Obama Says No to Torture; Interrogators Say Yes to Obama

Interrogators are lauding President Obama for signing an executive order that will shut down secret CIA prisons and place the use of coercive interrogation techniques completely off limits.

"[The order] closes an unconscionable period in our history, in which those who knew least, professed to know most about interrogations," said Joe Navarro, a former special agent and supervisor with the FBI.

"Some die-hards on the right -- who have never interrogated anyone -- are already arguing that forcing interrogations to be conducted within army field manual guidelines is a step backward and will result in 'coddling' dangerous terrorists," retired Colonel Stuart Herrington, who served for more than 30 years as a military intelligence officer, said soon after the order was signed. "This is a common, but uninformed view. Experienced, well-trained, professional interrogators know that interrogation is an art. It is a battle of wits, not muscle. It is a challenge that can be accomplished within the military guidelines without resorting to brutality."

The way interrogation works is largely misunderstood by the general public and some senior policy makers, according to Navarro, Herrington and other intelligence professionals.

"Interrogation is not like a faucet that you can turn on - and the harder you turn, the more information will pour out," explains Herrington, who conducted a classified review of detention and interrogation practices in Iraq for the U.S. Army.

* * * * * *

Getting a suspected terrorist to talk is much more subtle than what one typically sees in the movies or on TV. A new book, How to Break A Terrorist by Matthew Alexander (a pseudonym), provides an inside look at how interrogation can yield more information if it is done humanely.

Alexander developed the intelligence that led U.S. forces to al-Zarqawi, the former chief of Al Qaeda in Iraq. While some were using abusive techniques to try to crack detainees, Alexander used a smarter, more sophisticated approach. He learned what the detainees cared about and then used that information to get what he wanted.

For example, his first big break came when he interrogated a cleric who was an Al Qaeda operative. The cleric said he would like to "slit" Alexander's throat "and watch you die" when the interrogation began. Three days later he gave up critical info that led directly to Zarqawi.

What changed? Alexander learned, through patient questioning, that the detainee had joined Al Qaeda to keep his family safe. The cleric identified key Al Qaeda hiding places as soon as Alexander showed that he could -- and would -- protect the cleric's family.

Another recently published book, Mission: Black List #1 by Staff Sergeant Eric Maddox, shows how the author, an interrogator stationed in Tikrit, developed the intelligence that led to the capture of Saddam Hussein. Maddox was hunting one of the most wanted men in Iraq. Like Alexander he did not try to "break" detainees by beating them up; he talked to them.

Maddox was an information junkie who patiently interrogated hundreds of detainees and slowly pieced together a picture that led him to Saddam. He also intuitively understood that, if possible, you want the detainees to not only answer your questions, but also tell you which questions to ask. He induced a detainee who was a close friend (and former driver) of one of Saddam's closest confidants to join his "team." The former driver joined Maddox in interrogations. Detainees "broke" the moment that Maddox and the former driver started interrogating them.

As Maddox and Alexander have proved, these are the sorts of techniques that work in the interrogation booth. Professional interrogators believe that the president's action not only returned the U.S. to high ground, they refocused U.S. intelligence operations on techniques that are effective.

* * * * * *

"The quality and quantity of intelligence we can gather will now begin to increase," said Torin Nelson, an intelligence professional who served as an interrogator with the U.S. Army and private military contractors.

To illustrate how torture can lead to poor intelligence, Nelson cites the case of Al-Libi, a detainee who was tortured and, under duress, gave misinformation about a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. (Secretary Colin Powell quoted intelligence gained from Al-Libi as justification to go to war with Iraq.)

Nelson, president of the Society for Professional Human Intelligence, said that he hoped we could end debate about whether or not torture works and instead work on providing interrogators with the training and resources they need to do their jobs effectively.

"The challenge we face does not have to do with so-called 'enhanced interrogation techniques,' " said Nelson. "We don't want those. What we do need is to build a world-class interrogation corps. To do that, we need to pay more attention to recruiting, training, and managing interrogators. President Obama's executive order is an important first step but there is still more to do."

David Danzig directs the Primetime Torture Project at Human Rights First, a New York City-based international human rights organization.

Comments

[freddiefreeloader]

According to Seton hall law professor Mark Denbeaux and attorney Joshua Denbeaux, of the 517 detainees at Gitmo whose histories were reviewed, 55 % are not determinded not to have committed any hostile acts against the U.S., ONLY 8% were conciedered Al Qaeda fighters, only5% of the detainees were captured by the U.S. 86% were captured by Pakistan or Northern alliance. and handed over or sold to the U.S.
Winston Churchill said "nothing can be more abhorrant to democracy than to imprison a person or keep him in a prison because he is unpopular, this is really the test of civilization.

[Michale32086]

@pjburke

}}}}}
No one is talking about "terrorists" except you. The discussion is about detainees. Detainees do not become "terrorists" until and unless convicted of that criminal charge.
{{{{

Two ex-Guantanamo inmates appear in Al-Qaeda video
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hZfIcWnHqBz4kQR90lC_pXaHeW4Q

You were saying????

Michale...­..

[Forsetti]

Michale32086

What would you call someone or a group of people who use a tactic of intentionally bombing, killing and or maiming civilians in order to break the moral of the enemy, make its civilian population panic, and/or for no other reason than to "punish" the enemy? This sounds like terrorism. It also sounds like the US military practice of carpet bombing during WWII and especially Vietnam where this type of action took place with the use of Napalm.

I would guess that those who suffered from this practice would, and could reasonably, call us "terrorists". The intent was often no just to destroy enemies or military facilities but to demoralize the civilian population (more bombs were dropped on Tokyo during WWII than the entire European Theater of Operations) The reason we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was because the other larger cities in Japan were bombed to the point of almost annihilation. Would you claim that the bombs dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima were "terrorist acts"? I would say they completely fit any definition of 'terrorism'. Their entire objective was to demoralize the Japanese people, government and military. Now if you think that US officials and soldiers who participated in such activities were "terrorists" then they are not entitled to any human rights, according to your point of view. If they do have rights, why? it seems you would have to make the definition of "terrorist" relative, subjective. Which has been my point from the start.

[Michale32086]

I wanted to quickly address one point....

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were legitimate military targets..

One had the best deep water port in Japan and the other held a large iron factory that was critical to the war effort.. I can't recall which is which... But, regardless, infrastructure is a legitimate military target in times of war...

I'll go more in depth to your post when I get home...

Michale...­..

[Forsetti]

The port and iron factory might have been legitimate military targets but the know "collateral civilian damage" was not. The whole reason for using the atomic bombs was terror to make the Japanese surrender ASAP.

[Hasur]

WOW... your total disregard for human life and lame justifications are quite frightening. Close to 230,000 japanese died, the OVERWHELMING majority of the civiians and all you can come up with was an Iron factory and dep water port.

[Forsetti]

Here is a description of the criteria the Atom Bomb Target Committee used in determining the use of the weapon.

The goal of the weapon was to convince Japan to surrender unconditionally in accordance with the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. The Target Committee stated that "It was agreed that psychological factors in the target selection were of great importance. Two aspects of this are (1) obtaining the greatest psychological effect against Japan and (2) making the initial use sufficiently spectacular for the importance of the weapon to be internationally recognized when publicity on it is released.

I don't see anything about military targets or worrying about civilian deaths, etc. Sounds pretty "terroristic" to me.

[victoria38]

Terrorists deserve NO rights,..p­eriod..The­y are part and parcel of a group of "human beings" that plotted for years to fly planes into buildings killing 1000s of our fellow Americans.­.Their intent was to kill as many innocent, defenseless Americans as possible.

Those of you wanting to bestow our justice system upon them are simply wrong. You should think back to ther morning of 9/11/2001 and imagine yourself at the top of the WTC..knowi­ng full well that would be your last day on this earth...yo­u would never see your loved ones again..the­n to add to that agony, you were soon going to have to make the choice of letting the white hot flames eat your body, or jump out the window from 70 stories up, and hope that you died on the way down.

Give all of that some thought as you argue for civil rights for the same barbarians as the ones that planned those 9/11 attacks..I­f torturing someone would stop another 9/11, then I am one that would gladly pitch in to help...

[omaro]

The fear and loathing and anger inherent in your remarks are probably getting in the way of your logical thinking.: Just how does one identify a "terrorist" to begin with? Did you know that many of the people imprisoned at Guantanamo were identified as "terrorists" by tribal or personal or business rivals, simply so that they would be out of the competition (political, drug trafficking, romantic, whatever) at home. There was a lot of sense of urgency and confusion in the early days of this mess, but then it took a long time to gear up for interrogations--one of the many challenges was having enough capable interpreters.

Go back and re-read your remarks, especially that last paragraph. How is that different from what, for instance, the crowds ready to burn women as witches in the 17th Century would have said? We are ALL capable of becoming part of an angry mob, given the right circumstances, and of making mistakes, which is why we must try to live by the rule of law.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
Just how does one identify a "terrorist" to begin with?
{{{{

A terrorist is defined by their actions...

}}}}}
We are ALL capable of becoming part of an angry mob, given the right circumstances, and of making mistakes, which is why we must try to live by the rule of law.
{{{{{

I am incapable of becoming a terrorist.­.

Using your reasoning, "We are ALL capable of becoming a child molester" or "We are ALL capable of becoming a serial killer.."

Is that what you are trying to say???

Why is there this incessant desire to humanize terrorists?? Why do you and those like you want to understand someone who would just as soon slit your throat as look at you??

Can you explain that??

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@chaos4700

}}}}}
If you really want to see what Michale is about, you should check out this discussion.
That about sums up his position, by all accounts, and puts him into perspective.
{{{{{

WOW!!!

I have my own HuffPo publicist!! :D

How kewl is THAT!?? :D

Michale...­..

[Forsetti]

Michale32086

It seems your main bone of contention is that "terrorists are not deserving any basic human rights". If this is really your stance then there really is no discussion. To categorically dehumanize anyone, let alone a group of people, is in-and-of-itself wrong. Regardless of what they do, why they do it and who they do it to. We treat even our worst, most heinous criminals with a minimal amount of dignity and human rights.

There is a very good reason why the Bush administration turned Gitmo into a prison for "terrorist detainees". They didn't want to imprison them in Iraq for security reasons and they didn't want to put them in the U.S. because then they would of had to of been treated according to US law. The question is why were they so intent on avoiding US and International law? You only knowingly avoid the law when you know you are violating it.

We, as a nation, cannot take the moral high ground or claim any kind of superiority to any other nation or group if we participate in and condone the very behaviors of those we are fighting. Treating "terrorists" as non-humans is no different than their treatment of their victims.

[Michale32086]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point then..

Terrorists are not deserving of ANY respect whatsoever, human or otherwise.­.. By virtue of their actions, the only thing they deserve is a bullet in the head..

I would have more sorrow if I stepped on a cockroach than I would have if I executed a terrorist.­.

As I said, I guess we'll just have to disagree on that point.. I still respect your opinions, even if I don't agree with them..

Michale...­..

[kimleehan]

Definition of arrogant, having or displaying a since of overbearing self-worth or self importance, Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority towards others, contempt for the weak.

[Michale32086]

@Forsetti

By the bi, I loved the "Scrooge McDuck" reference. :D You just "date stamped" yourself, though.. :D

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}
I did have an objectively applied definition of 'terrorism'-the tactic of killing/ha­rming/maim­ing combatants­/non-comba­tants through indiscriminate attacks.
}}}}}

And that is a pretty good definition. But, like the definition based on "unlawful acts" it is subjective because of the term "indiscrim­inate"... Indiscriminate, like "unlawful" is a subjective term that relies on perspectiv­e...

}}}}
If you think there is a moral difference between indiscriminate bombing raids and a person detonating a backpack full of C4 in a market then there really isn't much I can say.
{{{{

Fair enough. But can you concede that what may LOOK like "indiscriminate" to the ignorant civilian on the street, is something completely different to the commander in the field?? Or detonating a backpack full of C4 in a weapons market is something completely different than detonating a backpack full of C4 in a produce market..

The devil is in the details...

That is why subjective terms such as indiscriminate to not fit well in the definition of terrorism.­. It's like telling a group of kids that they are all special...

"Lemme ask you something. If you are all Special Agents, doesn't that mean none of you are special?"
-Charlie Crews, LIFE

If everyone is special, then the term loses all meaning.

If you use subjective terms to define terrorism, then the definition becomes meaningless and is just another prejudicial slur that is tossed around on a whim...

Michale...­..

[Forsetti]

The very terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' are subjective. That is my very point. You cannot come up with objective definitions to subjective terms. It is kind of like defining the meaning of 'patriot'. It does depend on your point of view (subjective) on how you define such terms.

Your argument below about someone "targeting" a market versus the collateral damage done by an air raid is pretty sketchy. Just because you don't "intend" for civilians to be killed does not/should not absolve someone from legal or moral consequences. If someone puts poison in a batch of milk because they are angry with their local grocer and a couple of innocent children die can that person come back with the "I didn't intend for anyone innocent to die"? Intent is not something that is taken into account very often in such cases because it is impossible to prove. Outcomes and consequences are what really matter. I doubt the families of those killed in an air raid feel more understanding towards the people who killed their loved ones than those whose family members died in the market place bombing.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}
The very terms 'terrorist' and 'terrorism' are subjective.
{{{{{

Terrorism is NOT subjective­... That's my entire point... It can and MUST be defined objectively or it is meaningles­s...

It's like how when people throw around the term "Nazi" or "Fascist". Those terms have set, specific and objective definition­s.. But yet people like to throw those terms around at people that they just don't like..

Terrorism is the same way...

My definition is posted a lot.. I invite you to read it and see if it is not a purely objective and accurate definition of terrorism.

I also dispute your contention that intent cannot be proven and is not relevant..

If a white guy beats up a black man because the black man stole money from him, that is one crime.

If the white guy beats up the black man because of racism, it's an entirely different crime, because the INTENT was different.­..

Outcomes ARE relevant, but they are only part of what constitutes terrorism.­..

Michale...­.

[Michale32086]

@Forsetti

}}}}}
If you are sitting in a cafe in Jerusalem and a suicide bomb goes off it is terrorism. If you are a housewife in Gaza and your home is destroyed by Israeli fighters it is terrorism. The point is to demoralize your enemy and break their will to fight.
}}}}

Of course, the first one would be terrorism because the TARGET was the cafe in Jerusalem. Now, postulate a scenario where IDF forces had placed a command post or communications center in that cafe... Then that would not be terrorism because it's now a legitimate military target... The King David Hotel attack is a perfect example of this. What would normally be an act of terrorism (attacking a civilian hotel) was rendered a legitimate military attack because the British housed their Military HQ in the hotel.

The latter example would NOT be terrorism unless the housewife's home was the target and the intent was the demoralization of the enemy.. If the housewife's home was destroyed because a bomb went off target or because of bad intel, that wouldn't be terrorism.­.

Do you see the distinction??

CONT

[noratoo]

Closing Gitmo and black sites is a good start, but it is only a start.
The Detainee System itslf is a form of torture.
Holding prisoners WITHOUT CHARGES, INDEFINITELY, in an extra-legal limbo (save for the kangaroo court system Bush/Gonza­lez/Adding­ton or whoever dredged it up from the Inquisition) is IN ITSELF a form of psychological torture as defined in the Geneva Conventions!
No distinction as to seriousness is made between physical and psychological torture. They are equally unacceptable.
And that many detainees have been attempting to starve themselves to death in order to make the point and even escape the torture of never ending detention is proof that gets very little press.
Bush's Torture Machine could not exist without the Bush Detainee System.
I write this because it is sad that Americans still are sucked into the false debate (quite the debate of those awakening from a militarist/police state fog) about torture being a merely inefficient 'method of interrogation', when in reality it is a VERY efficient method of intimidation, framing scapegoats, and wresting total agreement from the tortured and general public alike. Americans have to move on and oppose torture because it is inhumane, cruel, disgusting and uncivilized, and not because maybe it fails to meet militarist, imperialist, or so-called defense-ag­ainst-terr­orism goals.
End the Bush Detainee System now. Until that happens, Bush's bogus 'War on Terror' will be a continued false justification for U.S. authoritarianism worldwide.

[Forsetti]

Michale32086

This whole "terrorism­-terrorist­" discussion started with the debate of our closing of Gitmo and ending torture as an interrogation technique. It really does not matter whether or not your enemy is a "terrorist", a mercenary, a soldier, etc. The moral, ethical, legal responses and actions towards them should be the same. Redefining someone as a "terrorist" does not somehow justify or rationalize putting aside rule-of-law or morality, regardless of what our enemy has done or plans to do.

I find it very interesting that the people who scream the loudest about the "Left" being moral relativists are the first to put aside codes of conduct. The only reason Gitmo has been an issue is because the Bush administration made the decision to "reclassify" people we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan as "terrorists" not enemy combatants. George Orwell would be in saddened awe at how the past administration manipulated language to rationalize their immoral actions. Regardless of what President Obama does/doesn't do this manipulation of language and its consequences by the Bushies is/was wrong, illegal and immoral on this and far too many issues.

It is now time for Forsetti to go to bed and have sweet liberal dreams of logic, humanity and unity.

[chaos4700]

If you really want to see what Michale is about, you should check out this discussion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/21/gaza-doctor-who-lost-daug_n_159760.html?show_comment_id=20028005#comment_20028005
That about sums up his position, by all accounts, and puts him into perspective.

[Michale32086]

My only position has been that terrorists are not deserving of any basic human rights.

In all other contexts, I am in perfect agreement with everything you say...

Thanx for a great discussion­... As you can tell by the other response you got, such interesting and mature discussions are rare around here...

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

CONT

}}}}
I would say one of the trademarks of terrorism is the indiscriminate killing of non-combatants (something the Colonials were not guilt of as to my knowledge).
}}}}

That's pretty good, but who determines "indiscriminate"?? Surely those who support HAMAS think that Israel was "indiscriminate" in the recent conflict.. But there only evidence is faulty assumption­s..

The definition of terrorism that I go by is objective.

"Terrorism is defined as ongoing and systematic attacks of violence specifically targeted against innocent civilian persons or property for the purpose of furthering a political, economical or ideological agenda."

I have used this definition for going on 4 years here on HP and it has yet to be refuted...

}}}}}
The mujahideen's tactics have not changed much since 1980, they still use IEDs, suicide bombers, etc.
{{{{{

My point was, was Bin Laden's mujaheddin targeting military targets or innocent non-combatant civilians??

If it was the former (which I believe it was), then it's not considered terrorism by the accepted definition­...

If it was the latter, then it would be terrorism.­..

Michale...­..

[Michale32086]

@Forsetti

}}}}}
Nothing justifies terrorism but one man's terrorism is another man's freedom fighter.
{{{{{

Sorry... You seem like a reasonable and rational person, but that is THE biggest pile of carps of ALL the pile of carps there are on the planet.

It goes back to that totally ridiculous notion that there is something noble about a terrorist.­. That a terrorist is actually interested in freedom..

A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist.­.

Terrorism has a set, definitive and objective definition. It's not a subjective term that can be twisted or "spun" to apply to whomever happens to piss someone off at any given moment...

}}}}}
The Colonists were deemed "terrorists" by the English
{{{{

And Ahmenjihadist thinks that Mickey Mouse is a terrorist.­. You prove my point for me. Anyone can label anyone else they don't like as a terrorist.­.

That doesn't make the label accurate, does it??

That is why the definition of terrorism must be objective and it must be APPLIED objectively. Or else it is meaningles­s...

CONT

[Forsetti]

I totally disagree with your Western view of "terrorism". If the goal is to do what is necessary to demoralize your enemy and strike fear into them then depending on what side of the fence you happen to be on will depend on you you deem as being a "terrorist". If you are sitting in a cafe in Jerusalem and a suicide bomb goes off it is terrorism. If you are a housewife in Gaza and your home is destroyed by Israeli fighters it is terrorism. The point is to demoralize your enemy and break their will to fight.

I did have an objectively applied definition of 'terrorism'-the tactic of killing/ha­rming/maim­ing combatants­/non-comba­tants through indiscriminate attacks. I highly doubt that Micky Mouse fits this definition (though I'm not too certain about Scrooge McDuck). What too many people are willing to do is apply the term to an "enemy" but the definition they use could easily apply to themselves. This isn't spin. This is hypocrisy. If you think there is a moral difference between indiscriminate bombing raids and a person detonating a backpack full of C4 in a market then there really isn't much I can say.

[Michale32086]

@pjburke

Actually you are correct.

I was mistaken.. Article 3 has no relevance at all..

It's Common Article 2 that terrorists do not have Geneva Convention protection­s...

Common Article 2

Article 2 specifies which parties are bound, and under what circumstances.

* That any armed conflict between two or more "High Contracting Parties" is covered;
* That it applies to occupations of a "High Contracting Party";
* That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Althou­gh one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

This is the important one...

"That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "

It's clear that Al Qaeda is a non-signatory of the Geneva Conventions and it's also very clear that AQ has not acted under the strictures of the Geneva Conventions.

Therefore, any member of Al Qaeda captured does not receive ANY Geneva Convention protection­s..

Michale...­..

[pjburke]

Michael:

"Article 3 has no relevance at all" ...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on all of this THREE YEARS AGO (Hamdan). The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit shot down the specious "not a signatory" argument FIVE YEARS AGO.

Per SupCt: Article 3 is controlling and dispositive re ALL detainees. Learn it, live it, love it.

"...terror­ists do not have Geneva Convention protection­s..."

No one is talking about "terrorists" except you. The discussion is about detainees. Detainees do not become "terrorists" until and unless convicted of that criminal charge.

You have no authority to convict anyone, yet you do so repeatedly in your comments. Very sloppy.

[Michale32086]

}}}}
Per SupCt: Article 3 is controlling and dispositive re ALL detainees. Learn it, live it, love it.
{{{{

As you note, I am talking terrorists, not detainees.­...

Glad you finally came around....

Michale...­.

[Penelope Lim]

You don't have to be an interrogation specialist to figure out that if you torture someone, he'll eventually tell you what he thinks you want to hear. He'll make up a story, any story, just to make it stop. So much for improved intelligence. The question of ethics is a separate one, but even the security argument for torture doesn't hold up. This one's a no-brainer.