Fix the Field Manual

Every time we think we know how bad it was we learn it was worse. The newly released CIA interrogation instructions paint a graphic picture of what "enhanced" techniques looked like in practice -- naked, shivering prisoners wearing soiled diapers being slapped and slammed repeatedly into walls. And that's just the instructions. No wonder the CIA destroyed the interrogation videotapes.

The instructions demonstrate powerfully why President Obama and the Interrogation Task Force deserve high praise for making a decisive break with these sordid Bush Administration practices and concluding that there is no legitimate need for interrogation techniques that go outside of the US Army Field Manual on Interrogation.

The Field Manual bans a number of forms of torture, like waterboarding. But more importantly it permits only a set of specifically described, tried and true, non-abusive techniques. It contains these essential protections against torture:

• It's a single standard for the whole US Government.

• It effectively bans all techniques not specifically described and authorized.

• It's public.

The Field Manual contains one other critical protection -- the "Golden Rule." It tells interrogators to ask themselves, "Would I want this technique used on a captured American?" If not, don't use it. We owe a debt of gratitude to the mostly unheralded people who fought hard inside the Bush Administration and the military to preserve this and other core elements of the Field Manual.

But like so much else the Field Manual did not escape the Bush Administration unscathed. When the Administration revised the Manual in 2006 it deleted key policy statements. These included the observation, now endorsed by the Interrogation Task Force, that "[e]xperience shows that the use of prohibited techniques is not necessary to gain the cooperation of interrogation sources." The Bush Administration also deleted the important if obvious statement that torturing others may "place U.S. and allied personnel in enemy hands at a greater risk of abuse by their captors." These points should be restored.

More importantly, the Bush revisions created at least three critical problems which the Obama Administration must fix:

• The Manual now approves sleep deprivation. Appendix M of the Manual ("Restricted Interrogation Technique - Separation") unfortunately steps on the treacherous terrain of creating special rules for special prisoners, including sleep deprivation -- a clearly illegal technique. Appendix M needs to be immediately deleted.

• The Bush Administration deleted clear prohibitions against sleep deprivation and stress positions which the old Manual explicitly called "torture." That language should be restored.

• The revised 2006 Manual appears to have been carefully edited to avoid unequivocal condemnation of most of the "enhanced" interrogation techniques. They should be expressly prohibited.

Few people have focused on this last point. As is well known, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at the Bush Justice Department wrote several "torture memos" defending the legality of about a dozen abusive interrogation techniques. These included the "attention grasp," slamming prisoners into plywood walls, the "insult" and "belly" slaps, "cramped confinement," wall standing and other stress positions, water dousing and cold, sleep deprivation, nudity and waterboarding. All of the "enhanced" techniques are implicitly banned by the Field Manual because none of them are approved for use (with the important exception of sleep deprivation in Appendix M). But what is very striking about the revised 2006 Field Manual is that almost none of them are explicitly banned.

It strains credulity to think this was an accident. Language in the old Manual clearly banned wall standing and other stress positions. It was deleted. The old Manual called sleep deprivation "torture." That was deleted. Rather than banning the use of cold, the 2006 Manual only prohibits causing "hypothermia" consistent with OLC limits on using cold. The 2006 Manual prohibits "beatings ... or other forms of physical pain." But it doesn't flatly ban assaults, which is critical because the OLC memos argue at great length that the authorized physical assaults - slapping, grabbing, walling and others - were intended to cause shock and not "pain." The 2006 Manual does not ban using water or cramped confinement.

In fact, waterboarding and nudity are probably the only "enhanced" Bush Administration techniques that John Yoo, principle author of the Bush "torture memos," would concede are expressly banned by the 2006 Manual. But these are the proverbial exceptions that prove the rule. By 2006 both had already been abandoned by the Administration.

President Obama has taken a vital step. But he needs to immediately shore up the foundation of his new interrogation policy by fixing the Field Manual.

Comments

[Matthew Alexander - Huffpost Blogger]

One more point. This past summer I was on a speaking tour with Eric Maddox, the Army interrogator responsible for the capture of Saddam Hussein. Eric made a great point during one event when he said that if you use torture or abuse on detainees, the ones that turn out to be innocent are not going to willingly provide you information that you don't ask. And as he discovered, after he treated a detainee respectfully, the prisoner told him what questions he should be asking, which eventually helped him to track down Saddam. That is something you will never get out of torture.

[Matthew Alexander - Huffpost Blogger]

As a former senior military interrogator in Iraq, I agree with Mr Rickard's recommendations for fixing the Army Field Manual. He correctly points out that the Manual was made less restrictive and opens holes for possible torture and abuse. Three additional points to add:
1) The average age of an Army interrogator is in the low 20's. They are smart, hard-working, dedicated professionals, but in stressful combat environments it's extremely critical that they receive clear guidance. Loopholes in the Field Manual blur the terrain between what is legal and acceptable and torture and abuse.
2) This argument often focuses on whether or not an interrogation technique rises to the level of torture, but abuse (and/or cruelty) and humiliation are also banned per Geneva Conventions. Abusing detainees is also inconsistent with American principles and the values we hold in the military.
3) Neither torture nor abuse are the most effective or efficient interrogation methods. In my experience, even harsh techniques that I witnessed other interrogators use slowed down the process of convincing a detainee to cooperate. Repeatedly while debating this topic or listening to defenders of torture and abuse comment on interrogation techniques, I've heard the line, "How else are we going to coerce them into giving us information?" I believe Senator Lindsay Graham said this in Senate testimony that I attended. It is a fundamental misunderstanding to think that interrogations is about coercion. It is not. It is about cooperation.

[Kebric]

I'm not sure I understand the statement by you or Mr. Rickard that the 2006 FM is somehow less restrictive than previous versions. The current FM states that only the approach techniques list in the manual may be used thereby prohibiting the use of any others. Previous versions of the manual listed and described the approaches but did not state that only those could be used. This FM also imposed higher approval levels for a couple of approaches. The only manner in which it could be considered less restrictive is that it added 'separation' in appendix M and on the whole I'm not sure that's enough to claim the manual is now a less restrictive document.

Nor do I think the manual would have benefited from a laundry list of prohibited techniques as this would simply encourage those so inclined to find new and imaginative ways to violate the law or rename coercive techniques so that they would not be prohibited. Better to hold interrogators to a humane standard than a list I think.

To your last point that harsh techniques are often ineffective you'll get no argument from me, but I would encourage people to view their effectiveness as only a secondary point. Even if they were effective they are immoral.

[JBS]

Who would Jesus torture?

[COPerez]

When I went through SERE training (modified) during flight school and during my military law courses at West Point, it was stressed - over and over - that not only did we not torture because of our standing as a democratic country of laws, but because we did not want to appear to give credence to these techniques and to lessen our ability to protest such techniques if they were applied to our fellow soldiers and officers.

Every time I read about how this standard was destroyed by BushCo I remember the stories from veterans from Viet Nam and the look in thier eyes when they spoke of some of the horrors inflicted by the VC on their friends.

It's important that we not only "fix" the FM, but that we investigate and prosecute those who perpetrated these crimes. We must reclaim our place among the nations of law.

[dphilip]

The terrorist now respect us and are grateful for our change in policy and how considerate we are of them and will likely now cancel any plans they had to attack us again.

[CyrusBeaucephus]

Torture encourages terrorists--yes dphilip--there is an "s" in that word, and no--you are entirely wrong. Show me one shred of credible evidence that was obtained from torture. You can't. (just like you can't write)

[Kebric]

While I agree with the general sentiment that the Bush administration went beyond the pale in regards to their interrogation policies, its a little disingenuous to say the current field manual "approves sleep depravation". That is simply incorrect. Appendix M repeatedly tells interrogators they must adhere to humane standards and aside from the subject of the appendix itself, the separation technique, it authorizes no other 'special' techniques. The only mention of sleep is on the last page where it says the use of separation must not preclude the detainee getting 4 hours sleep a day. Now you might argue that detainees deserve more sleep than that, but like it or not there is a difference between setting a minimum standard of sleep and authorizing its depravation. This type of selective interpretation of the facts and parsing of the language is just the flip side of the kind of thinking that got us into this situation in the first place.

[srickard]

Kebric's post makes a number of fair points and I appreciate his overall repudiation of the Bush interrogation approach. I also agree that Appendix M contains some good admonitions about humane treatment.
But it is a fact that Appendix M sets a minimum standard of only 4 hours of sleep in every 24 hour period. That means that a detainee can be interrogated for 40 straight hours (start at 4 a.m. the first day and go until 8 p.m. on the second day), followed by an eight hour break and then another 40 hours of interrogation, et cetera. And I think that most people would agree that 40 straight hours of interrogation is sleep deprivation (the Supreme Court does) and that getting four hours of sleep a day for, say, 60 days would amount to severe sleep deprivation. The infamous "frequent flyer" sleep deprivation program at Guantanamo Bay involved repeatedly awakening and moving detainees for several days prior to interrogations in a manner that was almost certainly within the Appendix M limits.
By explicitly setting an illegally low requirement for providing detainees with sleep, Appendix M does permit sleep deprivation. The contrast to the old 1992 Manual is dramatic. This is what it said: "Examples of mental torture include: Mock executions. Abnormal sleep deprivation. Chemically induced psychosis.­" We should go back to the old standard.