Torture, Lies, and Our Sense of Safety

English 1101: Paper One
May 24th, 2009

The Geneva Convention bans the mistreatment of prisoners. That much is not up for dispute, but somewhere between the offices of the United Nations and the strife of war within emerging democracies there is a great deal that gets lost in the translation of the word “mistreatment.” For the United States in particular, the constant threat of terrorism by radical extremist groups eventually led to our engaging with certain kleptocracies at their level, and this behavior was defended by Mark Bowden in “The Dark Art of Interrogation”, which was published by Atlantic Monthly in October 2003. It was a different time, and because of that Bowden argued that if an imminent threat existed then coercion should be implemented to keep our citizens safe (Bowden 65). Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that it was a slippery slope. It is now abundantly clear that when a country tries to justify the mistreatment of prisoners, regardless of the urgency of the moment, fair minded citizens will not be prompted to ask what defines torture, but rather whether they can trust leaders who try to convince their citizens that by condoning the mistreatment of another human being they should somehow feel safer themselves.

In their treatment of war prisoners, the Bush Administration knew very well that they had to define a boundary and stop short of any enhanced interrogation techniques that would cause permanent harm to detainees. A recently declassified 23 page memo from the Department of Justice (DOJ) to the CIA, dated May 10, 2005, reveals that these DOJ lawmakers felt that two critical points had to exist in tandem before the use of carefully defined enhanced interrogation techniques could be defended (Stein 13 May 2009). Those two components were first, that the detainee be a “high value detainee” (which means that he has information about an imminent threat against us) and second, that there be no permanent harm to the prisoners. The first defining point was made on page three of the memo, and the bulk of the remaining 20 pages were dedicated to defining the boundaries for the enhanced interrogation techniques, but let us not overlook the point that much of the mistreatment of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed took place in March 2003, two years before this memo was produced.

For many Americans like Mark Bowden, America did not feel safe back in 2003, which some would argue was a direct result of a carefully crafted message that was being shaped by senior government officials in order to justify the invasion of Iraq. What we do know is that congress, the senate, and the entire population had been made to believe that the Iraqi regime had weapons of mass destruction (WMD’s) and that it was only a matter of time before another attack like 9/11 would take place. Because of the message manipulation by the White House, Bowden and most informed Americans had been convinced of this imminent threat, so in “The Dark Art of Interrogation” article Bowden defended the use of “torture lite” without getting into the details of what really defined the boundaries for the methods used (36). Before we get bogged down condemning him and others like him for passing off the CIA techniques with a “wink” (65), it is important that we consider how safe we should have felt back in 2003 and compare that to how safe we feel now that we know more about how our government had manipulated the truth and descended into a realm of mistreating American prisoners of war.

In our pursuit of the truth it will be difficult to separate out the political rhetoric from that which is the truth, so difficult in fact that the Obama Administration has just recently determined that a truth commission will likely be convened. Even still, one thing is becoming increasingly clear by the day, and that is that there was no credible threat to America when KSM was being waterboarded 183 times in one month (Shane 19 April 2009). What has come out so far is that it all started well when our military assigned the initial KSM interrogations to Ali Sufan, one of the best interrogators with the FBI. It was reported by MSNBC on The Rachel Maddow Show that during Sufan’s May 2009 testimony before the US Senate (which was delivered from behind a screen to protect his identify,) he testified that the primary directive from the CIA was to prove a link between al Queda and the Iraqi regime (Maddow 15 May 2009). Sufan stated unequivocally that his conventional (and legal) methods were producing honest and credible responses from KSM, but it was not the information that Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld wanted to hear (Maddow 15 May 2009). Sufan soon found himself replaced as lead interrogator and waterboarding and sleep deprivation became the order of the day for KSM. Bowden artfully wrote about what this period must have been like for KSM in his article (34). Now, through Sufan’s testimony to the senate, we see how the scenario actually played out. Ali Sufan’s boss, Frank Mueller, supported these facts in a December 2008 interview with Vanity Fair reporter David Rose. When Rose asked Mueller if he was aware of any attacks on Americans that had been disrupted because of intelligence secured through enhanced interrogation techniques, Mueller reluctantly answered, “I don’t believe that has been the case.” (Rose 16 Dec 2008).

Perhaps even more damning than the absence of an imminent threat is the fact that under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld the interrogation not only continued, but was expanded into the use of methods that were known to yield unreliable intelligence. Ali Sufan exposed this possibility during his testimony as well. On May 13th, two days before reporting on Ali Sufan’s testimony, The Rachel Maddow Show hosted Malcolm Nance, a former SERE School instructor with the US military (Maddow 13 May 2009). The SERE techniques (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape) were reverse engineered from the enhanced interrogation techniques that were employed by the totalitarian regimes of the 1950’s. Bowden himself refers to this period when he referenced “the notorious 1963 CIA manual on interrogation, called the Kubark Manual” (42.) The purpose for the SERE School was to prepare our soldiers to survive torture if they were captured by preparing them for what they might experience at the hands of our enemies. In the SERE School manual it is clearly stated that “sleep deprivation is a softening technique” and that it “leads to gibberish” and “lying” (Maddow 13 May 2009.) These were the techniques that were eventually utilized on KSM, and if the line of questioning was indeed going in the direction of establishing a link between al Queda and the Iraqi regime (rather than averting a supposed imminent attack on US citizens,) it is more easily understood that even if it did produce a lie from KSM, it would have been the answer that certain individuals desperately wanted to hear. Remember, we now know that in 2003 the United States had just invaded a sovereign nation without hard evidence of a credible threat to Americans, and if you hold that thought in the back of your mind as you read the 2005 DOJ memo you can see that the administration was possibly still trying to bolster their justification for that invasion.

At this point, in the late spring of 2009, there is no longer too much debate about the boundaries that define torture because most people agree that what took place did cross a line. Dick Cheney himself has virtually admitted that it was done in clear violation of the Geneva Convention, and Bowden himself defended it as such back in 2003, but six years after the torture of KSM there is not a single document or credible intelligence that proves there ever was a ticking time bomb. Cheney’s only hope for redemption now is to continue to repeat his manipulated message of 2002 and 2003 and practice the art of revisionist history so that future generations will believe that this “torture lite” really did save American lives. By giving several interviews over the period of a week Cheney tried to shift the debate into a discussion about the intelligence that this mistreatment produced, but for every sound bite he captured there were two that proved that his enhanced interrogation techniques were ineffective. The timing of his media appearances has placed his message against the backdrop of an ongoing and very public debate about what to do with the Guantanamo Bay (Gitmo) detainees and the kind of mistreatment and injustice that has been afforded them by the US government. While Cheney might find some support here at home for what he did, Gitmo is an argument that doesn’t sell well on the international stage.

Recent actions by US military generals and White House advisors have underscored the fact that our past treatment of prisoners poses a continued threat to our soldiers and American civilians abroad, and on May 13th President Obama reversed his decision to release almost two thousand photos of abuse and mistreatment of American prisoners from the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts. The only argument that President Obama gave to defend this reversal was that our generals felt that these photos would be circulated to further incite hatred toward American soldiers, and that brings us back to our original argument. Do we feel safer now, after having violated the Geneva Convention and mistreated these “unlawful enemy combatants”, which is the term used by the Bush Administration so that they could avoid the term “prisoners of war”?

So, given that the end objective for interrogating high value detainees like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was to obtain intelligence, and knowing that the coercive techniques employed made it unreliable and inactionable, where did that leave us, as a nation? Even if it had been truthful intelligence, our enemies are not stupid. Because of the fluidity of the enemy, the remaining free members within the terror cells would have immediately moved the locations of their secret operations as soon as any of their leaders were captured, which meant that even if a detainee like KSM was truthful under coercion, the likelihood of any benefit would have been muted. Now, six years later, it is becoming clear that yes, the treatment had admittedly crossed the line and fell into the broader terms of torture, and still, in spite of that, it is clear that the resulting intelligence was all but useless because of the nature of the prisoners. Malcolm Nance, during his appearance on The Rachel Maddow Show, explained that the Islamic extremists have a “policy of…absolute devotion to their god but absolute disavowal or hatred of anything that is not their god, therefore anything they do to foil you is well within their plan” (Maddow 13 May 2009). When dealing with detainees like this, any type of interrogation that facilitates the extraction of lies or half-truths will have little or no chance at producing a credible confession, and KSM was this kind of a detainee. Further to that, in his testimony at the senate hearings Ali Sufan presented the argument that 180 hours of sleep deprivation hardly satisfied the “ticking time bomb” sense of urgency. He went on to explain how KSM was being cooperative with him until the other aggressive tactics were employed, at which point KSM became much less cooperative.

There is no need to redefine where the boundaries of torture are. Whether it is physical abuse that leaves permanent marks on the body or emotional abuse that leaves a prisoner with nightmares for the rest of his or her life, a body of evidence already exists for anybody who cares to look it up. It is all mistreatment, and it is forbidden. There is no justification for any of it because the resulting intelligence is not credible if coerced. The one sure thing is that if any nation decides to lower itself to the level of another regime where these techniques are still used, the one byproduct that they will not enjoy is an increased sense of safety on the part of their soldiers or their citizens. It is a crying shame that the United States became the example for the rest of the world in what not to do.

Works Cited
Bowden, Mark, “The Dark of Interrogation.” Emerging – A Reader 2nd ed. Ed. Barclay Barrios. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2009. (31-65).

Maddow, Rachel
- “The Truth About Torture.” The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York City. 13 May 2009. 18 May 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30733090
- “Tortured Logic.” The Rachel Maddow Show. MSNBC, New York City.
15 May 2009. 18 May 2009 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#30773553

Rose, David, “Tortured Reasoning.” Vanity Fair. 16 Dec 2008. 24 May 2009 http://www.vanityfair.com/magazine/2008/12/torture200812?currentPage=1

Shane, Scott, “Waterboarding Used 266 Times on 2 Suspects.” The New York Times. 19 April 2009. 24 May 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/20/world/20detain.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Waterboarding%20used%20266%20time%20Scott&st=cse

Stein, Sam, “Bush Torture Memos Released by Obama: See the Complete Documents.” The Huffington Post. 13 May 2009. 24 May 2009 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html

The Opening of the "Third Act"

On this, the inauguration day of President Barack Obama, and after more than 14 hours of listening to the TV, I finally heard somebody capture the significance of this presidency. The famous PBS documentary film maker Ken Burns was a guest for Keith Olberman, and this is what he said:

"First act...Thomas Jefferson says 'all men are created equal', but he really means...'all white men of property; free of debt'!

Four-score and seven years later, Abraham Lincoln says, 'Look, we really mean it, but its going to be another hundred years!'

Today, when Barack Obama took the oath of office, that was the beginning of the 'Third Act' of real possibilities, and it also means that the civil war is over."

Ken Burns' interview with Keith Olberman is quite possibly the most cerebral analysis of what we can all hope for with President Obama at the helm. I recommend that you watch the whole video clip at this link.

Religions and their Views on "Tolerance"

I hate to keep coming back to this topic, but it is a recurring thread in each of the six social justice campaigns for World House (link here). Indeed, no social justice advocate can escape the propensity on the part of a "target for change" (in my case, the Mormon Church) to invoke the phrase, "But we do tolerate others!"

This is one response that I got from one of my siblings after I told them all that my expecation was that they "embrace diversity":

[quote]
"I think it is about the dumbest thing you have said that I must EMBRACE diversity, not just tolerate it. It is impossible for anyone to embrace ALL diversity. Do you really expect me to embrace a Muslim religion that expects their women to be subservient and refuses to educate them? Should I embrace an African culture that mutilates their young girls so they will never have pleasure from sex? Should I expect you to embrace my religion that teaches that homosexuality is evil? I will tolerate all of those things even as I will do what I can to change what I disagree with. I expect you to do the same. I am very good friends with Muslims even though I don't agree with their religion. I am very good friends with adulterers even though I think that cheating on their wives is a horrible thing. I would like to be your friend also even if I don't agree with your decisions."
[end of quote]

First, I didn't think that anybody in their right mind would interpret the phrase "embrace diversity" to mean "embrace civil rights abuses", but then I got to thinking about the Mormon Church and the threat that "diversity" is to them and other fundamentalist Christian congregations.

After reading my brothers response, I realized that a fundamentalist Christian mentality will see diversity as something to be feared. Somehow, they interpret "diverse" as "diluted", so it would follow that a "diluted" community would be a "weak" community. When I took a moment to think back on my two years as a Mormon missionary, it dawned on me that at the very core of the Mormon belief system (the very reason why missionary work is so important to them) is the fact that their "one-true-God" put them in a position of pre-eminence. If I am not mistaken, this is what the fundamentalists in all three Abrahamic religions believe (Christainity, Judaism, and the Islamic faith). It would seem that at the very core of their belief systems is the fact that the "other" groups will need to be "perfected" before the "one-true-God" will accept them into their version of what "heaven" is.

To these "religionists" (with extremist religious views), it is an affront to their belief system if they are asked to accept the fact that "others" must be seen as their "equals". To them, the word "tolerate" is as far as they can advance when in any discussion with a person or group of people with an opposing view.

In the case of peace negotions in the Middle East, where at least two groups must come to some sort of cease-fire, it is my assertion that the long-term stability of that agreement will be torpedoed if the mediator even allows the word "tolerance" to enter into the debate, and this is why:

"The liberty I contend for is more than toleration. The very idea of toleration is despicable; it supposes that some have a pre-emincnece above the rest to grant indulgence, whereas all should be equally free, Jews, Turks, Pagans, and Christian."

Those words were spoken by John Leland (probably in the 1780's), whose views helped shape the mind of James Madison, the father of the Bill of Rights.

Separating "Holy" from the "Land" - Religion and Politics

I won't post the entire article here, but I strongly urge any reader to seek the enlightenment of Wayne Besen on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is from a January 6th, 2009 posting.

[excerpt]
“If Israel's true goal is security and the Palestinians genuinely want to secure a state, then I believe peace can occur and both groups can prosper. But, if negotiating is a way for Israel to stall so they can change facts on the ground through new settlements, or for Palestinians to replenish stocks of lethal rockets, God's people will continue to turn this disputed land into a hellhole.

While you can never fully separate religion from the region, the "Holy" must be detached from the actual "Land" if peace is ever to be realized. It is time to return the fanatics to their rightful place on the fringe, so good people on both sides of this divide have a chance to live normal and peaceful lives.”
[end of excerpt]

Link to full article.