Sikhs the information they wanted, but he could not face his son once he betrayed his people. So he asked the Sikhs to kill his son. Once his son was out of the picture, he would give them the information they wanted. The Sikhs tossed the boy off a cliff.

That being done, the father told the Sikhs to go fuck themselves. They were free to torture him however they liked, but he would not reveal the whereabouts of the fortress. He had only asked the Sikhs to kill his son because he feared the boy would spill the beans.

My point? Afghans are tough motherfuckers. And proud. You might be able to beat them, but you will not break them. They'll sacrifice anything for their pride/autonomy. Our "leaders" still don't understand that. We, in the west, are a bunch of whining pussies who would pimp out our mothers for cheaper gas to maintain--for the time being--our unsustainable (and ultimately unfulfilling--pass the Prozac) lifestyle. Not all peoples are like that.

Respect begets respect. And mutual aid.

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3

Next