In the second of a four part Washington Post series examining the murky world of ‘the Dick’, Barton Gellman and Jo Becker turn to the force seeking to enshrine torture as a common tactic on the part of the U.S. It should really come as no surprise that since the day that he determined that he himself was the best candidate for the VP position, Cheney has been the policy maker in this administration. From his secret energy policy meetings, to the Iraq war itself the OVP and those linked to him throughout the years are responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.
The WP notes, in short, after a meeting in which the CIA discussed possible ‘difficulties getting actionable intelligence’ using accepted techniques on detainees who began arriving in Guantanamo in January 2002, to wit:
“The vice president's office played a central role in shattering limits on coercion of prisoners in U.S. custody, commissioning and defending legal opinions that the Bush administration has since portrayed as the initiatives, months later, of lower-ranking officials.”
It seems after deciding what is and isn’t torture in his own mind he set various counsel to work and “pioneered a novel distinction between forbidden ‘torture’ and permitted use of ‘cruel, inhuman or degrading’ methods”. Though suffering numerous setbacks in the courts it seems ultimately Cheney got what he wanted.
As to the numbers who’ve died violent deaths due to the Cheney policy, the latest report I could quickly find was 108. That was more than two years ago. What of others, the number of ‘disappeared’ who were last placed in U.S. custody? I’m sure Cheney knows. For a detailed discussion of some of the deaths look here.
While on the topic, Cheney’s hunting buddy Justice Antonin Scalia recently revealed his own jurisprudential support for torture, the unabashed brand practiced by one Jack Bauer, at a legal forum in Canada. According to the Globe and Mail:
“Senior judges from North America and Europe were in the midst of a panel discussion about torture and terrorism law, when a Canadian judge's passing remark - "Thankfully, security agencies in all our countries do not subscribe to the mantra 'What would Jack Bauer do?' "- got the legal bulldog in Judge Scalia barking”
The conservative jurist stuck up for Agent Bauer, arguing that fictional or not, federal agents require latitude in times of great crisis. "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.”
I think there are two issues of concern here. First, does torture provide the ‘actionable intelligence’ for which it is intended? And then, regardless of whether it works, is it something the U.S., and by extension the People want to be known for? On the latter question, we’re in good company (China, Iran, Saudi Arabia) with regards to the death penalty so why not join the torture club?** It’s a matter of our survival, right? If a majority of citizens believe it is excusable then let the water-boarding continue.
And it seems there is majority support for torture. According to an October 2005 Pew Research Center Poll 46% of those polled believed torture can be often or sometimes justified, with another 17% believing it can be justified in rare circumstances. Interestingly enough, 56% of Catholics believe it can be often or sometimes justified with another 16% approving in rare cases. Um, I’m guessing the Catholic stalwart Scalia is in the top 1% believing it is always justified…
To the Cheney-Bush administration torture is in the eye of the beholder. Bush and others have repeatedly said the U.S. does not torture. Rumsfeld, in approving some of the methods, didn’t think being forced to stand for hours on end was a problem since he himself stood for 8-10 hours a day. If only all the interrogation methods the U.S. uses could be tested on him first. He could have determined whether they were acceptable or not; call them Rumsfeld Approved Robust Methods™.
Back to the questions at hand; the short answer is, yes, torture appears to ‘work’ to a limited degree. There are a number of articles that address the limited successes of coercion. However, the Economist article and to a greater extent the Salon report also show the very real limitations of the tactic.
From: “The sight of the rack”
“Guy Fawkes, the most famous conspirator—a Catholic zealot who had fought in “holy wars” abroad—was “examined” by William Wade, the lieutenant of the Tower of London, from November 6th [1605] onwards. King James I had asked Wade to use “the gentler Tortures” first. These included thumbscrews and manicles, by which a man was hung up by his wrists. On the 7th, Fawkes weakened so far as to admit his own name. He would not admit the names of his accomplices.
On the 9th, still showing “a most stubborn perverse humour”, he was sent to the rack. One royal official said that “Fawkes was never on the rack, but only by his arms upright”. (The mere sight of the machine, on which the rackmaster slowly stretched legs and arms to the point of dislocation, was often enough to elicit confessions.) Others said he was “extremely racked”. His signature, weaker and more wavering as he signed successive statements, suggests this was the case. Certainly, he started giving names.”
The trouble was:
“The most important was that of John Gerard, a Jesuit priest. With this name, Wade could prove that the Society of Jesus was the brains behind the plot, and appropriate pressure could be applied to the chief Jesuit suspect, Father Henry Garnet. Yet the plot was not, in fact, a Jesuit conspiracy. On the contrary, their role was marginal. Torture had led Fawkes to produce a name that fed the false or wilful [sic] assumptions of the English government, but did not point to the truth.”
From: “Does Torture Work?” –On the French military's use of torture in Algeria
“…no rank-and-file soldier has related a tale of how he personally, through timely interrogation, produced decisive information that stopped a ticking bomb. “As the pain of interrogation began," observed torturer Jean-Pierre Vittori, "they talked abundantly, citing the names of the dead or militants on the run, indicating locations of old hiding places in which we didn't find anything but some documents without interest." Detainees also provided names of their enemies -- true information, but without utility to the French.
The FLN military men had also been told, when forced to talk, to give up the names of their counterparts in the rival organization, the more accommodationist MNA (National Algerian Movement). Not very knowledgeable in the subtleties of Algerian nationalism, the French soldiers helped the FLN liquidate the infrastructure of the more cooperative organization and tortured MNA members, driving them into extreme opposition.”
Unfortunately:
“And "what to do with these poor devils after their 'use'?" asked a French soldier. Many torturers preferred to kill them, though, one soldier conceded, genocide was difficult. "There isn't enough place in the prisons and one can't kill everyone ..., so one releases them and they're going to tell others, and from mouth to mouth, the whole world knows." Then, he observed, their relatives and friends "join the resistance."
Moreover:
“Torture drifted headlong into sadism, continuing long after valuable information could be retrieved. For example, soldiers arrested a locksmith and tortured him for three days. In his pocket, the locksmith had bomb blueprints with the address of an FLN bomb factory in Algiers. The locksmith bought time, the bombers relocated and the raid by the French three days later fell on open air. Had the soldiers been able to read Arabic, they would have found the bomb factory days earlier. But they were too busy torturing. As one would predict, engaging in torture prevented the use of ordinary -- and more effective -- policing skills.”
It seems apparent that when subjected to torture even fanatically motivated people will name names or say what the inquisitors want to hear. The Inquisition was able to elicit many confessions (though fewer conversions). Whether the information is of any real value is questionable. No doubt that some of those in U.S. custody, even according to the disappeared report, are rightfully characterized as ‘terrorists’. But not all of those in U.S. custody can be al-Qaeda’s ‘Number 2’ (we’ve killed about six of them already). More likely, given the cell structure of the organization(s), few of these in U.S. custody have little operation knowledge beyond their immediate contacts. Certainly, the horror stories of the petty criminals in Abu Ghraib and those rounded up in Afghanistan for cold cash paid, attest to the fact that as broad policy the methods pushed by Cheney and instituted by the Pentagon & CIA are a strategic failure and create more enmity and more ‘terrorists’.
Ultimately on the question of whether torture is an acceptable arrow in our quiver, I think the answer is absolutely not.
Yours,
-one pissed off cracker
** The U.S. has long been accused of being one of the founding members of the torture club in Central & South America under the guise of the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, originally The School of the Americas.
