Does Torture Work?
by Tom Maertens
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou recently surfaced to say that he participated in the interrogation of al Qaeda suspect abu Zubaydah, which included waterboarding. Although he decried waterboarding as torture, he contends that the interrogation obtained information that allowed the U.S. to break up “dozens” of terrorist plots.
Waterboarding dates back to the Spanish Inquisition and it was used extensively by the Gestapo during WWII. They termed it Verschärfte Vernehmung -- "enhanced interrogation techniques” -- a term the Bush administration adopted with no sense of irony whatever.
Following the war, the U.S. charged both German and Japanese intelligence officers with War Crimes for using the same waterboarding, hypothermia, beatings, excruciating stress positions, and sleep deprivation that the U.S. has used against detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, and by the Pentagon’s reckoning, at least 34 were suspected or proven homicides.
But if torture really did allow the government to stop “dozens” of terrorist plots, and might prevent the fictional scenario from “24” where Jack Bauer tortures exactly the right guy to find the hidden nuke, aren’t a few Gestapo tactics warranted?
Some serious skepticism is in order. Although extravagant claims have been made about Abu Zubaydah’s information, proof is hard to come by, and the Bush administration’s constant battles with the truth are not reassuring. Pulitzer-prize winning author Ron Suskind, in his book The One-Percent Doctrine, quotes an official who saw Abu Zubaydah’s diary and declared that "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." Under torture, Abu Zubaydah said shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda, and banks, and supermarkets and water systems are targets, too. And nuclear plants of course, and, … and, oh, apartment buildings, and…. Suskind concluded that the U.S. tortured a prisoner who was mentally ill. Thousands of police and security officials were sent on wild goose chases because people like Abu Zubaydah wanted to stop the pain.
As for the Jack Bauer story, that’s a totally implausible scenario dreamed up by promoters of torture.
So is John Kiriakou wrong? You may have to buy his new book to find out. The CIA destroyed the tapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation, which was the authoritative record.
Do waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” work? Under torture, most people will say something, anything, just to stop the pain, perhaps even reveal important information.
But how to distinguish important information from bad information?. The classic example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan captured in Pakistan who denied knowing anything about Iraq providing WMD training to al Qaeda, but was tortured until he “remembered.” According to the Washington Post (8/1/04), President Bush’s October 2002 statement -- "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases" -- was based entirely on al-Libi’s interrogation. The CIA later retracted al Libi’s fabricated stories, which were extracted under torture. In the meantime, the Bush administration had another pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Similar cases have appeared in the press from time to time, including of captured terrorists who doled out disinformation to send Western intelligence services chasing their tails.
The worst case scenario is when the person being tortured doesn’t know anything of value. Torturers, however, are inclined to believe that every detainee must be a terrorist, and their job is to prove it, witness Abu Ghraib, where more than 90% of the thousands of people abused were innocent civilians.
The 700 “enemy combatants” originally detained at Guantanamo are another example. Donald Rumsfeld termed them “the worst of the worst,” the kind of signal that can open the floodgates of torture. And that is what happened. The abuse became so egregious that the FBI, which relies on the time-tested, proven methods -- patient questioning that establishes a relationship with the subject -- objected in writing and left Guantanamo in disgust.
It was subsequently estimated that only about ten percent of the detainees were al Qaeda supporters; most of the rest had been turned in to the Americans by Afghans for the $5,000 bounty per Taliban -- a year’s salary for most Afghans. Eventually, half the detainees were released, a strange disposition for “the worst of the worst.” In the meantime, as with Abu Ghraib, we made some permanent enemies.
George Bush has said repeatedly that we do not torture. But he has threatened to veto pending legislation that prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.
These are the abuses of Abu Ghraib. If the U.S. does not support torture and inhuman/degrading treatment, why does Bush oppose this legislation?
Former CIA officer John Kiriakou recently surfaced to say that he participated in the interrogation of al Qaeda suspect abu Zubaydah, which included waterboarding. Although he decried waterboarding as torture, he contends that the interrogation obtained information that allowed the U.S. to break up “dozens” of terrorist plots.
Waterboarding dates back to the Spanish Inquisition and it was used extensively by the Gestapo during WWII. They termed it Verschärfte Vernehmung -- "enhanced interrogation techniques” -- a term the Bush administration adopted with no sense of irony whatever.
Following the war, the U.S. charged both German and Japanese intelligence officers with War Crimes for using the same waterboarding, hypothermia, beatings, excruciating stress positions, and sleep deprivation that the U.S. has used against detainees in Afghanistan and Iraq. More than 100 detainees have died in U.S. custody, and by the Pentagon’s reckoning, at least 34 were suspected or proven homicides.
But if torture really did allow the government to stop “dozens” of terrorist plots, and might prevent the fictional scenario from “24” where Jack Bauer tortures exactly the right guy to find the hidden nuke, aren’t a few Gestapo tactics warranted?
Some serious skepticism is in order. Although extravagant claims have been made about Abu Zubaydah’s information, proof is hard to come by, and the Bush administration’s constant battles with the truth are not reassuring. Pulitzer-prize winning author Ron Suskind, in his book The One-Percent Doctrine, quotes an official who saw Abu Zubaydah’s diary and declared that "This guy is insane, certifiable, split personality." Under torture, Abu Zubaydah said shopping malls were targeted by al Qaeda, and banks, and supermarkets and water systems are targets, too. And nuclear plants of course, and, … and, oh, apartment buildings, and…. Suskind concluded that the U.S. tortured a prisoner who was mentally ill. Thousands of police and security officials were sent on wild goose chases because people like Abu Zubaydah wanted to stop the pain.
As for the Jack Bauer story, that’s a totally implausible scenario dreamed up by promoters of torture.
So is John Kiriakou wrong? You may have to buy his new book to find out. The CIA destroyed the tapes of Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation, which was the authoritative record.
Do waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques” work? Under torture, most people will say something, anything, just to stop the pain, perhaps even reveal important information.
But how to distinguish important information from bad information?. The classic example is that of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, a Libyan captured in Pakistan who denied knowing anything about Iraq providing WMD training to al Qaeda, but was tortured until he “remembered.” According to the Washington Post (8/1/04), President Bush’s October 2002 statement -- "We've learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and gases" -- was based entirely on al-Libi’s interrogation. The CIA later retracted al Libi’s fabricated stories, which were extracted under torture. In the meantime, the Bush administration had another pretext to justify the invasion of Iraq.
Similar cases have appeared in the press from time to time, including of captured terrorists who doled out disinformation to send Western intelligence services chasing their tails.
The worst case scenario is when the person being tortured doesn’t know anything of value. Torturers, however, are inclined to believe that every detainee must be a terrorist, and their job is to prove it, witness Abu Ghraib, where more than 90% of the thousands of people abused were innocent civilians.
The 700 “enemy combatants” originally detained at Guantanamo are another example. Donald Rumsfeld termed them “the worst of the worst,” the kind of signal that can open the floodgates of torture. And that is what happened. The abuse became so egregious that the FBI, which relies on the time-tested, proven methods -- patient questioning that establishes a relationship with the subject -- objected in writing and left Guantanamo in disgust.
It was subsequently estimated that only about ten percent of the detainees were al Qaeda supporters; most of the rest had been turned in to the Americans by Afghans for the $5,000 bounty per Taliban -- a year’s salary for most Afghans. Eventually, half the detainees were released, a strange disposition for “the worst of the worst.” In the meantime, as with Abu Ghraib, we made some permanent enemies.
George Bush has said repeatedly that we do not torture. But he has threatened to veto pending legislation that prohibits forcing detainees to be naked, perform sexual acts, or pose in a sexual manner; beating, shocking, or burning detainees; exposing them to extreme heat or cold; conducting mock executions; depriving them of food, water, or medical care; and waterboarding.
These are the abuses of Abu Ghraib. If the U.S. does not support torture and inhuman/degrading treatment, why does Bush oppose this legislation?
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home