Monday, June 1, 2009

Can Torture Be Justified?

A time bomb is ticking somewhere in the United States and the CIA has a terrorist in custody who might have some vital information about the whereabouts of the bomb. What would you do? Wait for hundreds of innocent lives to be lost senselessly, or try to get information about the bomb from the terrorist? Would you choose fighting for the human rights of the terrorist versus fighting to save lives of innocent people? To torture or not to torture has long been a controversial topic. Torture has come into the spotlight even more recently due to the release of the torture memos by the Obama administration. Torturing terrorists whom are obviously guilty and holding back crucial information that could help save innocent lives should be made legal. Make no mistake I do not advocate torture for every criminal or even the accused terrorist but for terrorists that are proven high ranking officials of groups such as al-Qaeda. Also the criteria should be that the terrorists are believed to hold valuable information that would help protect innocent lives and/or aid with the capture of other terrorists.

The recently released “torture memos” particularly the one on Abu Zubaydah lists ten techniques that were used on the detainees. These ten methods were used by the CIA on a handful of high profile al-Qaeda members. Those methods were 1) Attention grasp 2) Walling, 3) Facial hold, 4) Facial slap (insult slap), 5) Cramped confinement, 6) Wall standing, 7) Stress positions, 8) Sleep deprivation, 9) Insects placed in a confinement box, 10) Waterboarding (ByBee). These methods read out loud may seem, barbaric or inhumane but the way they were conducted was anything but barbaric. To further prove my point let’s go through each of these methods in detail.

The attention getting methods used were the - Attention Grasp, Facial Hold, and Facial Slap. The Attention Grasp was done by using both hands on either side of the collar to grasp the detainee and pulling them towards the interrogator. Facial Hold was done by holding the detainee with both palms under the chin, fingers far from the eyes; as to not inflict any damage to the eyes. Facial Slap was used by the Interrogator to slap the detainees face with fingers slightly apart as to not inflict damage that would result in bone damage. The goal was not to inflict physical pain that was severe or long lasting instead, the purpose of the facial slap was to induce shock, surprise, and or humiliation. The goal of these methods was to get the individuals attention and shock the senses.

Various methods were used to induce muscle fatigue such as - Cramped Confinement, Wall Standing and Stress Positions. Cramped confinement involved the placement of the individual in a confined space, the dimensions of which would restrict the individual's movement. There were two spaces that were used, a large space and a smaller space. For the large space the detainee could move, sit and stand and was not left there for more than 18 hours, whereas for the smaller space, movement was further restricted to one position and was not used for more than two hours. Wall Standing was done by making the detainee stand about four to five feet from a wall, with his arms stretched out in front of him, with his fingers resting on the wall. Two stress positions were used, 1) sitting on the floor with legs extended straight out in front with arms raised above the head; and (2) kneeling on the floor while leaning back at a 45 degree angle. These positions are not designed to produce the pain associated with contortions or twisting of the body rather, they were designed to produce the physical discomfort associated with muscle fatigue.

Other methods used were “Walling, Sleep Deprivation, Insect and Waterboarding”. A fake flexible wall was specially created for the Walling method with sound effects. The idea of the flexible wall was to create a sound that would make the impact seem far worse than the injury that might result from the action. Special attention was paid to minimize injury by supporting the head and neck with a rolled hood or towel that protected the upper body. Sleep Deprivation was used to reduce the individual's ability to think on his feet and, through the discomfort associated with the lack of sleep. The goal was to motivate the detainee to cooperate. Effects were noted to generally remit after one or two nights of uninterrupted sleep. The Insect technique was to be used on Abu Zubaydah since he had a mortal fear of insects. He was to be placed in a box with a harmless insect such as caterpillar and told that the sting of the insect was fatal. This method was proposed and permission taken to use this technique but was not used. Waterboarding perhaps the most controversial of the torture techniques was done by the detainee being placed in a reclined position, where the upper body would be towards the ground, and then a cloth would be placed in the nasal passage and mouth, and water was poured on it. The goal was to stimulate the feeling of drowning and was not used for more than 40 seconds. Only three individuals were waterboarded, all of them al-Qaeda leaders concealing information about active terrorist plots. No one has been waterboarded since 2003.

Do these methods really seem barbaric and inhumane? David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey who write for Wall Street Journal beg to differ. Rivkin and Casey state “Far from "green lighting" torture -- or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees -- the memos detail the actual techniques used and the many measures taken to ensure that interrogations did not cause severe pain or degradation”(Rivkin). In other words both the authors do not agree with critics that the torture methods were meant to cause long term mental or physical distress and the ways in which it was conducted was in fact humane.Doctors and physicians on hand were empowered to stop it at any time and the methods were researched first in order to make sure that there was no long- term physical or physiological damage. The methods were timed and the people on who there were done on were examined for any previous physiological problems. To top it all the interrogators had to tell their subjects they were not going to be killed. (ByBee)
The methods used by the CIA have been banned by the Obama administration. The approved interrogation methods are listed in the “Army Field Manual”. Those methods are: Good cop, bad cop (known in the US as Mutt and Jeff) , Rapid-Fire Questioning, We Know All , Ego Up, Ego Down, Emotional Fear-Up and Silence (Buschschluter). The Good Cop, bad cop approach is when two cops take opposing views, the detainee starts creating a rapport with one of the cops. Rapid-Fire Questioning is when the detainee is asked a series of questions with no time to think in between their answers. We Know All, is when the interrogator pretends to know the answer, this methods uses reverse psychology on the detainee. Ego Up is used by flattering the acts of detainee in order for them to admit to their crimes. Ego Down is the opposite of Ego Up when the detainee’s actions are attacked in hope for the detainee to reveal his motives to defend his actions. Emotional Fear Up is when a “pre-existing fear is identified, linking its elimination to co-operation on part of the detainee”, and finally the Silent technique, where the interrogator stares at the detainee with a smirk on his face.

Methods mentioned in the Army Field Manuals seem a bit elementary for proven high ranking terrorists who have been trained to play mind games with the CIA. Outgoing CIA Director Michael Hayden stated in his farewell news conference, "You can't say it didn't work. It worked. "The Abu Zubaydahs, the Khaled Sheikh Mohammeds, I just can't conceive of any other way, given their character, given their commitment to what it is they do."(Buschschluter). It should be noted that these are not ordinary criminals but proven terrorists who would do anything to keep information that could save innocent Americans. They have been trained to die in the name of their mission and will stop at nothing to see their mission come through. Another thing to take note of is that the Army Field Manuals were created for the Army on ground, on the battle field for suspected terrorists not proven terrorists of high ranking. Once the suspected terrorists were identified as high risk they were passed on to the CIA for further interrogation. These were a handful of high risk terrorists versus the large number that the on-ground army personnel interrogate. In these circumstances how could the CIA use the methods that are mentioned in the Field Manuals, as the circumstances were not on-ground and the detainees were not suspected terrorists but proven high ranking terrorists? “Rear Admiral Don Guter, who served as the US Navy's judge advocate general from 2000 to 2002, states "the golden rule is that if we would not want a technique applied to our service members, we don't apply it to the detainees"(Buschschluter). In other words Guter believes that we should treat the people we capture in war like we would like our war captives to be treated. I agree with Admiral Don Guter to a certain degree that the US should treat detainees in a manner that we would like the US captives to be treated by the terrorists. In a perfect world Guter’s philosophy would work, but as we all know we do not live in a perfect world. Do the Al-Qaida and other terrorists groups apply techniques that are fair? Was the murder of journalist Daniel Pearl justified? I do not believe in the “an eye for an eye”, approach and am not justifying my views based on that rule, rather I am trying to put across that there cannot be a blanket approach for interrogation for high ranking proven terrorists in a ticking time bomb scenario.

The US government is not perfect and without its flaws, but then if you think about it which government in the world is perfect? With great power comes great responsibilities and with great responsibility there comes the only too human problem of error. People who run the government are humans after all with our best interest in mind. I’m personally not a big fan of former Vice President Dick Cheney, but in defense of the methods used by the CIA he has requested the Obama administration to release what he calls the “effectiveness memos”. According to Cheney the “effectiveness memos” has documented information that the CIA got out of the terrorists and how it helped in saving innocent American lives and resulted in the capture of other terrorists. Dick Cheney on defended the CIA methods mentioned, that he would like to show the American people that what was done in their name helped keep them safe (Knapton). Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution and author of Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the Age of Terror has some reservations. He says the idea that CIA agents should be subjected to the same set of rules as the military will not work in the long term. "There's a legitimate argument that the CIA should have more leeway than the army. The CIA deals with a tiny number of detainees, which by definition are the most dangerous ones," he says. "The army field manual comes nowhere near the legal line of what you can do in an interrogation and therefore ties the hands of CIA interrogators unnecessarily."(Buschschluter). I am in agreement with Buschschluter that since the CIA deals with detainees that are some of the most wanted people in the world their hands should not be tied down by the army field manuals that have been probably used on them already.

Speaking about researching and getting information from credible sources on the use of interrogation methods, could anyone be more credible and reasonable that Clifford D. May? If you haven’t heard about him, you will in the future. May is the President of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a policy institute focusing on terrorism created immediately following the 9/11 attacks on the United States. He is also the Chairman of the Policy Committee of the Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), an international, non-partisan organization based in Washington D.C. comprised of leading members of the national security community (FDD). On his blog May states that the definition of torture is complex and a simple legal definition is “it shocks the senses”, he goes on further to state that if we follow this definition of torture then the cutting off of Daniel Pearls head on Television shocked the senses, children being brainwashed against the US and being sent on suicide missions shock the senses, people choosing to jump off the world trade center knowing they would die rather than get burnt to death, that shocks the senses, Abu Zabaydah being waterboarded for forty seconds, as a result giving information that leads to the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, master mind of 9/11, and then going back to dinner and TV – that does anything but shock the senses (May).

I have been called a “right hand extremist”, due to my views on torture, and trust me when I say that I am not even remotely close to that genre of thinking. The constitution gives me the right of “freedom of speech” and I am just practicing my right. Why should I then be considered a “right hand extremist”, if in my view I feel that in order to save innocent life’s any measures needed should be used? The problem that most people have against making torture legal is that it would lead to abuse of power by the government. My argument is that our government has done it, does it, and will continue to use it in varying degrees, so why not make it legal under a ticking time bomb scenario only, that too for the proven terrorist. By doing this we will be able to ask for greater accountability and transparency from our government rather than finding out about actions our government has engaged in years after it has been committed. No government is perfect and I would like to believe that our government has our best interest at hand and that they would do anything possible to keep us safe from terrorist attacks. Would we choose to fight for the human rights of a proven terrorist or save the lives of 2742 people who died senselessly? Which of the two evils would we choose? How would we feel if we were to find out that September 11, could be avoided and all that the CIA had to do was to use any methods possible to get the information out of a terrorist in captivity?




Works Cited
Bybee, Jay S. Memorandum for John Rizzo Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency “Interrogation of al-Qaeda Operative”. Washington, DC. 1 Aug. 2002. 26 Apr. 2009
Buschschluter, Vanessa. “The Obama approach to interrogation”. BBC News. 29 Jan. 2009. 28 Apr. 2009. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7847405.stm>

(FDD) Foundation of Defense of Democracies. “ Clifford D. May”. 1 Jan. 2008. 26 Apr. 2009 <http://www.defenddemocracy.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=23706&Itemid=283>

Knapton, Sarah. “Dick Cheney calls for release of CIA waterboarding success memos”. Telegraph. 21 Apr. 2009. 28 Apr. 2009. <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/5192090/Dick-Cheney-calls-for-release-of-CIA-waterboarding-success-memos.html>

Krisko, Kinga. Can Torture Ever Be Justified?. Accuracy in Media. 13 Nov. 2004. 20 Apr. 2009. <http://www.aim.org/briefing/can-torture-ever-be-justified/>

May, Cliff. May: Fantasy torture interview on 'Daily Show'. Scripps News. 29 May, 2009. 24 Apr. 2009. <http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/42816>

Rivkin, David B. Casey, Lee A. “The Memos Prove We Didn't Torture”. Wall Street Journal.
20 Apr. 2009. 24 Apr. 2009. <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018665408933455.html>

Stein, Sam. “Bush Torture Memos Released by Obama: See The Complete Documents”. The Huffington Post. 16 Apr. 2009. 1 May, 2009. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/bush-torture-memos-releas_n_187867.html>

No comments: