There is much popular anger directed at the USA because of its alleged use of torture in interrogating combatants detained in the war on terror. On this blog 'Selsdon Man' has been a persistent and articulate advocate of that anger.
A 'hot topic article' in today's Wall Street Journal argues that there is a difference between the 'aggressive interrogation' used by America's military and what might popularly be thought of as 'torture'. The WSJ also says that the continuation of AI techniques is essential to pre-empt future terrorist threats.
Here are the two relevant quotations:
(1) "It is simply perverse to conflate the amputations and electrocutions Saddam once inflicted at Abu Ghraib with the lesser abuses committed by rogue American soldiers there, much less with any authorized U.S. interrogation techniques. No one has yet come up with any evidence that anyone in the U.S. military or government has officially sanctioned anything close to "torture." The "stress positions" that have been allowed (such as wearing a hood, exposure to heat and cold, and the rarely authorized "waterboarding," which induces a feeling of suffocation) are all psychological techniques designed to break a detainee."
(2) "It is hardly far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which our ability to extract information from a terrorist is the only thing that might prevent a bioterror attack or even the nuclear annihilation of an American city. And we know for a fact that information wrung from 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others has helped prevent further attacks on U.S. soil."
Discuss...
The Americans seem to have forgotten the basic principle of war, i.e. that warfare is a continuation of politics, fought for a political, and not a tactical purpose. In counter-insurgency warfare in particular the political must take precedence over the tactical, because above all things counter-insurgency warfare is moral warfare.
Our enemies understand this. Why don't we see video of Al Q'aeeda decapitating Western prisoners in Iraq anymore? Because of the apalling moral effect it had on their target audience; Arap public opinion. Arabs thought it was immoral, it was politically counter-productive, and it was stopped.
Their recent feeble attempts to justify their bombing of a wedding party in Amman, Jordan, is another example; and very reminiscent of the IRA statements following their own murder-bombings, such as the Eniskillen Rememberance Day dillings. Northern Ireland is a classic example of a counter-insurgency campaign won. After a shaky start the politicians were forced to take charge and the political took precedence over the tactical. Throughout the campaign Government casualties outnumbered insurgent casualties by a factor of 10-1; but to have sought to reverse that statistic would have required resort to immoral, and therefore politically counter-productive tactics, and so the casualty rate was tolerated.
Nobody should have any doubt that the use of stress positions, hooding, etc. is against international law. We know this because the British Government was convicted in the Euopean Courts of sanctioning the use of precisely these techniques back in the 1970's. Although they do not amount to torture - i.e. do not result in the infliction of unbearable pain upon the victim - they are the definition of inhuman and degrading treatment, also banned by the UN Convention on the prohibition on Torture, and yes you guessed it, Inhuman & Degrading Treatment.
Seeking short-term advantage through the use of these tactics hands our enemies a moral, and therefore political victory. As the entire purpose of fighting this war is to achieve political victory the use of such tactics is a recipie for disaster, and until the Americans understand that every article justifying their use, every photograph of a hooded Guantanamo inmate and every use of extraordinary rendition is a victory for our enemies, we will continue to lose.
Posted by: Jim Keenan | November 13, 2005 at 08:01
Whether or not the governments 'bans' use of agressive interrogation it will still be used by its troops and military intelligence because it works.Any other view is hopelessly naive.American officers are not going to take unecessary casualties if they can avoid it and who can blame them?
The WSJs argument that the 'stress situations' are not torture is tenuous at best.Probably the result of some comfortable well paid hack in Washington wanting to make himself feel better about what happens in wars
Posted by: malcolm | November 13, 2005 at 13:16
Here is a recent article from the Washington Post. It is should concern every Conservative who believes in human rights.
Vice President for Torture
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501388.html
VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States. The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.
His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have "disappeared," like the victims of some dictatorships. The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including "waterboarding," or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication. CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA. Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.
It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record. The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military. These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects. This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.
The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9. So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values. As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | November 13, 2005 at 21:23
Here is part of an article, Outsorcing Torture by Jane Mayer, from the New Yorker in February of this year. It shows how torture is ineffective.
"A few months after September 11th, the U.S. gained custody of its first high-ranking Al Qaeda figure, Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi. He had run bin Laden’s terrorist training camp in Khalden, Afghanistan, and was detained in Pakistan. Zacarias Moussaoui, who was already in U.S. custody, and Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, had both spent time at the Khalden camp. At the F.B.I.’s field office in New York, Jack Cloonan, an officer who had worked for the agency since 1972, struggled to maintain control of the legal process in Afghanistan. C.I.A. and F.B.I. agents were vying to take possession of Libi. Cloonan, who worked with Dan Coleman on anti-terrorism cases for many years, said he felt that “neither the Moussaoui case nor the Reid case was a slam dunk.” He became intent on securing Libi’s testimony as a witness against them. He advised his F.B.I. colleagues in Afghanistan to question Libi respectfully, “and handle this like it was being done right here, in my office in New York.” He recalled, “I remember talking on a secure line to them. I told them, ‘Do yourself a favor, read the guy his rights. It may be old-fashioned, but this will come out if we don’t. It may take ten years, but it will hurt you, and the bureau’s reputation, if you don’t. Have it stand as a shining example of what we feel is right.’
"Cloonan’s F.B.I. colleagues advised Libi of his rights and took turns with C.I.A. agents in questioning him. After a few days, F.B.I. officials felt that they were developing a good rapport with him. The C.I.A. agents, however, felt that he was lying to them, and needed tougher interrogation.
"To Cloonan’s dismay, the C.I.A. reportedly rendered Libi to Egypt. He was seen boarding a plane in Afghanistan, restrained by handcuffs and ankle cuffs, his mouth covered by duct tape. Cloonan, who retired from the F.B.I. in 2002, said, “At least we got information in ways that wouldn’t shock the conscience of the court. And no one will have to seek revenge for what I did.” He added, “We need to show the world that we can lead, and not just by military might.
"After Libi was taken to Egypt, the F.B.I. lost track of him. Yet he evidently played a crucial background role in Secretary of State Colin Powell’s momentous address to the United Nations Security Council in February, 2003, which argued the case for a preëmptive war against Iraq. In his speech, Powell did not refer to Libi by name, but he announced to the world that “a senior terrorist operative” who “was responsible for one of Al Qaeda’s training camps in Afghanistan” had told U.S. authorities that Saddam Hussein had offered to train two Al Qaeda operatives in the use of “chemical or biological weapons.
Last summer, Newsweek reported that Libi, who was eventually transferred from Egypt to Guantánamo Bay, was the source of the incendiary charge cited by Powell, and that he had recanted. By then, the first anniversary of the U.S. invasion of Iraq had passed and the 9/11 Commission had declared that there was no known evidence of a working relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. Dan Coleman was disgusted when he heard about Libi’s false confession. “It was ridiculous for interrogators to think Libi would have known anything about Iraq,” he said. “I could have told them that. He ran a training camp. He wouldn’t have had anything to do with Iraq. Administration officials were always pushing us to come up with links, but there weren’t any. The reason they got bad information is that they beat it out of him. You never get good information from someone that way.”
Posted by: Selsdon Man | November 13, 2005 at 21:36
Selsdon, every Republican in America considers the "Washington Post" and the "New Yorker" as merely megaphones of the American moonbat left. Sort of the American equivalent of The Guardian. It is disappointing that someone whose moniker is "Selsdon" repeats their point of view.
The terrorists, their Western sympathizers, anti-Semites, and anti-Americans, are going to make charges of "torture" and gain publicity for it no matter what the truth and no matter what the American army does--remember the phony "Koran flushing" story?
Posted by: Bruce | November 17, 2005 at 15:26
These events have been reported in other media, Bruce. I notice that you have not disputed them. All you offer is the usual anti-semite smear.
Even Senator John McCain (Republican, Arizona) is trying to toughen up the law to stop the cruel and inhumane treatment of terrorist suspects. Dick Cheney has been leading the opposition.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | November 18, 2005 at 19:05
Here is another article from the Washington Post. No doubt you will smear it and Mr Cain as anti-American and anti-semitic.
"Vice President for Torture
Wednesday, October 26, 2005; Page A18
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/25/AR2005102501388.html
VICE PRESIDENT Cheney is aggressively pursuing an initiative that may be unprecedented for an elected official of the executive branch: He is proposing that Congress legally authorize human rights abuses by Americans. "Cruel, inhuman and degrading" treatment of prisoners is banned by an international treaty negotiated by the Reagan administration and ratified by the United States. The State Department annually issues a report criticizing other governments for violating it. Now Mr. Cheney is asking Congress to approve legal language that would allow the CIA to commit such abuses against foreign prisoners it is holding abroad. In other words, this vice president has become an open advocate of torture.
His position is not just some abstract defense of presidential power. The CIA is holding an unknown number of prisoners in secret detention centers abroad. In violation of the Geneva Conventions, it has refused to register those detainees with the International Red Cross or to allow visits by its inspectors. Its prisoners have "disappeared," like the victims of some dictatorships. The Justice Department and the White House are known to have approved harsh interrogation techniques for some of these people, including "waterboarding," or simulated drowning; mock execution; and the deliberate withholding of pain medication. CIA personnel have been implicated in the deaths during interrogation of at least four Afghan and Iraqi detainees. Official investigations have indicated that some aberrant practices by Army personnel in Iraq originated with the CIA. Yet no CIA personnel have been held accountable for this record, and there has never been a public report on the agency's performance.
It's not surprising that Mr. Cheney would be at the forefront of an attempt to ratify and legalize this shameful record. The vice president has been a prime mover behind the Bush administration's decision to violate the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention Against Torture and to break with decades of past practice by the U.S. military. These decisions at the top have led to hundreds of documented cases of abuse, torture and homicide in Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, was reportedly one of the principal authors of a legal memo justifying the torture of suspects. This summer Mr. Cheney told several Republican senators that President Bush would veto the annual defense spending bill if it contained language prohibiting the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment by any U.S. personnel.
The senators ignored Mr. Cheney's threats, and the amendment, sponsored by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), passed this month by a vote of 90 to 9. So now Mr. Cheney is trying to persuade members of a House-Senate conference committee to adopt language that would not just nullify the McCain amendment but would formally adopt cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment as a legal instrument of U.S. policy. The Senate's earlier vote suggests that it will not allow such a betrayal of American values. As for Mr. Cheney: He will be remembered as the vice president who campaigned for torture.
Posted by: Selsdon Man | November 18, 2005 at 19:11
There has always been a curious diochtomy in the US - a country with a constitution built on the principles outlined by Tom Paine and others - in which US citizens are presumed to hold by right of birth or citizenship greater rights than non US citizens. It has echoes of the UK in the 18th century - a country deeply involved in the slave trade but one in which itself slavery was illegal.
Dick Cheney is an exemplar of this ugly americanism - through use of ex-terrotorial detention he runs a regime which in the twilight hides abusive practices from US judicial oversight. The US system guards it's sovereignty strongly so it's not fear of international bodies that drives these activities but fear of the Supreme Court and Congress.
If there was no truth in the stories of abuse, no use of procedures that are probably illegal in both international or US courts, no acts of torture, then why have this twilight world of secret detention centres, these dissappeared people stripped of legal recourse or any external oversight.
It's not proved very effective in winning the war of terrorism - who knows if the plans or evidence obtained have an basis in reality? They've not been presented except as "we've stopped x number of attacks" - did those attacks ever exist except in the tortured minds of broken men? Instead it has built in the middle east and wider Islamic world a view which allows wild theories credit - people who believe the US Govt involvement in 9/11, who believe the Zionist conspiracies, accept that there is a new crusade against Islam.
We cannot defend a world view of the rights and duties of free citizens, freedom of thought and speech, toleration and democratic institutions, protecting the rights of minorities and majorities by implementing a regime which denies the basic protections of judicial oversight to those opposing us.
The world of the Star Chamber and the Bastille should be behind us - millions died rightfully opposing the principles that built them.
I am proud of my uncles and cousins who died or were injured and imprisoned fighting regimes which denied to "different people" the rights that both my rellgion and my country say are common to all of us. I'm not comparing the horrors of Nazi Germany, Stalinist USSR or Maoist China against with these much smaller abuses. However I think our civilisation's mission is ill served by compomising one of the very foundations of that civilisation - that no one is above the law.
Posted by: Ted | November 19, 2005 at 10:28