A great deal is being said about the current investigation into the allegations that CIA officials tortured detainees in custody during the Bush administration. There are many who are calling this a partisan and political witch-hunt and that we need this "effective" tool of torture. I would like to argue against the notion that torture is a viable option, and this argument will based on three main points:
1. Torture is ineffective intelligence strategy
2. Torture, whether "effective" or ineffective, violates the Constitution and any number of agreements made by our government
3. By torturing, we lose far more than we gain in moral standing
Point 1: Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that the use of torture didn't violate our Constitution, the Geneva Conventions or the Convention Against Torture (the last two the U.S. were signatories of), it is still bad intelligence strategy and bad law enforcement. One defense of torture is the "ticking bomb" scenario the idea that an imminent, massive threat to civilians might be stopped by a single detainee who possesses crucial information and will yield actionable intelligence under physical coercion. But this is mostly a 24-induced delusion, not a frequent occurrence in a complex conflict. Additionally, interrogation expert after interrogation expert has debunked this flawed, and dare I say, ineffective line of reasoning:
Ali Soufan, testified to a Senate panel and said (under oath --- this is more than any of the officials who advocate torture have done) his team's non-threatening interrogation approach elicited crucial information from al-Qaida operative Abu Zubaydah, including intelligence on "dirty bomb" terrorist Jose Padilla. Soufan added that his team had to step aside when CIA contractors took over. They began using harsh methods that caused Zubaydah to "shut down," Soufan said, and his team had to be recalled the get the prisoner talking again.
Writing under the pseudonym of Matthew Alexander, a former special intelligence operations officer, who in 1996 led an interrogations team in Iraq, has written a compelling book where he details his direct experience with torture practices. He conducted more than 300 interrogations and supervised more than a thousand and was awarded a Bronze Star for his achievements in Iraq. Alexander's nonviolent interrogation methods led Special Forces to Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, the head of Al-Qaeda in Iraq. His book is titled "How to Break a Terrorist: The US Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq." He says: "It's extremely ineffective, and it's counterproductive to what we're trying to accomplish."
The military agency which actually provided advice on harsh interrogation techniques for use against terrorism suspects warned the Pentagon in 2002 that those techniques would produce "unreliable information."
Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1 says: "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
A 30-year veteran of CIA's operations directorate who rose to the most senior managerial ranks, said: "The (Bush) administration's claims of having saved thousands of Americans' can be dismissed out of hand because credible evidence has never been offered - not even an authoritative leak of any major terrorist operation interdicted based on information gathered from these interrogations in the past seven years. It is irresponsible for any administration not to tell a credible story that would convince critics at home and abroad that this torture has served some useful purpose."
Additionally, the CIA inspector general in 2004 found that there was no conclusive proof that waterboarding or other harsh interrogation techniques helped the Bush administration thwart any "specific imminent attacks," according to recently declassified Justice Department memos --- this same administration claimed that the waterboarding of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed helped foil a planned 2002 attack on Los Angeles... forgetting that he wasn't captured until 2003.
There are many more examples that I could cite but the point should be clear. When the CIA engages in such practices as waterboarding, sleep deprivation or anything that smacks of giving the suspect the "feeling of impending death" --- our government's definition of torture --- we hamper and hinder true intelligence gathering and taint the process by which effective interrogation can take place. There is a reason why in our criminal justice system, information or confessions that are obtained by coercion are not admissible in court and also, in some cases, deemed criminal.
Point 2: Okay, let's rewind. We are now removing the imaginary condition that says torture does not violate our Constitution, the Geneva Conventions or the United Nations Convention Against Torture.
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution states: "Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Geneva Convention Three Article Five: covers the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs) in an international armed conflict. In particular, Article 17 says that "No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind." POW status under GCIII has far fewer exemptions than "Protected Person" status under GCIV. Captured enemy combatants in an international armed conflict automatically have the protection of GCIII and are POWs under GCIII unless they are determined by a competent tribunal to not be a POW.
United Nations Convention Against Torture Article 2: prohibits torture, and requires parties to take effective measures to prevent it in any territory under its jurisdiction. This prohibition is absolute and non-derogable. "No exceptional circumstances whatsoever" may be invoked to justify torture, including war, threat of war, internal political instability, public emergency, terrorist acts, violent crime, or any form of armed conflict. Torture cannot be justified as a means to protect public safety or prevent emergencies. Neither can it be justified by orders from superior officers or public officials. The prohibition on torture applies to all territories under a party's effective jurisdiction, and protects all people under its effective control, regardless of citizenship or how that control is exercised. Since the Conventions entry into force, this absolute prohibition has become accepted as a principle of customary international law.
These are things we have agreed to as a nation and we have a legal obligation to follow it. We have signed our name and said we would live by these national and international social contracts. Things like waterboarding after all, have been recognized as a torture technique since the time of Torquemada and the Spanish Inquisition. U.S. soldiers, who were caught using it on enemy insurgents in the Philippines, in 1901, or the Vietnam War, in 1968, were prosecuted. In 1947, the United States charged a Japanese officer, Yukio Asano, with war crimes for carrying out another form of waterboarding on a U.S. civilian. When suffocation by water was used by foreign governments, such as the Augusto Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, the State Department didn't hesitate to call it torture. How do we now go backwards in our support of methods that have been deemed illegal and criminal, to move forward in what many have called 21 st century warfare and post-9/11 thinking?
Point 3: There is a scripture found in the book of James (James 3:1 to be exact) : Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly ( NIV). We have held ourselves up as the beacons of law, liberty and justice (and that reputation, by and large, has been earned). So this is not about comparing America to the other countries of the world or Al-Qaeda, but about America truly living up to the values that it espouses; to the principles that America says it believes in. Let's go back to the idea forwarded in the scripture quoted from the book of James. America is held to a different standard for the same reason the banker who disparages dishonesty in business and is found to be an embezzler; for the same reason the minister who denounces people who practice adultery and cheats on his wife--- one simply cannot be found guilty of the very things they condemn, because they indeed will receive greater blame or criticism. The world is watching us; and why are they watching us? They are watching us because we told them to. We said, in effect, "we will lead;" "we will teach." Whether they have a flag that they salute or a Bill of Rights that they follow or not, we do. The insistence that we stay true to those values does not make us weak; it makes us stronger. It is an awesome privilege to have what we have, but let there be no doubt about it, it is an equally awesome responsibility.
Conclusion
I guess one of the things that amazes me in this debate about torture is the abject lack of reasoning. When it comes to the deficit, health insurance, bailouts etc, many of the same people who support torture say (and I believe rightfully so): "how can we trust what the government is telling us." However, when it comes to the use torture we should just accept the word of certain governmental officials as true and right? Am I now to suspend reason and trust the same CIA that has lied before (this is borne by public and historical record)? Where has all the vigilance concerning being watchdogs of government actions gone? This seems, to me, a deplorable and horrific double-standard in logic. By torturing we are not defeating our enemies, we are becoming them --- and creating more of them. I grew up in the projects on the Southside of Chicago and understood early in life that there would be times when I would have to defend myself against certain aggressors --- but only if I had to; it was just a reality and fact of the world I lived in. There are points of connection between that world and the debate we find ourselves in now: the person who only fought when he had to, had a greater rate of survival than the bully --- in other words the bully became less safe. The bully in this analogy is anyone who tortures whether terrorist or government. I am not a warmonger; nor am I a pacifist. War, in my opinion, is always regrettable but sometimes necessary. Torture, however, is inexcusable. One of the first things that was drilled into our heads in the Marine Corps during boot camp was the rules of engagement and the Geneva Conventions. I understand that in the time of war a split-second decision on the battlefield can be the difference between life and death; success and failure. I understand that extracting information from enemy combatants and POW's can mean victory or defeat in certain conflicts. And there is my problem with torture: it is not a split-second decision, but rather flawed policy; it is not about extracting information, but about coercion and therefore unreliable.
For example, Senator John McCain, himself a victim of torture, provided no actionable intelligence to the North Vietnamese, but he was coerced into making certain statements --- statements that he would later retract. That is the hard clinical truth about torture; it is, by and large, about getting people to say what you want them to say. This was true during the various Inquisitions; this was true during the Salem witch trials; this was true when the Chinese did it during the Korean War; it is true when totalitarian governments do it; and yes most regrettably, it is true when we do it.
I've heard no compelling reasons other than they do it to us, so we must do it to them. This has to be understood for what it is, not sound intelligence strategy, but revenge. Is our democracy; is our national security so fallible, that my safety depends upon whether or not my government gets to dunk someone's head under water? We have heard time and time again that the terrorists hate our way of life and this, overwhelmingly, is true. However, our way life includes our values, our laws and our honor.
Al-Qaeda does not have a Statue of Liberty that says: "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free," but we do; the terrorists do not have a military code of conduct or honor, but we do. There is another scripture in Proverbs (24:10) that says: " If thou faint in the day of adversity, thy strength is small " (KJV). Honor is not something that we discard when times are rough or when we are opposed by our enemies; it is the very thing that allows us to face those times and our enemies without fear or shame.
When the actions of terrorists become the standard for how we conduct our business, it's time to pack it in... because they've already won.
Has over 19 years experience working in the field of
anti-racism, equity and inclusion training
Holds Masters in theology & sociology; a PhD in sociology with an emphasis in Critical Race Theory
Is an internationally-recognized authority in the field
of critical race theory and Black Studies
Author of :When Racism Is Law &
Prejudice Is Policy: Discriminatory and Prejudicial Laws, Decisions and
Policies in U.S. History
Has worked with organizations such as Youth For Christ,
Campus Crusade, InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, Fellowship of Christian
Athletes, Athletes in Action
Has served as a pastor, chaplain and counselor (including
serving as a visiting- chaplain for the NFL)
Proud Husband of Lisa Marie and father of Serena, Clifford, Michael & Ezekiel
Edward - Great article - I appreciate your viewpoints - and naturally disagree with much of it. I appreciate your passion and insight. If we both served in the United States Senate - we would be known as being on opposite sides but would reach across the asile on numerous occasions to reach common ground. Best personal regards, JP
JP Thanks for your comment. It is your fire and intensity that challenges me to be a better writer. I think you and I are way too forthright to be U.S. Senators :) I appreciate your presence here on SearchWarp. God bless you JP
» left by Dr Clarence Rucker, Jr from MI (81 days 12 hours ago.)
...'Army Field Manual 34-52 Chapter 1' says: "Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear."
As a “Prior Serviceman,” I was trying to find in the article what I believed the most? I must give credit to the Author, you are correct; I am in agreement with the entire article. Sadly to say, there is a segment in our society that do not look upon right as being the logical way of life. Somehow wrong has been ingrained or deep-rooted from the beginning of their life. It is almost like the Nay Sayers and Ye Sayers of the Healthcare forum.
The evilness of the wicked tongue immediately came forward from the mouth of Cheney on CNN (8-31-09 8:00a news) saying, it is Obama… (The Barnum and Bailey mentality “there is one born” will believe it was President Obama.) It is a guilty heart that tries to transfer a wrong to another. If the correct leadership were there, there would be no need to explain an honest leadership and/or action(s).
Your article is beautiful and dripping with truth.
» left by kenny from fall river (33 days 10 hours ago.)
"There are many more examples that I could cite but the point should be clear. When the CIA engages in such practices as waterboarding, sleep deprivation or anything that smacks of giving the suspect the "feeling of impending death" --- our government's definition of torture --- we hamper and hinder true intelligence gathering and taint the process by which effective interrogation can take place. There is a reason why in our criminal justice system, information or confessions that are obtained by coercion are not admissible in court and also, in some cases, deemed criminal."
*** Great points Edward!
*** I often wonder Ed how we can justify calling ourselves a "superpower" when there is nothing super in such behaviors as inflicting cruel and unusual punishments."
*** Wouldn't we best serve that title by staying out of the Middle East and elsewhere during THEIR violent encounters, and only getting involved when children have been hurt, and/or people are starving let's say? Couldn't we better serve the role of superpower by being the ambulance, who when it gets a distress call, responds to those in need? Wouldn't the history books eventually show that when the world was losing it's collective mind, the U.S. cared only to respond when the rights of others and their basic human needs were in conflict with their ideals of war; thus holding the attention of the world that Democracy does work and Americans are those who lead by humanistic examples and not by military aggression?
*** To me THAT would define a "superpower." Just reaching out to those in need, and leading by practicing lawful examples here at home. Eventually the rest of the world would GET what the concepts of humanity and Democracy really mean!
***I don't know about anyone else, but I am quite sure when a child is shot in a crossfire of drug dealers on our own city streets, the greatest sight in that child's eyes is when they see the ambulance coming to help them.
*** Think of how wonderful it would be for any Foreign child to witness Americans coming to help; seeing us risking our lives to help feed or provide medical attention with no other agenda but to HELP other humans. Just think of the psychological impact it would have on these kids as they grew older and rewrote the history books. Future generations of foreigners looking up to us with the greatest of respect. America would surely wear the label of "superpower" then.
*** And because of such unselfish acts the world could, and probably would, turn to us for other services and advice on things such as Democratic law! I'd bet anything they would want what we had.
*** Most times I feel that America is much like the father who barely takes care of his own responsibilities to his family, yet he can not resist having his nose in his neighbors business - telling them how THEY should live.
*** I think America suffers from A.D.D, and the "Can't look at yourself in the mirror syndrome."
*** Great job again Edward. Giving you 5 stars seems always to be the norm for me. You are a very good man!
Kenny, I thank you. I appreciate your kind words and (this seems like the norm for me in regard to the comments you leave on my articles) your excellent analysis.
We have as a nation tried too hard to justify the wrong thing when it comes to torture.
Disclaimer: All information on this site is provided for informational purposes only! By no means is any
information presented herein intended to substitute for the advice provided to you by any health care or other professional
or organization.
tweet this!
