home

An Expert on Torture?


(Guest Post by Big Tent Democrat)

Via Sully, a Right Wing torture "expert" named Dean Barnett writes:

So what does the actual scholarship say?

The key to gathering information is to disorient the subject. If you disorient the subject enough, he lets go of his secrets. Discomfort is actually much more useful than pain.

What's the best way to get information?

Unquestionably water-boarding.

But Amnesty International and the left say the information gleaned from this technique is unreliable. Is it?

Amnesty International is either confused, dishonest or both. Some people do say it's unreliable. but the undeniable consensus is that water-boarding is an extremely productive interrogation tool.

Cites to actual experts would be nice. I know Barnett is a Red Sox fan, and gawd knows that must be torture, but that stll doesn't make him an expert.

Before I discuss the other interesting things Barnett writes, let's do some fact checking on waterboarding:

Water Boarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Cellophane is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda's toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.

"The person believes they are being killed, and as such, it really amounts to a mock execution, which is illegal under international law," said John Sifton of Human Rights Watch.

The techniques are controversial among experienced intelligence agency and military interrogators. Many feel that a confession obtained this way is an unreliable tool. Two experienced officers have told ABC that there is little to be gained by these techniques that could not be more effectively gained by a methodical, careful, psychologically based interrogation. According to a classified report prepared by the CIA Inspector General John Helgerwon and issued in 2004, the techniques "appeared to constitute cruel, and degrading treatment under the (Geneva) convention," the New York Times reported on Nov. 9, 2005.

It is "bad interrogation. I mean you can get anyone to confess to anything if the torture's bad enough," said former CIA officer Bob Baer.

Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and a deputy director of the State Department's office of counterterrorism, recently wrote in the Los Angeles Times, "What real CIA field officers know firsthand is that it is better to build a relationship of trust ... than to extract quick confessions through tactics such as those used by the Nazis and the Soviets."

One argument in favor of their use: time. In the early days of al Qaeda captures, it was hoped that speeding confessions would result in the development of important operational knowledge in a timely fashion.

However, ABC News was told that at least three CIA officers declined to be trained in the techniques before a cadre of 14 were selected to use them on a dozen top al Qaeda suspects in order to obtain critical information. In at least one instance, ABC News was told that the techniques led to questionable information aimed at pleasing the interrogators and that this information had a significant impact on U.S. actions in Iraq.

According to CIA sources, Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi, after two weeks of enhanced interrogation, made statements that were designed to tell the interrogators what they wanted to hear. Sources say Al Libbi had been subjected to each of the progressively harsher techniques in turn and finally broke after being water boarded and then left to stand naked in his cold cell overnight where he was doused with cold water at regular intervals.

His statements became part of the basis for the Bush administration claims that Iraq trained al Qaeda members to use biochemical weapons. Sources tell ABC that it was later established that al Libbi had no knowledge of such training or weapons and fabricated the statements because he was terrified of further harsh treatment.

"This is the problem with using the waterboard. They get so desperate that they begin telling you what they think you want to hear," one source said.

However, sources said, al Libbi does not appear to have sought to intentionally misinform investigators, as at least one account has stated. The distinction in this murky world is nonetheless an important one. <b.Al Libbi sought to please his investigators, not lead them down a false path, two sources with firsthand knowledge of the statements said.

So, not surprisingly, Barnett is full of crap. But now, on to Barnett's other statements:

Does it rise to the level of "torture"?

That's for each individual to decide.

No, actually it is not for each individual to decide. There are treaties that ban it. There are American laws that ban it. It is a war crime. But then, it seems that Barnett does not believe in treaties and war crimes.

What do you think?

I don't care. If some body of linguists or semanticists convened a weekend retreat in Cambridge, impartially studied the issue and labeled it torture, I still wouldn't care. The welfare of terrorists is not my concern. Even if all the Jack Bauer-type crap you see on "24" was the best way to go, I'd still be okay with it.

But it's not just terrorists. It's suspected terrorists. Surely that bothers you.

It does. It's inevitable that innocent people will be subjected to this kind of treatment. But this is war, and in war we make moral compromises. For example, normally we don't like to kill people. In war, we try to kill people by the thousands. That Amnesty International guy that I was on TV with last night kept whining that we wouldn't be having any of this if it weren't for 9/11. Duh. If we weren't at war, we could comfortably remain in the moral sphere that we aspire to. But right now, that's not an option.

But we didn't do stuff like this in World War II, did we?

I don't know. But I do know we fire-bombed Dresden. I know we dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know that in doing these things we knowingly engaged in actions that killed tens of thousands of innocents. When you're at war, moral compromises are part of the deal.

Consider what Barnett is saying - there are no laws of war. The Geneva Conventions are meaningless. Crimes against humanity? Do not exist in wartime.

That is what the man is saying. That is what the Right is saying (Instapundit links approvingly.) So tell me again, how are we different from the terrorists? Nazis? The Khmer Rouge? Saddam Hussein? See, they were all fighting wars too.

The Right has become completely and utterly morally bankrupt. If that is what they want our country to be, then say it straight. Stop with the weasel words. "This is war" they say? Then say what that means and that we will be no different than the terrorists and the Khmer Rouge.

No more upset at being compared to Hitler please.

< Buying Justice | More Evidence Rogue Dems On Torture Were Politically Stupid >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#1)
    by Al on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 05:04:47 PM EST
    I'm not surprised that this psychopath has a particular aversion for Amnesty International. Readers familiar with the history of South America will recognize very easily this infamous meme of the "dirty war". It's not surprising; many of the South American military thugs who practised torture against their opponents, real or perceived, were trained at the School of the Americas, by psychos like this. It's old, it's wrong, and it's tiresome. How much more catastrophic failure do people need before they realize that these idiots belong in a padded cell, and not in positions of power?

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#3)
    by theologicus on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 06:02:23 PM EST
    It has been known at least since Aristotle (4th C. BCE) that torture doesn't produce reliable information. You don't have to be a genius to figure this out. Colin Powell learned this to his lasting regret and shame by using information gained by torture (not tht he knew it at the time) in his widely influential but spuious and now renounced UN speech in February 2003. The speech that took us into war. So if torture doesn't work as a tool of interrogation, and if it should never be used even if it did, what's the point? Not easy to figure out. Here's a hypothesis. Cheney calls it "working the dark side." Very apt perhaps as a clue. Suppose torture is really about terror, domination and control. Both in the torture chamber and then in the wider world beyond, it inspires terror in the victims and potential victims. It is an attempt at social control, though demonic to the core. At the same time, it comes about as close to absolute power as one can get in this life. It therefore corrupts, and corrupts absolutely, just as Lord Acton warned. Interrogators, officials, institutions, and whole societies get hooked by working the dark side, as if it were a kind of irresistable addiction. It is rooted in the fears, the frustrations, the blind anger, and the libido dominandi of the strong over against the weak. It is a dark and irrational force that eventually devours those who yield themselves to its practice. That's what was legalized in this country last week. It can't happen here, but it's happening, and who knows where the mayhem will end.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 07:32:29 PM EST
    The Right has become completely and utterly morally bankrupt. If that is what they want our country to be, then say it straight. "Sovietization"
    Prisoners taken in the dead of night to Lubyanka were systematically beaten for days with rubber hoses and clubs. There were special cold rooms where prisoners could be frozen to near death. Sleep deprivation was a favourite and most effective Cheka technique. So was near-drowning in water fouled with urine and feces.
    ...
    We have seen America's president and vice president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, advocating some of the same interrogation techniques the KGB used at the Lubyanka. They apparently believe beating, freezing, sleep deprivation and near-drowning are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. So did Stalin. The White House insisted that anyone -- including Americans -- could be kidnapped and tried in camera using "evidence" obtained by torturing other suspects. Bush & Co. deny the U.S. uses torture but reject the basic law of habeaus corpus and U.S. laws against the evil practice.
    ---edger

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Sailor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 07:54:13 PM EST
    Cites to actual experts would be nice. I know Barnett is a Red Sox fan, and gawd knows that must be torture, but that stll doesn't make him an expert.
    what the hell is the matter with you!? It isn't a bit funny! The question isn't whether it is effective, there is no question involved, IT IS WRONG! There is a reason it is outlawed in the US and the world and by every religion that I know of ... it is a reprehensible act that no human should ever perpetrate on another human, much less an animal or even an insect. You want to kill flies or mosquitoes? Fine. If you want to tear one wing off and see them suffer, you are sick and humanity would be better off without you! There is no question about torture, just as there is no question about slavery, or mass murder, or experimenting on mentally challenged people.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#2)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    I have a very bad feeling about these upcoming elections. I really think they're going to steal them just as they have the last three, and then use their "reinforced mandate" to turn into twice the sons of the Devil they are now.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#4)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    Theo: Interrogators, officials, institutions, and whole societies get hooked by working the dark side, as if it were a kind of irresistable addiction. They LIKE doing it... it turns them on. Like anything else addictive.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Edger on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:24:44 PM EST
    The Right has become completely and utterly morally bankrupt. If that is what they want our country to be, then say it straight. "Sovietization"
    Prisoners taken in the dead of night to Lubyanka were systematically beaten for days with rubber hoses and clubs. There were special cold rooms where prisoners could be frozen to near death. Sleep deprivation was a favourite and most effective Cheka technique. So was near-drowning in water fouled with urine and feces.
    ...
    We have seen America's president and vice president, sworn to uphold the Constitution, advocating some of the same interrogation techniques the KGB used at the Lubyanka. They apparently believe beating, freezing, sleep deprivation and near-drowning are necessary to prevent terrorist attacks. So did Stalin. The White House insisted that anyone -- including Americans -- could be kidnapped and tried in camera using "evidence" obtained by torturing other suspects. Bush & Co. deny the U.S. uses torture but reject the basic law of habeaus corpus and U.S. laws against the evil practice.


    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 08:54:51 PM EST
    Sailor: Sorry if I offended you. It is not funny and it is wrong.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 09:50:16 PM EST
    Here are the publications by an expert on police interrogations and false confessions. Not about torture per se, but thorough research on how you can get bad information... For me, of course, it's enough that five former joint chiefs of staff all say that torture is a bad idea. But we know that Bush and co don't care about further endangerment of our own troops (from their actions).

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#10)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sun Oct 01, 2006 at 11:12:24 PM EST
    Cue the revolution. Just give me a call and I'll be there. How much more fascism can America take before it's Amerika?

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 05:01:46 AM EST
    et al - I again ask you to define the torture techniques that those questioning prisoners will use. Of course saying "torture bad" is such an easy thing to do, requires no thinking and gets you lots of hugs and kissess from your friends...

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#14)
    by theologicus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:07:32 AM EST
    People who keep asking for definitions are guilty of culpable ignorance.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#17)
    by theologicus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 06:27:50 AM EST
    Lyrebird, Thank you for the helpful link. It will help me in my work.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Jen M on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    et al - I again ask you to define the torture techniques that those questioning prisoners will use. a laundry list is not a definition. You have been given the definition again and again and again. If you want to do a Clinton and demand a definition of 'is' thats your problem. You ain't getting a laundry list. Not even congress will give us that. Nor bush.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Al on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    Torture is not a "technique", PPJ. Note that torture always accompanies failing authoritarian regimes. It is a prelude to their downfall.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Richard Aubrey on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    Theo doesn't want definitions so that he can define anything he doesn't like--which would probably be anything, no matter how innocuous, that worked--as torture. Having a definition in place beforehand would inconvenience him.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#18)
    by cpinva on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    of course torture produces reliable information, don't be silly! remember all those witches who were outed in salem?

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 08:29:25 AM EST
    UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Article 1:
    "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions. "
    Overview of U.S. Implementation Policy Concerning the Removal of Aliens:
    The United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT) requires signatory parties to take measures to end torture within their territorial jurisdiction. For purposes of the Convention, torture is defined as an extreme form of cruel and unusual punishment committed under the color of law. The Convention allows for no circumstances or emergencies where torture could be permitted. Additionally, CAT Article 3 requires that no state party expel, return, or extradite a person to another country where there are substantial grounds to believe he would be subjected to torture. The United States ratified the Convention, subject to certain declarations, reservations, and understandings, including that the Convention was not selfexecuting, and therefore required domestic iplementing legislation to take effect.


    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#20)
    by theologicus on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:33:02 AM EST
    The definitions of torture and related abuses are a matter of public record. There are internationally recognized standards. It is simply disingenuous to pretend that they don't exist. Hand-wringing comments that, gee, we just don't know what constitutes torture and related abuses, are in bad faith. They are not to be taken seriously.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Edger on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 09:58:04 AM EST
    Maybe one of these sadistic psychos can produce a list of things he doesn't consider torture that he'd like bush to be using.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 10:08:13 AM EST
    According to his own profile Dean Barnett is a semi-retired executive recruiter who blogs. http://info.pajamasmedia.com/ I don't know why anyone would value his opinion on torture more than any other person off the street.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 11:27:53 AM EST
    theo - Well, let's have some links. From edger:
    "For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental,
    Dark Avenger - You seeing things again? Try a laxative and a good nights sleep.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#24)
    by john horse on Mon Oct 02, 2006 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    I was struck by two answers that torture "expert" Dean Barnett gave. "I don't know." Does anyone find it odd that an "expert" doesn't know if we tortured prisoners in World War II. If he is an expert shouldn't he know? I don't claim to be an expert but I know. "I don't care." Usually people that have no interest in issues related to a particular field do not become experts in that field. You would think that an "expert" on torture would care about the subject. Based on Barnett's answers, his "expertise" seems to be based on his willingness to say what apologists for torture want to hear.

    Re: An Expert on Torture? (none / 0) (#26)
    by theologicus on Tue Oct 03, 2006 at 04:38:26 AM EST
    People who ask for links in order to learn what the definition of torture is are intellectually lazy. The pretense that such links do not exist is morally reprehensible. No one has a responsibilty to accede to such nonsense. See Matt. 7:6.