Torture Controversy Resuscitated

The torture controversy has made a brief comeback with the death of Osama bin Laden.  It turns out our earliest leads on the courier who ultimately led us to bin Laden's door came from individuals who had been subjected to waterboarding.  

Lefties are in denial over it.  They've been painting themselves into a corner by their insistence that waterboarding is torture, but how do you call something torture when it is part of the survival training given to our own military personnel?  As far as I know, congress hasn't outlawed the use of it as part of S.E.R.E. training.  S.E.R.E. stands for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape.  Here is a first hand description of the technique.

Then it was time for the dreaded waterboard. What I didn’t know then, but I do now, is that as in all interrogations, both for real world hostile terrorists (non-uniformed combatants) and in S.E.R.E. a highly trained group of doctors, psychologists, interrogators, and strap-in and strap-out rescue teams are always present. My first experience on the “waterboard” was to be laying on my back, on a board with my body at a 30 degree slope, feet in the air, head down, face-up. The straps are all-confining, with the only movement of your body that of the ability to move your head. Slowly water is poured in your face, up your nose, and some in your mouth. The questions from interrogators and amounts of water increase with each unsuccessful response. Soon they have your complete attention as you begin to believe you are going to drown.

But the left, intent on casting the Bush administration as war criminals, lowered the bar on torture so that it now includes survival training techniques.  Unfortunately for the left, waterboarding as a political weapon took a hit when CIA Director Leon Panetta confirmed that waterboarding was how they got the first bits of information that ultimately led to Bin Laden.  (My emphasis below.)

“WILLIAMS: Turned around the other way, are you denying that waterboarding was in part among the tactics used to extract the intelligence that led to this successful mission?

PANETTA: No, I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.”

When pressed by Brian Williams, Panetta intentionally left the political question open by speculating that they might have gotten “the same information through other approaches.”  But by doing that he also confirmed precisely where we did not get the information.  That was from every other approach except waterboarding.

This isn't the first time we've heard that the enhanced interrogation techniques proved to be extremely effective for getting information out of uncooperative detainees.

How a Detainee Became An Asset
Sept. 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding

By Peter Finn, Joby Warrick and Julie Tate
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, August 29, 2009

In 2005 and 2006, the bearded, pudgy man who calls himself the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks discussed a wide variety of subjects, including Greek philosophy and al-Qaeda dogma. In one instance, he scolded a listener for poor note-taking and his inability to recall details of an earlier lecture.

Speaking in English, Mohammed "seemed to relish the opportunity, sometimes for hours on end, to discuss the inner workings of al-Qaeda and the group's plans, ideology and operatives," said one of two sources who described the sessions, speaking on the condition of anonymity because much information about detainee confinement remains classified. "He'd even use a chalkboard at times."

These scenes provide previously unpublicized details about the transformation of the man known to U.S. officials as KSM from an avowed and truculent enemy of the United States into what the CIA called its "preeminent source" on al-Qaeda. This reversal occurred after Mohammed was subjected to simulated drowning and prolonged sleep deprivation, among other harsh interrogation techniques.

"KSM, an accomplished resistor, provided only a few intelligence reports prior to the use of the waterboard, and analysis of that information revealed that much of it was outdated, inaccurate or incomplete," according to newly unclassified portions of a 2004 report by the CIA's then-inspector general released Monday by the Justice Department.

The debate over the effectiveness of subjecting detainees to psychological and physical pressure is in some ways irresolvable, because it is impossible to know whether less coercive methods would have achieved the same result. But for defenders of waterboarding, the evidence is clear: Mohammed cooperated, and to an extraordinary extent, only when his spirit was broken in the month after his capture March 1, 2003, as the inspector general's report and other documents released this week indicate.

But, in spite of such convincing evidence to the contrary, the left continues to insist not only is waterboarding cruel, inhumane, and illegal, it's an ineffective interrogation technique. John Quiggin of Crooked Timber was one who was quick to disparage any notion that waterboarding could in any possible way have led us to Osama bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.

In my post on bin Laden’s death, I noted the spin in a New York Times story suggesting that torture had helped to extract the clues leading to bin Laden’s location, even though the facts reported suggested the opposite. This analysis, also in the NYT, confirms both the spinning and the fact that the evidence produced under brutal torture was deliberately misleading. Given the failure of the Bush Administration to get anywhere near bin Laden, it seems likely that they were in fact misled, deluded by the ancient belief that evidence extracted under torture is the most reliable kind.

What a pathetically weak argument, to suggest that "it seems likely" that interrogators were misled.  Likely?  Misled about what?  And it's even less convincing to argue that we would have gotten the same information from other sources.  I wouldn't want to bet my life on that.

And though congress voted to ban waterboarding in 2008, (George Bush vetoed that legislation.) members were not always opposed.  At the time waterboarding was first going to be used, members of congress were briefed on it.

Among the techniques described, said two officials present, was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder, two U.S. officials said.

"The briefer was specifically asked if the methods were tough enough," said a U.S. official who witnessed the exchange.

Congressional leaders from both parties would later seize on waterboarding as a symbol of the worst excesses of the Bush administration's counterterrorism effort.

Unsurprisingly, when the briefings were made public, certain Democrats who were briefed denied that they understood what they had been told.

Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, who in 2002 was the ranking Democrat on the House committee, has said in public statements that she recalls being briefed on the methods, including waterboarding. She insists, however, that the lawmakers were told only that the C.I.A. believed the methods were legal — not that they were going to be used.

By contrast, the ranking Republican on the House committee at the time, Porter J. Goss of Florida, who later served as C.I.A. director, recalls a clear message that the methods would be used.

“We were briefed, and we certainly understood what C.I.A. was doing,” Mr. Goss said in an interview. “Not only was there no objection, there was actually concern about whether the agency was doing enough.”

Senator Bob Graham, Democrat of Florida, who was committee chairman in 2002, said in an interview that he did not recall ever being briefed on the methods, though government officials with access to records say all four committee leaders received multiple briefings.

How embarrassing to have their focus on politics over national security right out there where everybody could see it. 

It's not as if such posturing were really necessary.  In general Americans have been pretty evenly divided on the use torture to extract information from terror suspects.

On nine occasions since July 2004, the Pew Research Center has asked Americans about the "use of torture against suspected terrorists in order to gain important information." The results have been remarkably stable. In April, 49% of respondents said it was "often" or "sometimes" justified, and 47% said "rarely" or "never." Sixty-four percent of Republicans, 54% of independents and 36% of Democrats felt torture could be justified often or sometimes.

Other survey organizations also report an evenly divided public. In answer to an April ABC News/Washington Post ( WPO - news - people ) question, 49% of those polled said they supported Barack Obama's decision that his administration would not use torture, but 48% said there were cases in which the U.S. should consider using it against terrorism suspects.

In an April 2009 CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll, 50% of respondents said they approved of the Bush administration's decision to use "harsh interrogation procedures, including the procedures known as waterboarding," but almost as many, 46%, were opposed.

That may explain why lefty moral indignation doesn't get a lot of traction with the American people.  And it's getting less as we go along.

Candidate Barack Obama railed against Bush administration treatment of terrorist detainees, their incarceration at Guantanamo, and the military tribunals that would determine their guilt or innocense of terrorist crimes.  But when candidate Obama became President Obama, things changed. 

When it became his responsibility to weigh the moral issues against American lives, President Obama kept Guantanamo open.  He suspended plans to try the terrorists in civilian courts in lower Manhattan.  Military tribunals at Guantanamo are the order of the day.  Lefty pundits expressed outrage over those decisions.

Who knows if their outrage is real.  Even though they will not be held accountable if a bomb should go off in a crowded subway, it must occur to them that valuing the rights and well being of terrorists over the lives of fellow Americans, doesn't cast them in a particularly good light.  They have little choice but to double down on denial. 

Even in the hypothetical situation of a captured terrorist with information vital to preventing an imminent attack, there is only one answer for progressives.  Waterboarding doesn't work.  In spite of all of facts to the contrary, they must insist, waterboarding doesn't work.  There is no other choice.  The alternative is to admit that American lives are not nearly so important to progressives as their own moral vanity.

That's not something they have to admit it, though.  We already know it.

Comments

[John Quiggin]

Decidedly libertarian leanings! I think you mean shmibertarian. Feel free to credit Crooked Timber for this useful descriptor.

[John Quiggin]

As usual, Belle Waring is responsible

http://crookedtimber.org/2004/09/22/grilled-lobster-on-sugarcane/

[Tom Bowler]

Per Belle: [C]an we think of a new name for libertarians who think it’s a good idea to invade other countries and overthrow their governments, like maybe “shmibertarians”?

Libertarians come in all sorts of flavors, John. Noam Chomsky called himself a "socialist libertarian" at one time. Now there's a oxymoron if ever there was one. Others, like myself, don't see a problem with a more "aggressive" defense of liberty.

So I didn't have a problem with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, any more than I do with the overthrow of Gaddafi. Although I must admit, even at its bleakest, I was more confident in the ability of Bush to bring a functioning democracy to Iraq than I am of Obama's to do the same in Libya. The world is a better place when more people enjoy liberty.

I appreciate the comments, John.

[NewYork1]

I think the hypocrisy of the anti-war left, in addition to their emotive rather than reasoned "debate" leaves them without credibility on this matter.

But I cannot agree that there is unanimous agreement on the right about this.

There is a pretty big difference in stating that "information came from individuals who had been subjected to waterboarding" and claiming that waterboarding is what got the information.

Then, even if waterboarding is what did it, you have to take a leap of faith in stating that we would not have figured things out but for waterboarding. There is, after all, more than one way to skin a cat if you have to.

Then you've got the added problem of deciding if this is something we really want to use even if it has utility.

I have also noticed a theme among some in the Republican Party that is simply incompatible with Conservative or libertarian thought -- the notion that Democracy spreads liberty.

This is utterly false. The Founding Fathers, most notably in the Federalist Papers, made it quite clear that nothing good comes from Democracy, which is why they set up a Republic.

The notion that we have helped create Republics in the Middle East is highly dubious. Rather, we have pushed for Democracies in the Middle East. One such democracy brought us Hamas -- who mourned the death of Osama Bin Laden.

You will note that this analysis is quite different from that of the emotive anti-war left which champions the idea that the United States is a plunderer and George W. Bush is a war criminal.

[Tom Bowler]

[E]ven if waterboarding is what did it, you have to take a leap of faith in stating that we would not have figured things out but for waterboarding.

I think you have that one backwards, NY1. Whether or not we would not have gotten the same information from other sources remains open to question. Maybe we would, maybe we wouldn't. It's doesn't take faith to doubt that we would. The real leap of faith comes when you say that we would have gotten the information by other methods.

And another thing: I just don't get why people assume we didn't try the other methods.

None of which touches on the question of whether waterboarding is or is not torture. For reasons mentioned above, I say it's not, fully aware that I would undoubtedly fold like a cheap suitcase if I were ever to be subjected to it.

And I'll have to give some of them credit on the left. A few of them seem to recognize a moral inconsistency in those who would approve of a bullet through bin Laden's head, but who would condemn the act of pouring water on his face.

[NewYork1]

"Whether or not we would not have gotten the same information from other sources remains open to question."

As far as I can tell that is exactly what happened -- we got him by tried and true methods. There seems to be a desperate attempt to parse the language used by Panetta into an unfounded conclusion that waterboarding contributed to getting Bin Laden. I don't see it.

What I have seen for too long now is the ability of Bush cheerleaders to make things up.

As for the threshold issue "Is it Torture?", the SERE that you cite was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture.

Malcolm Nance, former head of the Navy’s Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape course (where sailors are trained in resisting interrogation techniques, including waterboarding), seems to know a thing or two about the topic. “I have personally led, witnessed and supervised waterboarding of hundreds of people.” He roundly denounces the use of waterboarding as wrong, ineffective, and counterproductive.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2007/10/waterboarding-is-torture-perio/

[Tom Bowler]

It's a persuasive article you point to at Small Wars Journal, but I'm not persuaded. Consider this statement:

What was not mentioned in most articles was that SERE was designed to show how an evil totalitarian, enemy would use torture at the slightest whim. If this is the case, then waterboarding is unquestionably being used as torture technique.

When the author says, "If this is the case..." I don't get the sense that he is saying that he was guilty of torture as a S.E.R.E instructor, but that waterboarding used on totalitarian whim is. We did not waterboard on a whim. I think that over the period of those eight years there were only three people subjected to it, and it was for an expressed purpose of getting information. Not for the pleasure of watching somebody's pain.

As far as I can tell that is exactly what happened -- we got him by tried and true methods. There seems to be a desperate attempt to parse the language used by Panetta into an unfounded conclusion that waterboarding contributed to getting Bin Laden. I don't see it.

It doesn't take any parsing to understand that Panetta could not truthfully say that waterboarding was not the source of some of the information on the courier. Washington Post reporters are hardly what you would call Bush cheerleaders or torture apologists, but they reported the evidence.