Torture Lawyer Sez: I Can Haz Waterboarding?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course Yoo is writing a piece in support of the tactics he outlined. To do otherwise would be suicidal either figuratively (because charges would be brought) or literally (because he would then be wallowing in self loathing.


It strikes me that those decrying the use of torture are too willing to believe that it never works. If the only point were an exercise in sadism, it would not have been used with the frequency it has been throughout history. That said, it is clear that as an interrogation tool it has numerous limitations -- foremost being that some subjects (most?) will say anything to avoid the pain and thereby render the point moot.

For the most part, our interrogators have chosen NOT to use such harsh methods because they were no more (and often were viewed as less) likely to generate the needed results. That is why waterboarding was authorized so rarely. If it would not generate intelligence better/more quickly, then what would be the point?


Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous. If that is your basic moral stance, than few governments around the world -- if any -- would win "points" from you. The use of waterboarding would be anathema and, for those with this perspective, no better than a rack and hot irons.

[Tribesman]

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous.

The problem there Seamus is that the US calls waterboarding torture if it is used by others , so it isn't a question of what other people think morally it is what the US calls it itself .

[Lemur]

For the most part, our interrogators have chosen NOT to use such harsh methods because they were no more (and often were viewed as less) likely to generate the needed results. That is why waterboarding was authorized so rarely.

Actually, it's very, very hard to get any hard numbers on when torture was used and when it was not. Even in cases where we know "enhanced interrogation" (what an Orwellian turn of phrase) was used, the evidence seems to go missing. It's also impossible to read the decisions behind "enhanced interrogation" as a policy. Here's a partial list of missing memos. If you're going to accept the Bush administration's assertion that they only waterboarded three people, then I have a bridge I would like to sell you. No, seriously, it's a wonderful bridge in excellent condition.

Your question about why the military would engage in torture is a good one. Turns out they were following orders, as good soldiers should.

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous.

I call strawman. This is the exact smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue since day one. "Oh, some Berkley hippies don't want us to say mean things to terrorists." That and the "What is torture, anyway?" line of obfuscation that we have heard unendingly from various pro-authoritarians.

Read up on Susan Crawford, and then get back to me about how "numerous people" (I'd like to meet them, what with them being so numerous) are defining anything after hot cocoa and a blankie as torture.

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.

What fun! Not only do we get to torture people, but afterward it means we can't prosecute them. Double bonus!

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Your question about why the military would engage in torture is a good one. Turns out they were following orders, as good soldiers should.

I've spoken with a couple of different JAG officers who, when queried by the Bush administration, responded that any method not then sanctioned for use by the military should NOT be employed. They were NOT happy with the policy which ultimately developed.

I call strawman. This is the exact smokescreen that has been thrown up around this issue since day one. "Oh, some Berkley hippies don't want us to say mean things to terrorists." That and the "What is torture, anyway?" line of obfuscation that we have heard unendingly from various pro-authoritarians.

I don't play the strawman game. My point was that many people in the USA, and probably greater numbers in Europe, think that many of the procedures used in the "harsh methods" interrogations were torture and should not have been used. A much smaller subset believes that anyone involved with those techniques should be prosecuted. I don't believe I ever resorted to the hot cocoa hyperbole level -- though some right wing pundits certainly have.

The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."

"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007. "His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case" for prosecution.[/indent]

What fun! Not only do we get to torture people, but afterward it means we can't prosecute them. Double bonus!

Of COURSE any information gained through torture or near-torture methods cannot be used in a court of law. What may generate information in intelligence terms will almost certainly NOT pass the reasonable doubt test. If you are going to go that route, you must expect that any subsequent prosecution will fail, so you either have to execute the detainee or release her/him -- so the information gained better have been worth it.

[Mooks]

Not to mention that forcing someone to listen to 4+ hours of Britney Spears and crappy nationalistic country songs is horrible .

trying to lighten the conversation.did it work?

[Lemur]

My point was that many people in the USA, and probably greater numbers in Europe, think that many of the procedures used in the "harsh methods" interrogations were torture and should not have been used.

Now I really don't understand. When you say "harsh methods," what are you referring to? "Enhanced interrogation"? Because many of the methods employed under "Enhanced Interrogation" have already been classified as torture on many occasions, often by us. We declared waterboarding to be a war crime in 1947, for example. Does that fall under your "harsh methods" category? If so, is there any reason to debate whether or not torture has been employed? If so, why?

We also prosecuted Nazi officials who employed "Verschärfte Vernehmung," which means -- wait for it -- "Enhanced Interrogation." The methods (and the euphemisms) are quite strikingly similar:

Between 1942 and 1945, Bruns used the method of "verschärfte Vernehmung" on 11 Norwegian citizens. This method involved the use of various implements of torture, cold baths and blows and kicks in the face and all over the body.

I can just hear a German equivalent to Limbaugh declaring on the radio that "cold baths" and some kicks do not constitute anything more than vigorous information-gathering. Oh and guess what? The Norwegians in question were not in uniform, so the Nazis attempted the same defense used when we classify detainees as beyond the reach of the Geneva Conventions.

Anyway, maybe you could clarify the position you're taking, as I'm not quite getting it.

[KukriKhan]

Seamus can, of course, speak for himself, and far more eloquently than I. Yet:

is there any reason to debate whether or not torture has been employed? If so, why?

I don't see anything in his response that debates whether or not torture has been employed. My read of his words revealed something more along the lines of:

"Once it was discovered that torture MIGHT have been employed, many US citizens (and prominent ones, like the latest Repub potus nominee) and europens as well, said it should not be used."

[Lemur]

I don't see anything in his response that debates whether or not torture has been employed.

My response makes sense in light of Seamus' earlier statement:

Morally, of course, there are numerous people who view any interrogation method beyond simple questioning as torturous. If that is your basic moral stance, than few governments around the world -- if any -- would win "points" from you.

... which does not bear any resemblance to your summation, "Once it was discovered that torture MIGHT have been employed, many US citizens (and prominent ones, like the latest Repub potus nominee) and europens as well, said it should not be used."

[KukriKhan]

I see. You meant an earlier quote than the one you used. O.K.

And now, not being a qualified dental technician, I'll quit stuffing my words into other people's mouths.

[HoreTore]

Oh and guess what? The Norwegians in question were not in uniform, so the Nazis attempted the same defense used when we classify detainees as beyond the reach of the Geneva Conventions.

Indeed. Except on the bigger sabotage missions when they were dropped from England, they wore civilian clothing at all times, to avoid capture and execution. For this, they were classed as criminals and terrorists by the nazi government.

It should be said though, that the nazi government also used much harder methods than the ones in that case... Look up "Henry Rinnan" or "Rinnanbanden/The Rinnan Gang" if interested....

[Lemur]

I am in no way trying to equate our rendition and torture techniques to the Nazis. What I am trying to point out is that every industrialized nation uses the same euphemisms and excuses when they want to go beyond decency and the law.

[Tribesman]

I am in no way trying to equate our rendition and torture techniques to the Nazis.

If the cap fits .
After all the nazis were only doing it to protect their country from terrorists

[Strike For The South]

Disgusting. You'd figure if were willing to do that We'd at least have moved onto kidnapping there families and then threatening them.

That would seem to work better.

[Lemur]

You'd figure if were willing to do that We'd at least have moved onto kidnapping there families and then threatening them.

We actually did that to one of the Al Qaeda leaders early in the GWoT. Unfortunately, I'm having a hell of a time finding a web-friendly source that recounts the info, and I can't be bothered to go back to the library and re-find the book that details it, so you're going to have to make do with my memory.

We captured one of the AQ lieutenants early in the GWoT, and among other things we threatened to kill his children, whom we had in custody. He responded that if we killed them they would join Allah, so go right ahead.

Stalemate. There's nowhere to escalate once you've threatened a man's children with harm and he has called your bluff.

If I can find a web-friendly version of this info, I'll post a link. I curse books and their static text, their un-indexed knowledge and their inability to be read by Firefox!

[HoreTore]

It strikes me that those decrying the use of torture are too willing to believe that it never works. If the only point were an exercise in sadism, it would not have been used with the frequency it has been throughout history.

Torture is a wonderful thing indeed, though only for two things:

1. To terrorize a population. If someone does something you don't want them to, then torturing him is a good way to deter any others thinking about doing said thing. Someone stirring up trouble in the lower classes? Chop him to pieces alive in front of the rest of the population, and they'll be too afraid to do anything.

2. To make someone confess to something. And it's irrelevant whether it's true or not. Want Galileo to say that the earth is the centre of the solar system? Burn his toes until he says it, he will eventually.

Both of these have been and are of great benefit to despots and tyrants everywhere. We like to think that our democratically elected overlords don't have the same need, however...