Matthew Alexander2013-05-24T12:03:35-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/index.php?author=matthew-alexanderCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Matthew AlexanderGood old fashioned elbow grease.Interrogators Speak Out: America Is Morally Bipolartag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.14602222012-04-27T19:04:53-04:002012-06-27T05:12:02-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
We've heard from Marc Thiessen, the former Bush administration speech writer, who argued that torture was moral according to his Catholic values. And then Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA, who defended the use of so-called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and used his time at the agency to ensure there would be no accountability for torture. And there's been a host of media pundits in the pro-torture camp, such as Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.
And each year the anti-torture advocates offer up whom? Well, they offer up actual interrogators -- people who have successfully interrogated terrorists and criminals. Let's review who is in this camp:
• Eric Maddox, the Army interrogator who found Saddam Hussein (a remarkable story recounted in his bookSearching for Saddam) and has conducted over 3,000 interrogations;
• Jim Clemente, a former FBI serial profiler who was sent to assist interrogators at Guantanamo Bay, and is a first-class expert on criminal behavioral analysis;
• Steve Kleinman, a Colonel in the Reserves and career Air Force Intelligence Officer with vast knowledge on the science of interrogations as well as experience interrogating going back to the invasion of Panama;
• Torin Nelson, an Army civilian interrogator with tours in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Guantanamo Bay;
• Ali Soufan, the FBI agent who investigated the USS Cole bombing and successfully interrogated detainees, including Abu Zubaydah;
• Robert McFadden, a former NCIS agent who worked withSoufan;
• Mark Fallon, a former NCIS agent who ran the Criminal Investigative Task Force at Guantanamo Bay;
• Don Borelli, a former FBI agent;
• Stu Herrington, a retired Army Colonel and one the military's most respected intelligence officers who conducted numerous successful interrogations in Vietnam (see his book Stalking the Vietcong);
• Jack Cloonan, a former FBI agent and Al Qaeda investigator;
• Joe Navarro, a former FBI agent and expert on detecting deception;
The list goes on to include even more professionals with a tremendous amount of experience and knowledge about interrogations (just take a look at this video to see what professionals say: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cI7vPFA6reU&feature=youtu.be.
And so we embark on another round where those who endorse torture, the men who have never done an interrogation, say it works and the anti-torture advocates, like me, who have successfully interrogated numerous detainees, say it doesn't and/or it isn't worth the long term consequences.
Well, count me in another group that says I don't care if it works 100 percent of the time. Chemical weapons work 100 percent of the time and we don't use those, even though (as the torture advocates assert), they would save lives. Flamethrowers are another weapon that work very effectively and could save lives, especially when clearing houses with suicide bombers, but we don't use those either. Not because it wouldn't save lives, but because these weapons cause unnecessary human suffering and the international community, led by the U.S., decided that they weren't worth the moral cost.
The sad truth is that America is morally bipolar. The country that I signed up to defend with my life has become an endorser of torture, an evader of accountability, and a place where the rule of law is arbitrary, especially for government elites who craft torture programs. The accountability we preach to other countries that is so important for a just society is absent in our own when it comes to torture.
To reckon with this disgraceful era will require transparency, which is why I call on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to release the full version of its report on the handling of detainees and interrogation practices so that we can know the full truth about the torture that took place. Accountability starts with transparency.
America is a country I'm still proud of, that provided an enormous amount of leadership and resources to the Geneva Convention and the Convention Against Torture. What pseudo-patriots like Rodriguez want to tell us is that all that doesn't matter as long as we save lives. But what he fails to realize is that the very act of service means one is willing to give their life to protect our values. Our principles are worth that cost.]]>Rep. King: Meet Muslim-American Heroestag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.8326382011-03-08T14:42:09-05:002011-05-25T18:35:25-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
Representative Peter King began his hearings this week on the "radicalization" of America's Muslim communities.
I'd like Rep. King to have a talk with my interpreter who almost laid down his life for his adopted country. He is a Muslim-American. I was with him the day he almost died, and I can tell you that 99% of the Islamophobes out there wouldn't put their life on the line for this country like he did.
Meanwhile, Rep. King has the gall to say that they are not American when it comes to war.
I know what Muslim-American interpreters and soldiers are doing for their country -- some are now buried in Arlington National Cemetery. Representative King's words are an insult to those heroes.
The same day that my Muslim interpreter almost gave his life for the United States, I received a hate email saying all Muslims are terrorists. It literally turned my stomach.
We need to stop demonizing an entire community. This is simply not the way to fight terrorism. And it's not who we are, as Americans. We must be able to separate radical extremists, like members of the Al Qaeda cult, from moderate Muslims who share our same values.
It was not by alienating Muslims that my team got to al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq. And it was a Muslim-American interpreter who was by my side when we did
Discrimination is not the answer. Join me in urging our elected leaders to support tolerance, sound counterterrorism policy, and human rights: write your representatives urging they listen to the facts, not fear, in dealing with terrorism.
]]>Misplaced Justicetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.7730602010-10-24T18:59:54-04:002011-05-25T18:05:23-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
The America that I know, love, and served stands for the rule of law, justice, and our principles. It does not stand for revenge. Yet, there is only one conclusion in evaluating the U.S. government's actions in the case of Khadr, the first child soldier ever tried by a western nation for war crimes: America is motivated by vengeance. This is evidenced by the torture and abuse of Khadr in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay, including solitary confinement for extended periods of time and other abusive treatment such as the use of military working dogs to intimidate and threats of rape.
This is in contradiction to America's moral voice in the international community on the treatment of child soldiers. The United States is in violation of The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflict ("Optional Protocol"), which we ratified in 2002 and requires rehabilitation for child soldiers, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, international juvenile justice standards, and Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. It's inconsequential what acts Khadr committed as a child soldier. The United States government has decried as much in public in other cases of child soldiers. In a speech on September 16, 2010, Ambassador Susan E. Rice, U.S. Permanent Representative to the United Nations, at a Security Council debate on Somalia, stated:
The United States strongly condemns the use of children as well to pursue violent agendas. We call upon all parties to immediately release all children within their ranks, to halt child recruitment, and to provide for the proper reintegration into civilian life of former child soldiers.
Support for Khadr's trial is driven by a demand for justice for Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speers who died from a grenade explosion during Khadr's capture (it's not clear if Khadr threw the grenade due to conflicting witness statements). We should mourn the deaths of our brothers-in-arms, but justice for Speers will not come from the trial of a former child soldier. Justice is trial and punishment for those who trained him. If they are lawful enemy combatants in Afghanistan, then it would justify military action. Some justice was served on October 2, 2003, in South Warziristan, Pakistan, when Omar Khadr's father, Ahmed Said Khadr, an Al Qaeda supporter who was responsible for his son's militancy, was killed in a raid by Pakistani forces.
While leading interrogations in Iraq, I faced a similar situation when a known Al Qaeda operations officer who groomed suicide bombers was killed when those same suicide bombers detonated themselves during a raid of his home by my task force. His surviving orphaned sons were brought to our prison while we attempted to locate relatives. Instead of using abusive interrogation techniques, the boys were coddled and comforted, resulting in one of them providing a wealth of accurate and timely intelligence information. That information led to numerous successful missions against Al Qaeda's suicide bombing network. If Khadr had been treated similarly, who knows what information he may have provided based on knowledge of his father's activities. Instead, we're left with a stain on our American image as a country that tortures child soldiers and then prosecutes them. This is another tool in the box for Al Qaeda recruiters.
The case of Omar Khadr represents the continuation of Bush-era policies that run in complete contradiction to both our operational objectives in defeating Al Qaeda and in preserving our principles in the face of an enemy that calls us hypocrites. Our compassion for child soldiers should compel us to repatriate Omar Khadr to Canada. The man that trained him is dead and justice has been served. What's left to do now is rehabilitate, both ourselves and Khadr. It is time to release and repatriate him to Canada.
]]>Build the Mosque; Help Defeat al Qaedatag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6890862010-08-20T12:04:42-04:002011-05-25T17:25:21-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
But there is a much larger rationale for building a Muslim community center near the former site of the Twin Towers: It can be used as a weapon to defeat al Qaeda.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, our counterterrorism strategy has focused on stopping terrorist attacks. That's an important goal, but only part of the equation. A comprehensive strategy should include a greater focus on removing the root causes of terrorism. The only way to deliver a sustainable defeat to al Qaeda is to both destroy its leadership and cut off its ability to recruit.
Building a Muslim community center near the site of Ground Zero will bolster our ability to do the latter. Imagine an al Qaeda recruiter attempting to sway a potential charge by citing an imaginary American war against Muslims but having to face the counterargument that Americans built a Muslim community center near the site of the former Twin Towers.
The Cordoba House would be a powerful symbol of U.S. tolerance and freedom that will stand in direct contradiction to al Qaeda's narrative that Americans hate Muslims. As a symbol, its construction demonstrates that the U.S. is not at war with Islam and that Muslims are welcome in America. It communicates a message of moderation that stands in stark contrast to al Qaeda's bankrupt ideology.
As I discovered as a high-level interrogator of al Qaeda members in Iraq, symbols like this matter. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and the policy of torture and abuse handed al Qaeda its number one recruiting tool. Those who think al Qaeda will not be able to spin this controversy to their advantage are disastrously mistaken -- but it can be a victory for America as well.
The political uproar over the Cordoba project, and in particular the use of harmful, bigoted rhetoric by some opportunists, leaves America facing a choice. It can project one of two symbols: One of integration, acceptance and positive affirmation of American values; or one of intolerance, rejection, and animosity. The former will work to undermine al Qaeda as part of a long-term strategy to defeat them. The latter will bolster Islamic extremists' arguments that America is an intolerant country hell-bent on war with Islam, aid recruitment efforts and add support for more terrorist attacks.
The choice is obvious. Let's build the Cordoba House.
]]>The Cost of Torture on Returning Vetstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.6197342010-06-21T13:52:51-04:002011-05-25T16:50:20-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/The Untold War, about the effects on soldiers who do the right thing but still experience guilt. In light of former President Bush's admission that he ordered the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammad, and he'd do it again (which is an admission to authorizing a policy that cost us American lives by handing Al Qaeda its best recruiting tool), we should further examine the effects of this extremely ignorant and short-sighted decision. We're now beginning to see additional effects of this unlawful policy -- severe PTSD and suicides among those that were asked to torture and abuse detainees. Step in author Joshua Phillips and the men of Battalion 1-68.
Phillips investigated the case of one soldier, Adam Gray, who committed suicide because of the guilt he felt over torturing prisoners in Iraq. And what happens next you'll have to read None of Us Were Like This Before to believe because Gray's isn't the last suicide. Phillips continues to interact with Gray's former comrades to this day, and I can tell you from what he's related that the soldiers continue to battle with the mental scars of having tortured detainees. Those who authorized torture and defend it don't want to talk about this. They took honorable, patriotic young soldiers and convinced them to sacrifice the very principles that they had signed up to defend. That paradox is what Phillips investigates and brings to light. And he does it with the utmost respect for the soldiers.
Phillips is also, correctly, highly critical of two major failures of the military. The first is the failure of too many leaders to actively ensure that their soldiers treated detainees humanely. And, secondly, he points to the failure of military criminal investigators to pursue allegations of torture and abuse, which in effect was carte blanche approval for such unlawful activity. But mostly what makes None of Us Were Like This Before such an engaging read, and why there needs to be more attention on the issue of what happens to those who torture when they return, is that the stories are up close and personal. Phillips extensively interviews Gray's family members and other members of Gray's unit, and what emerges is a picture of the tremendous toll this policy has taken not just on the soldiers, but on our country. For those who thought that torture and abuse were isolated to Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan, and Iraq (not counting the CIA's black sites or extraordinary rendition), think again. It's coming home.
If the military is to make amends for this disastrous policy, one way to do so is to take care of the soldiers who are suffering from the effects of having implemented it. It's the least we owe them. ]]>The Untold War by Nancy Sherman: A Must Read for Vets and Those Who Support Themtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.5005302010-03-16T09:09:07-04:002011-05-25T15:50:25-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/The Untold Story: Inside the Hearts, Minds, and Souls of Our Soldiers. One cannot overstate the importance of this book in furthering the cause of veterans.
Sherman interviewed veterans to understand the inner moral dilemmas of war, not when they do the wrong things, but when accidents happen, nothing happens (to them), or they do the right things. It's a brilliant exploration of a soldier's soul.
In one chapter, the author investigates three types of guilt: accident guilt, luck guilt, and the guilt of collateral damage. Sherman is non-judgmental in her assessments of the veterans. The stories they tell are nothing less than heart-wrenching. If you're a vet, this book will send you back to the sandbox (or the Hindu Kush).
Sherman also examines the seamless transition from civilian to military life and vice-versa, concluding that neither is exclusive. There's a chapter in the book about the moral dilemma of non-coercive interrogations based on deception. It's a question I'm asked often in my own speeches. I came to a different conclusion than the interrogator Sherman interviewed, but she presents the subject matter to inform, not judge. And that gets to the soul of this book.
The most important contribution of The Untold War is that it is a window to a soldier's soul and an avenue to open discussion among vets and their families and friends about the weight of war. This is a must read for veterans and those who seek to understand them.
To read more, check out: nancysherman.com]]>Dark Daystag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4698982010-02-19T23:00:12-05:002011-05-25T15:35:18-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/report in the New York Times:
But David Margolis, a career lawyer at the Justice Department, rejected that conclusion in a report of his own released Friday. He said the ethics lawyers, in condemning the lawyers' actions, had given short shrift to the national climate of urgency in which Mr. Bybee and Mr. Yoo acted after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. "Among the difficulties in assessing these memos now over seven years after their issuance is that the context is lost," Mr. Margolis said.
What Margolis calls the 'national climate of urgency,' I call The Dark Days theory of leadership, and it has no shortage of supporters. From former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice:
Unless you were there in a position of responsibility after September 11th, you cannot possibly imagine the dilemmas that you faced in trying to protect Americans.
The current Director of National Intelligence, retired Admiral Dennis Blair, wrote in an internal memo regarding the torture and abuse of detainees:
Those methods, read on a bright, sunny, safe day in April 2009, appear graphic and disturbing. As the President has made clear, and as both CIA Director Panetta and I have stated, we will not use those techniques in the future. I like to think I would not have approved those methods in the past, but I do not fault those who made the decisions at the time, and I will absolutely defend those who carried out the interrogations within the orders they were given.
When I took the oath as a military officer, I don't remember any mention of sunny or dark days. I swore to support and defend the Constitution and to faithfully discharge my duties on all days. Isn't this the essential element of leadership? A ship doesn't need steering when the river is its steady guide.
Rudyard Kipling's magnanimous poem, If, begins,
If you can keep your head when all about you
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you
It is on the dark days that we look to our leaders for guidance, trusting in their ability to keep their emotions in check and make rational, informed decisions. General George C. Marshall, the orchestrator of the Allied victory in Europe during World War II, said,
Once an Army is involved in war, there is a beast in every fighting man which begins tugging at its chains...a good officer must learn early on how to keep the beast under control both in his men and in himself.
After 9/11, senior leaders in the previous Administration failed to keep that beast on its chains and their conduct rose to what Billy Mitchell called "...incompetence and criminal negligence." The torture and abuse of detainees was the result of professional misconduct that gave birth to war crimes. Those are the dark days.
]]>The FBI Is Getting it Righttag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2010:/theblog//3.4478372010-02-03T13:38:59-05:002011-05-25T15:25:21-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/clammed up or, worse, wasn't interrogated.
According to recent reporting from NPR's Dina Temple-Raston, FBI agents flew the would-be bomber's parents to the United States to speak with him. This is an effective, non-coercive interrogation technique used by every day detectives in the U.S., but also a legal, ethical approach found in the U.S. Army Field Manual for interrogations (in the Manual it's called "Love of Family").
Also, according to Temple-Raston:
One former official familiar with the case said he believes Abdulmutallab is talking because he wants to show that he fully intended to martyr himself on that Christmas Day flight and he is trying to convince authorities that the plan to do so was meticulous and well thought out.
This is another traditional interrogation technique that plays on a detainee's ego. In the Army Field Manual it's called "Pride and Ego Up (or Down)." I suspect that the interrogators are discussing with Abdulmutallab his failure to ignite the explosives in his underwear.
The FBI interrogators are also reportedly using rapport based-techniques to gain Abdulmutallab's trust. It is a time-tested method of interrogation that is quick, efficient, and in accordance with American values. Those who supported the torture and abuse of detainees, such as former CIA Director General Michael Hayden, continue to spread fear and false information about law enforcement techniques (Hayden, in his latest Washington Post Op-Ed states that Abdulmutallab exercised his right to remain silent; he did, temporarily, and then began cooperating again).
Just as Ali Soufan successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah after his capture, and my team found Abu Musab Al Zarqawi by getting one of his confidants to sell him out, non-coercive techniques have scored another win for those interrogators skilled enough to use them. It's time to silence the non-expert critics and start trusting those who are achieving success. ]]>Music Matterstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3316062009-10-23T11:48:41-04:002011-05-25T14:25:20-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/Murmur, Reckoning, Fables of the Reconstruction, and Life's Rich Pageant. And who can forget Pearl Jam's debut album Ten and Eddie Vedder's ominous vocals on hits like Jeremy and Alive? I have one particular memory, the first time I heard their follow-up hit Daughter on a raucous Friday night at the Officer's Club during pilot training. The acoustic intro is running through my head even now. And in 2006, I saw Michelle Branch perform live in concert after my return from Iraq. Her soulful performance was a welcome relief from the streets of war.
Music is perhaps the freest expression of art in an open society. In my travels to more than fifty countries, a sense of national pride has always emerged when I've witnessed the popularity of American culture abroad in the form of music. R.E.M. and Pearl Jam are reminders of the strength of America's right to free speech.
Music has long played a role in the culture of the American military. Who hasn't witnessed the depiction of U.S troops in Vietnam jamming to The Doors? When I was flying Special Operations helicopters our gunners blared AC/DC over the intercom system. Flying at night listening to the tolling bells intro to Hell's Bells would send shivers down our spines. In Iraq where I served as an interrogator, hip-hop and heavy metal could be heard throughout our compound. Hell, we had one entire server devoted to music that we could enjoy while we typed our intelligence reports. There's some type of unexplainable link between soldiers and music. In the midst of the violence and uncertainty of war, music brings us comfort. Music, is by nature, intended to bring pleasure.
That is why I'm appalled about the use of music as an instrument of torture and abuse inside American military prisons such as Guantanamo Bay. Sadistic people (I'm not sure how else to explain this behavior) blared loud music non-stop at detainees as a method of punishment and retribution. Some would argue that it's an enabler for interrogation, but I can tell you from experience that such tactics have just the opposite effect. Torture and abuse, in any form, only reaffirm in a prisoner's mind why they picked up arms in the first place.
This extreme tactic of torture and abuse is another of the antiquated methods of detainee operations and interrogations that were authorized and encouraged by the previous administration and that military leaders failed in their duty to prevent. The inhumane treatment of detainees in any form is a direct violation of U.S. law, military regulations, and the Uniformed Code of Military Justice (Article 97 prohibits Cruelty and Maltreatment in addition to Article 133 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and a Gentlemen). This type of behavior is completely contradictory to our military tradition of humane treatment of prisoners of war dating back to the American Revolution.
I stand together with artists (such as R.E.M., Pearl Jam, and Michelle Branch) who have objected to the use of the music as an instrument of torture and abuse. Music should be a sacred pleasure, not a manipulated art form used to imitate archaic medieval brutality. I'm proud of those artists who have taken a stand and support them and the call for the closing of the prison at Guantanamo Bay, which continues to be a symbol of lost American moral bearing -- place where unlawful detention and torture became everyday norms, carried out by members of the military whose duty it is to protect against such tyranny.
To join the effort to close Guantanamo Bay or learn more about the artists protesting the use of their music as an instrument of torture, visit the New Security Action blog at http://www.newsecurityaction.org/. ]]>The Next Generation of American Interrogatorstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.3151692009-10-09T10:24:45-04:002011-05-25T14:20:22-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
At one point during my discussion with the students, an instructor had a difference in opinion with me over the use of an interrogation approach from the Army Field Manual. He had significantly more experience. What ensued was a discussion that interrogators and their superiors should have had eight years ago -- what legal, non-coercive methods are best to use in different situations and how those approaches can be adapted or improved without violating U.S. or International Law. This is the American military tradition. When faced with adversity, we improvise. Within the rules.
When an infantry unit is unsuccessful in gaining a piece of ground, they don't return to their command and request flamethrowers or chemical weapons. Instead, they improvise and adapt. Flexibility is a significant advantage in battle. Although the flamethrowers and chemical weapons might be more effective, their use is both illegal and immoral. Interrogators do not get a special pass to break the law when they face adversity.
Some former administration officials who approved and authorized the torture and abuse of prisoners have attempted to shift the debate over the use of such illegal methods from what is moral to what is effective. They argue that if it stopped a terrorist attack against the U.S. and saved lives then it is acceptable. I highly doubt we would be making this same argument if we were discussing the battle that took place at the Karbala Pass during the second Gulf War if we had decided to use chemical weapons when faced with heavy resistance. Why then is the public accepting this same argument when it is applied to interrogations? I believe it stems from a misunderstanding of interrogations.
Interrogators are professionals and their techniques are not static. Interrogations is an art (and science) ripe for improvement. There are two areas in particular where interrogators would benefit from significant improvement. The first is in adapting non-coercive criminal interrogation techniques for use by intelligence interrogators. U.S. law enforcement holds a wealth of experience and knowledge of viable interrogation methods. The second area is the realm of cultural knowledge. Lawrence of Arabia understood this simple maxim of Sun Tzu -- "Know thyself, know they enemy, a thousand battles, a thousand victories." Colonial Britain learned this lesson a century and a half ago in present day Afghanistan during The Great Game. We would do well to learn from their mistakes and to steepen our learning curve with regards to Muslim, Afghan, and Arab culture.
I have met, supervised, and fought alongside superb interrogators throughout the Army and other services. It is a career field full of competent, capable professionals. The students I met at Fort Devens impressed me with their passion and intellect and I'm confident they will be superb interrogators. The instructors share their successes (and failures) with their students and pass on a tradition of honorable service from military interrogators going at least as far back as World War II -- men like Grant Hirobayashi and Sherwood Moran, who successfully interrogated Japanese prisoners in the Pacific, as well as the men who served at the secretive Fort Hunt in Northern Virginia interrogating Nazis.
Recently, the Presidential Task Force on Interrogations recommended:
...[T]hat a scientific research program for interrogation be established to study the comparative effectiveness of interrogation approaches and techniques, with the goal of identifying the existing techniques that are most effective and developing new lawful techniques to improve intelligence interrogations.
I am optimistic that we will see the necessary improvements to our interrogation programs come out of this scientific research program. Our country is depending on it.
Note: On October 13th, I will be reading at "Reckoning with Torture", an event sponsored by the ACLU & PEN American Center at The Great Hall at Cooper Union in New York City. Other readers include Don DeLillo, Paul Auster, Ishmael Beah, Susanna Moore, George Saunders, and Amrit Singh. More information at: http://www.pen.org/viewmedia.php/prmMID/3870/prmID/148]]>McCain Backs Torture as Recruiting Tool for Al Qaida; Policy Led to the Deaths of U.S. Soldiers in Iraqtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2731162009-08-31T16:04:28-04:002011-05-25T13:55:18-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/"I'm Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq", Nov '08) for the Washington Post over nine months ago stating that the U.S. policy of torture and abuse was Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and ultimately caused the deaths of hundreds, if not thousands, of American soldiers in Iraq, several critics have questioned the validity of my argument. I based my opinion on my personal experience in conducting and supervising over 1,300 interrogations and on statistics compiled by my Task Force and briefed to us by a DoD expert on foreign fighters in Iraq. I was not the first to make this argument about torture as a recruiting tool, but I was the first to say that the policy of torture and abuse was directly linked to U.S. deaths in Iraq. It's a hard pill to swallow, but true.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney called torture as a recruiting tool for Al Qaida a 'mantra' and stated that it was untrue. Wayne Simmons, a former CIA agent, called it 'preposterous' when I made this argument over the past weekend on Fox and Friends. Ann Coulter questioned it. Bill O'Reilly. Laura Ingraham. Brit Hume. And a host of others. Of course, none of the above mentioned individuals have interrogated an Al Qaida member, and with the exception of Wayne Simmons, worked as an intelligence officer or served in the military. So let's turn to individuals who have supported this argument.
This weekend on Face the Nation with Bob Schieffer, Senator John McCain had the following to say:
I think that these interrogations once publicized helped al Qaeda recruit. I got that from an al Qaeda operative in a prison camp in Iraq who told-- who told me that.
He goes on to say:
I was in -- Senator Lindsey Graham and I were in -- in Camp Bucca, the twenty-thousand-prisoner camp. We met with a former high-ranking member of al Qaeda. I said, "How did you succeed so well in Iraq after the initial invasions?" He said two things. One, the chaos that existed after the initial invasion, there was no order of any kind. Two, he said, Abu Ghraib pictures allowed me and helped me to recruit thousands of young men to our cause. Now that's al Qaeda.
Former General Counsel to the Navy Alberto Mora has stated this same conclusion in testimony to Congress more than a year ago. He said:
There are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq -- as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat -- are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo.
General Ray Odierno:
The graphic revelations of detainee abuse motivated some terrorists including foreign fighters from Syria, Yemen and Saudi Arabia to join the jihad.
General David Petraeus:
An influx of foreign fighters from outside Afghanistan and new recruits from within Afghan could materialize, as the new photos serve as potent recruiting material to attract new members to join the insurgency.
From the SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE INQUIRY INTO THE TREATMENT OF DETAINEES IN U.S. CUSTODY:
Treating detainees harshly only reinforces that distorted view, increases resistance to cooperation, and creates new enemies.
In addition, the following individuals have reached this same conclusion: Admiral Mike Mullen, (Ret) Admiral Dennis Blair (Director of National Intelligence), and Richard Clarke (former Chief of Counterterrorism).
Those who call this argument 'preposterous' or dismiss it as a political 'mantra' are living in denial. I believe, as a member of the Armed Forces, that I had an obligation to my fellow brothers and sisters in arms to not put their lives in jeopardy, yet senior civilian leaders in the former administration willing sacrificed American principles and caused the deaths of U.S. soldiers in Iraq. In addition, many senior military officers encouraged, authorized, and allowed torture and abuse to be used against prisoners and ultimately cost us the lives of our comrades.
I have been contacted by World War II veterans who were outraged that the former administration so easily dismissed the American principles that millions of veterans gave their lives to defend. They pointed out what I have said all along: we cannot become our enemy in trying to defeat him.
This is one reason why I support the call for an independent, non-partisan commission to investigate the past policy of torture and abuse. We owe it to the fallen.
]]>Interrogation Elitetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2677922009-08-24T23:25:33-04:002011-05-25T13:55:18-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
There are qualified, competent interrogators in all of our government agencies, so there is a large pool of skilled personnel from which to draw. The FBI, DEA, ICE, and numerous other government agencies, as well as the military services, have special agents and criminal investigators versed in interrogating criminal subjects, skills easily transferred to intelligence interrogations (especially since Al Qaida is organized more like a criminal enterprise versus a traditional rank and file army).
Ultimately, however, the success of an elite interrogation team will be dependent upon the leadership of the team, not who signs their paychecks, and leadership of the interrogation team will be as important as the actual interrogations. It involves prioritizing detainees and information requirements, matching interrogators to detainees, and advising on interrogation strategies. The bureaucratic hurdles that are sure to arise given the inevitable power struggles will make the leadership challenge difficult.
In addition to these pragmatic requirements, there is a need for ethical leadership. As a first line supervisor of interrogators, the leader of this elite team will have to make the hard calls on the permissibility of techniques. This individual should have the moral fortitude to determine when interrogation techniques are inconsistent with American principles and have the courage (and authority) to intervene when required. Strong, ethical leadership also provides a safeguard for preventing torture and abuse from occurring, especially considering that such crimes were illegal prior to 9/11, yet took place.
The United States military has vast experience in leading diverse teams, as other government agencies are normally included in its combat task forces. Yet, leadership is not qualified by one's parent organization, rather by the individual's unique ability. Whether or not the team succeeds or fails will be based on the individuals on the team and the quality of its leadership, not the power distribution.
The current Joint Terrorism Task Forces (JTTF's) are examples of interagency teams that have proven successful. These task forces are led by the FBI, but include members of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies. The success of a JTTF is highly dependent on the supervisor's ability to lead a diverse team of personnel with competing allegiances.
An elite interrogation unit is a step forward in preventing terrorist attacks only if the team is managed by a competent, extraordinary leader. The U.S. should focus on training and selecting competent interrogation team leaders to ensure the success of these future elite interrogation teams.
]]>How Obama's Speech Makes Us Safertag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2119082009-06-05T13:45:36-04:002011-05-25T13:25:21-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
While conducting interrogations of high-level Al Qaida leaders in Iraq, my team and I often sat down face-to-face with some of the most hardened terrorists -- the men behind the waves of suicide bombings. Instead of using waterboarding, we got to know our detainees and discovered that the key to securing cooperation starts with dialogue.
One of these men, a Sunni Imam caught red-handed blessing suicide bombers, went from telling me during our first meeting that "if he had a knife he would cut my throat" to cooperating in less than three days. Another man went from a high-ranking Al Qaida spiritual adviser to trusted informant.
Both detainee and interrogator have needs when they face each other in those cramped rooms. The interrogator needs intelligence information and the detainee needs knowledge about his predicament. That exchange of information in the interrogation room depends on cooperation, or negotiation. The process is expedited when we breakdown the misunderstandings between our cultures before we meet. Neither side benefits from stereotypes. It is only through cultural understanding that we can progress our conversations and find common ground to work together. The Anbar Awakening was the result of exactly this type of dialogue between company and field level Army and Marine commanders on the ground and Sunni tribal leaders.
President Obama's quoting of the Quran was monumentally important to dispelling the belief by some Muslims that Americans are prejudiced against Islam. I often brought my copy of the Quran into the interrogation room. It was the copy I have read and was given to me from a Saudi during a prior tour in the Middle East. By handling the Quran with respect and quoting from it, I was able to establish rapport very quickly with detainees. This was key to securing their cooperation and bringing them back from extremism to a middle ground where we could work together against Al Qaida.
In fact, it was exactly this type of approach that convinced a high-level Al Qaida spiritual advisor to sell out Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the notorious Jordanian terrorist and perhaps our biggest catch since 9/11.
This type of respect for Islam also undercuts Al Qaida's ability to recruit new fighters, also an important aspect of preventing future attacks. Dialogue and cultural understanding -- two important, effective tools for preventing terrorist attacks. The effects of the President's speech in Cairo will be measured in future American lives saved.
]]>Former Senior Interrogator in Iraq Dissects Cheney's Lies and Distortionstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2071512009-05-24T10:48:16-04:002011-05-25T13:25:21-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
First, VP Cheney said, "This recruitment-tool theory has become something of a mantra lately... it excuses the violent and blames America for the evil that others do." He further stated, "It is much closer to the truth that terrorists hate this country precisely because of the values we profess and seek to live by, not by some alleged failure to do so." That is simply untrue. Anyone who served in Iraq, and veterans on both sides of the aisle have made this argument, knows that the foreign fighters did not come to Iraq en masse until after the revelations of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. I heard this from captured foreign fighters day in and day out when I was supervising interrogations in Iraq. What the former vice president didn't say is the fact that the dislike of our policies in the Middle East were not enough to make thousands of Muslim men pick up arms against us before these revelations. Torture and abuse became Al Qaida's number one recruiting tool and cost us American lives.
Secondly, the former vice president, in saying that waterboarding is not torture, never mentions the fact that it was the United States and its Allies, during the Tokyo Trials, that helped convict a Japanese soldier for war crimes for waterboarding one of Jimmie Doolittle's Raiders. Have our morals and values changed in fifty years? He also did not mention that George Washington and Abraham Lincoln both prohibited their troops from torturing prisoners of war. Washington specifically used the term "injure" -- no mention of severe mental or physical pain.
Thirdly, the former vice president never mentioned the Senate testimony of Ali Soufan, the FBI interrogator who successfully interrogated Abu Zubaydah and learned the identity of Jose Padilla, the dirty bomber, and the fact that Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) was the mastermind behind 9/11. We'll never know what more we could have discovered from Abu Zubaydah had not CIA contractors taken over the interrogations and used waterboarding and other harsh techniques. Also, glaringly absent from the former vice president's speech was any mention of the fact that the former administration never brought Osama bin Laden to justice and that our best chance to locate him would have been through KSM or Abu Zubaydah had they not been waterboarded.
In addition, in his continued defense of harsh interrogation techniques (aka torture and abuse), VP Cheney forgets that harsh techniques have ensured that future detainees will be less likely to cooperate because they see us as hypocrites. They are less willing to trust us when we fail to live up to our principles. I experienced this firsthand in Iraq when interrogating high-ranking members of Al Qaida, some of whom decided to cooperate simply because I treated them with respect and civility.
The former vice president is confusing harshness with effectiveness. An effective interrogation is one that yields useful, accurate intelligence, not one that is harsh. It speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of interrogations, the goal of which is not to coerce information from a prisoner, but to convince a prisoner to cooperate.
Finally, the point that is most absent is that our greatest success in this conflict was achieved without torture or abuse. My interrogation team found Abu Musab Al Zarqawi, the former leader of Al Qaida in Iraq and murderer of tens of thousands. We did this using relationship-building approaches and non-coercive law enforcement techniques. These worked to great effect on the most hardened members of Al Qaida -- spiritual leaders who had been behind the waves of suicide bombers and, hence, the sectarian violence that swept across Iraq. We convinced them to cooperate by applying our intellect. In essence, we worked smarter, not harsher. ]]>If We're Going to Reveal More Memostag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2009:/theblog//3.2040342009-05-15T15:31:07-04:002011-05-25T13:20:20-04:00Matthew Alexanderhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/matthew-alexander/
After these revelations, Americans can judge whether or not a policy of torture and abuse kept us safe. Unfortunately, we'll never be able to evaluate the damage that was done to past or future interrogations. As I experienced firsthand, detainees were less likely to cooperate when they viewed us as hypocrites. We can't establish the trust that is required to convince a detainee to cooperate unless we live up to the principles that we preach.
I had one detainee in Iraq, a previous Al Qaida fighter, who provided me with all the information he knew willingly without me having to run an interrogation approach. He told me that Al Qaida had accused him of being a mole and tortured him before we rescued him. He then proceeded to say that the reason he was going to cooperate was because we didn't torture him and because of that, he knew everything that he'd been told about us by Al Qaida was wrong.
Before 9/11, the protection of American soldiers from terrorist attacks was a priority for our country. Consider our responses to the Beirut Bombing, Khobar Towers, and the USS Cole. When we talk about keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks, we need to include all Americans, especially those that serve in uniform.]]>