SHOULD THE U.S SANCTION TORTURE?

SHOULD THE U.S. SANCTION TORTURE?

Sherri L. Warnock

Article is copyrighted. All rights pertain.

Aggressive interrogation techniques have been described as torture tactics devised to elicit information from otherwise uncooperative prisoners. They have been defended as being necessary in extracting vital information pertaining to the “War on Terror.” Most recently our Congress has considered and ratified bills concerning the use of such tactics in an effort to define what are reasonable and acceptable forms of interrogation. The predominant concern with the use of aggressive tactics is that the ones imposing them, regardless of training and experience, may go too far. The question then becomes one of morality: are there any justifications for the use of harsh interrogation techniques? Or, under the banner of protecting democracy, has torture been rationalized into a need?

The current controversy surrounding torture has been muddled by a fear of responding to questions completely and truthfully, and by a seemingly virtuous stance, which is all wrapped up in the politics of propaganda and labeled as patriotism. In spite of this camouflage, it is still possible to get a glimpse of how torture has been recently used by the United States. In an effort to meet the publics demand to know, the CIA has disclosed explicit features of six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” implemented in March of 2002 on about a dozen persons of interest in al Qaeda’s upper echelon. Said persons were kept in solitary confinement at make -shift clandestine prisons on military bases through out the Middle East and in parts of Eastern Europe. It should be noted that, very few CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the disclosed techniques sited below:

1. The Attention Grab: The front of the subject’s shirt is grabbed by the agent and he is shook. This is designed to surprise the subject and instill fear.

2. The Attention Slap: Open-handed slaps, again designed to surprise and instill fear, as well as cause pain.

3. The Belly Slap: Open-handed slaps to the stomach with intentions of causing pain, but not internal injuries, as may be the case with closed fist punches.

4. Long Time Standing: Handcuffed and shackled to the floor, prisoners are made to stand in excess of forty hours, until, exhausted and sleep deprived, they surrender the desired information. This tactic is supposed to be the most effective.

5. The Cold Cell or Induced Hyperthermia: Frequently doused with cold water, the prisoner is housed naked in a barren cell, the temperature of which is approximately fifty degrees. As with the tactic described in number four, the discomfort eventually becomes more then the prisoner can bear, and information is divulged.

6. Water Boarding: This technique is apparently performed in one of two ways. In both methods, the prisoner is strapped to a board with one’s feet elevated slightly higher than the head. The prisoner’s jaw is bound shut with plastic wrap. Water is then poured over the prisoner or squirted into the prisoner’s nostrils, producing an involuntary gag reflex. The design of this tactic is to induce a panic response by convincing the prisoner that he/she is drowning. Within seconds of implementing this method, and amidst pleas for the treatment to stop, the terrified subject will readily say anything the interrogators want said.

Additionally, a frequently used technique that was not mentioned until later is the manipulation of light and sound. Although not specifically described, an example is given. Escapees from an American secret prison in Afghanistan complained that they were not allowed to sleep, and that they were subjected to repeated renditions of Eminem’s Slim Shady. Most Middle- Easterners seldom hear any music at all, unless it is in-tune with their religious convictions. Since they had never been exposed to rap music before, they soon became fatigued, distressed and agitated.

To be politically correct, these techniques, although harsh, are not deemed to be torture. CIA policy dictates that the techniques are to be implemented progressively, well monitored, and limited in use. Each time an intelligence agent wishes to implement a particular technique, authorization from the deputy director for operations must by sought. Permission is almost always granted. Each case is signed off on by all persons involved: the interrogators, and the witnesses. The CIA proudly boasts that not one of the select few prisoners subjected to these methods have been injured or died, all have confessed, and all are still being detained. As information is extracted from one prisoner, it is compared to that of another prisoner for corroboration. No information is acted upon unless it is corroborated and little doubt exists to its authenticity.

However, there have been instances where people have died as a result of these aggressive interrogation techniques, often when misapplied by those who have not been trained in their proper use. Some deaths have occurred under the rendition program, where torture is farmed out to other country’s whose methods would not meet American approval. (The ethicality of rendition is still under debate on capital hill, and is a separate topic for discussion.) The abuses at Abu Ghraib are a perfect example of how these techniques can go seriously awry when implement by unsupervised, untrained staff that are privy to just a little information about their use. There is a psychological power that goes along with being the captor, and captives become the objects of amusement for an otherwise boring shift of duty.

According to Alfred W. McCoy, Professor of History at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and a leading authority on the CIA, the pictures of the Abu Ghraib atrocities were ear marked by tell tale signs of CIA tactics as described in training manuals designed to educate other federal and international agencies. What seemed to be an isolated incident, where a few rogue soldiers over stepped their authority, soon became a political scandal that has tarnished American military prison operations globally. Despite White House efforts to deny CIA involvement, and to protect military command, responsibility grew from a “few bad apples” to the Pentagon, and ultimately the President himself. McCoy is certain that the soldiers who appeared in the photographs were given the “wink and nod” from their superiors, and that they were instructed in methods of how to “soften up” the prisoners for questioning later on. He recognizes the abuses at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and Kabul as materialization of a chronicle of events leading to a fundamental of intrigue and counterinsurgency.

From the 1950’s through the 1980’s, secret research into a humans need for stimulation produced a new method of gaining cooperation that was not physical, but psychological, labeled no touch torture. This new concept in torture was considered revolutionary. Physical torture often produced heightened resistance or unreliable information. However, under this new model (a two fold method of disorientation, or sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain) the victim becomes quite willing to talk.

In the first phase, interrogators attempt to disorient the subject by stripping them, hooding them, and/ or depriving them of sleep. Often this phase intensifies to sexual humiliation. Once the subject is sufficiently disoriented, they move on to the second phase with self-inflicted discomfort, such as standing for excessive hours with arms extended. The idea is to make the victim feel responsible for their own pain, thereby subjugating them to the will of their interrogators.

Seemingly less than brutal, no touch torture actually leaves a deep and lasting emotional deterioration, often requiring long term psychological care. Victims struggle with an array of apprehensive feelings to include paranoia, and a lack of affect that undoubtedly transcends anything perceived in the diagnostic criterion for anxiety disorders. The subject becomes chronically fatigued, lethargic even, but unable to relax, or to concentrate.

The interrogators are not immuned from these detrimental effects either, as they will develop a heighten sense of ego, and desire for cruelty. This was the circumstance for the RAM (Reform the Armed Forces Movement) unit in the Philippines led by Lieutenant Victor Batac. By the time the dictatorship of Marcos ended, RAM leaders were referred to as “Lords of Life and Death”; they espoused a belief in themselves akin to a warrior’s hubris: an invincible demeanor which eventually eroded military discipline. RAM leaders had been trained in CIA no touch torture techniques, but then they began to delve out variations of the tactics on their own, to include electric shock with a crank type telephone. Of course this is only one example of how this training became dangerous information in the wrong hands, and how such torture tactics lead to worsening conditions, as the perpetrators developed a God-like ethos.

Disregarding tortures recent heinous misapplications, those who favor it cite its appeal as a fast track to vital information in perilous times. They seem oblivious to the perverse pathology that invariably affects the torturer as critical societal pressures escalate; ultimately destroying the legitimacy of is intent. Past practices of torture has repeatedly demonstrated that it will plummet the human psyche, releasing an unimaginable aptitude for sadism, as well as fanciful delusions of potency. A nation cannot promulgate torture in opposition to its democratic principles without being regarded as hypocritical, thereby creating mistrust, as its officials desperately patch holes in the illusive fabric that veils the validity of its tactics.

Another moth eating away at the veil of validity camouflaging torture tactics is the view that abuses such as those at Abu Ghraib don’t even come close to rivaling the murder and mutilation tactics of our enemy. Oliver North, former US Marine colonel and aide to the US national security adviser during the notorious Iran-Contra affair, blames the US media for having a politically motivated agenda to show Americans as oppressors. He warns that Americans should not underestimate our own propensity for “self-flagellation,” and to be aware of how the media will take advantage of this in opposition to a despised governmental leader, if they favor another candidate. North claims that the disparity in US news reporting is nothing new. “Radical Islamic Jihadists have been perpetrating this kind of horror against Americans for more than twenty years. And, as if to substantiate the Jihadists claims that its not their fault, the blame America first crowd in the US media looks for ways to point out how we really deserve what we are getting. Equally consistent, the Arab press parrots in ways that incite more violence while (supposed) leaders in theocratic Islamic states remain mute, or worse, condone the atrocities.” Perhaps there has been a disparity in the media accounts between one offensive act and another; however the subsequent reaction to POW abuse has not been much adieu about nothing. Just because they jump off a bridge, should we? Two wrongs do not make a right. As for self-flagellation, how can we, with any clear conscious, criticize the humanitarianisms of other countries, if we are unwilling to police ourselves?

SFC Chris Mackey, a former Army interrogator, was recalled to active service after the WTC attacks, and assigned to taskforce 500 stationed in Kandahar, Afghanistan. Mackey and his cohorts quickly grasped that the techniques and tactics developed during the Cold War were of no use against Al Qaeda and Taliban prisoners, who no longer felt obliged to answer questions once they learned that their interrogators were restricted by the limitations of the Geneva Conventions. They had no reason to fear their captors; the probability of getting at the truth seemed absurd. After discovering an Arab training manual depicting avoidance strategies for US interrogations, Mackey’s team responded by contriving some well improvised strategies of their own. Composing some remarkably elaborate but suave deceptions and hoaxes designed to perplex their adversaries, Mackey’s team operated under extreme pressure: they believed that one of their captives was privy to a plot more devious then the attacks on 9/11. Eventually, this prisoner revealed crucial information about the Hamburg Al Qaeda cell, exposed many of his comrades, and brought to light a link between Al Qaeda and Islamic groups across North Africa, which was never contemplated before. All this consequently led to the demise of Al-Jezari. In his recollection of learning about the abuses of Abu Ghraib, Mackey said that he and his cohorts were sickened, as they were painfully aware that such tactics were unnecessary, ill-advised, and unproductive, if not counterproductive.

Calling attention to the fact that evidence obtained as a result of coercion was not admissible in a US court of law, The Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture wrote to the US ambassador to Great Britain asking for some reassurance that the US government would not authorize the use of torture or other forms of harsh practice when questioning persons of interest. This organization of volunteer medical professionals was founded in 1985 by members of Amnesty International, with the intent of providing medical treatment and psychological counseling to victims of torture world wide. They reminded the ambassador that harsh treatment would require the US to relinquish its leadership role in all matters concerning human rights, and its future relationships with other governments would be jeopardized. Furthermore, it was observed that the US has supported and agreed to several UN declarations and treaties that in no uncertain terms prohibit cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

This foundation has been careful to explain that harsh interrogation techniques are prohibited by the eighth amendment of the US Constitution and are contrary to the international Geneva Conventions Common Article 13 governing the treatment of POW’s. If found to be part of a national dictate, violators would fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which is out of necessity a court of last resort. This means that the ICC can only take action if the violators refuse to police themselves. The question is whether or not the international community is satisfied with the US response to the violations perpetrated by its military, and whether or not such ill-treatment is viewed by the US as a matter of protocol. If they are not satisfied, then theoretically, any nation which recognizes the authority of the ICC could legally arrest US service personnel, within their borders, whom they believe have violated Article 13’s prohibitions, and surrender them to the ICC. The US is one country that has not ratified the ICC statute, and has cleverly taken measures to avoid doing so. In fact, we have established a statute of our own that allows us to invade any country that is unlawfully detaining US service personnel, and we determine the legality of the detention. So therefore, the US could invade Holland (where the court resides), if any attempt is made the by ICC to detain American service personnel accused of human rights violations, in contradiction to what we deem to be lawful.

Attempting to preserve the CIA’s right to use harsher methods of information gathering, the Bush administration has produced legislation that redefines Common Article 13. Does this not in itself cause one to doubt the integrity of our stance in opposition to terrorism? Our President has criticized a recent Supreme Court decision which supported Article 13, claiming that it is too vague causing CIA officials to question the legality of the techniques that they have been implementing since before the war began. They fear they may be held accountable before war trial tribunals, as well as being left vulnerable to a new presidential administration. Unfortunately, Bush’s attempts to draw clearer parameters concerning detainee treatment, may result in establishing a precedent of avoiding treaty obligations by redefining and rewriting whatever we disagree with or view as vague. From the outside looking in, does this not seem arrogant?

McCoy draws a parallel between strong democracies in the past that have had difficulty dealing with torture, and the general US response to the same. And, like us they first began by blaming a “few bad apples.” Next, they attempted to justify their actions by claiming that it was necessary or effective in preventing some impending subversion. And then finally, they attempted to minimize the torture with euphemisms such as “aggressive interrogation techniques”. Desperately striving for a more secure nation, the United States could persist in its policies of secrete prisons, ghost detainee’s and torture in the hopes of obtaining useful intelligence information without scandal. But realistically, such hopes will be floating on the concrete slab of two false assumptions: one that the interrogators can be restrained, and two that news of their violations can be contained. But the ultimate consequence, McCoy contends, will be a further deterioration to America’s prestige among other nations, regardless of our public’s moral outrage and Washington’s apologies. Are we not still the land of the free and the home of the brave?

Not according to our new detainee bill which ignores the fact that, regardless of citizen status, our constitutional provisions equally protect all persons falling under our jurisdiction. In addition to the absence of many rights that Americans consider to be fundamental, the most obvious absence is that of habeas corpus. In other words, our POW’s have no right to challenge their detention or treatment. Much of this law has to do with the trials of those accused as enemy combatants and terrorists. My focus is on their treatment. Without the ability to petition the court under the writ of habeas corpus, abuses will go undetected. On MSNBC’s Countdown with Keith Olberman, the commentator astutely and humorously accuses our president of “killing” this precious writ. He also cleverly points out that our Constitution guarantees that the great writ “shall not be suspended except in cases of rebellion or invasion.” In contempt, Senator Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, contends that the writ has not been suspended, but eliminated entirely. Are we in a state of rebellion? Have we been invaded to the extent to which we need to eliminate our writ of habeas corpus, and in protection of what? Democracy! This cannot exist without such a writ!

Of course the attacks of the WTC were abominable and terrorism is to be abhorred, but we must not become the oppressors. Let all the sins be theirs. Strong democracies such as ours should not sanction special laws for POW’s that are contrary to the fundamental ideals cornerstoning the very law of its land, especially those that are based on rationalizations that history has proven to be falsehoods. Are we that afraid? As a veteran, I am not naive to the fact that abuses are perpetrated by every side and every nation, but again, let all the sins be theirs. It is not necessary to side step a persons inalienable rights in order to preserve justice and the American way of life. Although another time and another place, the words of Oliver Wendell Holmes, one our leaders who came to define and shape our Constitution as it now exists, still rings true: “What lies behind us and what lies before us are tiny matters compared to what lies within us.”


Works Cited

Head, Tom eds. Is Torture Ever Justified? Thompson Gale. 2005.

McCoy, Alfred W. A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the
War on Terror. Metropolitan Books. 2006.

Olbermann, Keith. The Death of Habeas Corpus.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15220450/ 11 October 2006. 17 October 2006.

Associated Press, The. Senate Passes Bill on Terror Detainee Trials.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15044215/from/ET/ 29 September 2006. 1 October 2006.

Smith, R. Jeffrey. Many U.S. Legal Rights Absent in Detainee Bill.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15053727/ 28 September 2006. 1 October 2006.

Mackey, Chris and Greg Miller. The Interrogators: Inside the Secret War Against Al Qaeda. Little, Brown and Company, New York, 2004.

Ross, Brian and Richard Esposito. CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described.
http://abcnew.go.com/WNT/pint?id=1322866 18 November 2005. 2 October
2006.