Cheney’s Memos
I confess that I have not seen the CIA memos referred to by Dick Cheney that he believes demonstrate that torture works, but have spoken to someone who claims to be familiar with the documents that the former VP is referring to. The memos were drafted for the White House to demonstrate the success of the enhanced interrogation program and were not intended to look at the downside of the procedure, which means they provide only a very selective and uncritical overview. They were written by the CIA staff tasked with carrying out the interrogations which inevitably had a vested interest in making the program appear to be both effective and legal. Other Agency components, including its Inspector General’s office, opposed the program for various reasons, including its failure to produce any genuine intelligence, so there was hardly any consensus even inside the CIA on the procedure and effectiveness.
The memos cite several leads developed from the interrogations which may or may not have led to the thwarting of terrorist plots, but they make no attempt to critique the interrogation process itself to determine if the information might have been obtained more conventionally. None of the interrogations of “high value suspects” related to a “smoking gun scenario” where a detainee knew details of an imminent terrorist attack, meaning that the waterboarding was carried out even when there was no pressing need to use that technique. The memos also did not address the issue of the numerous false leads and bogus information derived from confessions under torture that made the entire process questionable.
So, in sum, yet another example of Bush Administration stove-piping. No doubt its apologists will again assert “the CIA set up the President.”
The Bush Administration, Cheney and their supporters amply demonstrate that Americans have lost their sense of shame.
We get that you are rabidly LIBERAL, and rabidly “antiwar”, and rabidly “anti-torture”.
In the same way that PETA can’t tell the difference between cutting a virgin forest, and flying a plane into a buillding, you too, can’t tell the difference between what happened at ABU GRAIBE and the “torture” that Bush’s people were calling “harsh interrogation”.
You say, “They were written by the CIA staff tasked with carrying out the interrogations which inevitably had a vested interest in making the program appear to be both effective and legal.”
Well, YOUR agenda shows, too. You say, “None of the interrogations of ‘high value suspects’ related to a ‘smoking gun scenario’ where a detainee knew details of an imminent terrorist attack, meaning that the waterboarding was carried out even when there was no pressing need to use that technique.”
We assume that the whole business about a plane flying into a California building was not a threat, or was identified by friendly conversation, or simply didn’t happen, based on your comments.
You seem to know a great deal more about this than I do, but let me point out a complete NONSEQUITOR, where you should know better. The idea that a detainee would LIE LESS under friendly circumstances (to his enemy captors) is simply ridiculous. The cross-check and verification and interpolation is PRECISELY THE SAME whether or not harsh techniques were used. (YES, I agree that volunteered information is faster and cheaper, but your anti-BUSH buddies want to make us think that there were SEVERAL HUNDRED PEOPLE subjected to harsh interrogations and tortures, instead of DOZENS.)
The other area of dishonesty is the BLURRING of what is TORTURE. You don’t seem at pains to point out that there was a period where the International Red Cross was run by people who hated this country even more than you appear to. As they see themselves as the drivers behind the Geneva Conventions, they also think that TORTURE is whatever they say it is. And over the last 6 years, they have changed the wording of their definitions to specifically target BUSH and the US. Read their site, and they are genuinely thrilled that Obama has taken over (as we assume you were, at first, until you began to see that he lies to you as easily as to the rest of us.)
You and I both agree that “bad stuff” is “bad stuff”. But I am disappointed that you and your buddies demand international airing of any embarrassing information, but wish to hide any exculpatory memos, and work so hard to minimize their effectiveness before the court of world opinion, to fit YOUR agendas.
My opinion is that you are a true “hate America First” liberal, calling yourself a conservative, and seem unaware of the whole AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM thing. (But also, of course because of your military service, you have a RIGHT to any opinion you choose – as do I).
WRW – Let me point of some of the falsehoods that rabidly liberal “conservative pretenders” are guilty of.
You have successfully demonized a previous President of the US, to the point that you are incapable of assigning a PERCENTAGE to what was GOOD and what was BAD. Such people falsely claim objectivity, and a desire to “reach across the aisle”.
Your “sol alinsky” tactics, pervasive on the LEFT, simularly demonize anyone you disagree with. You falsely claim that anyone wishing to see both sides of this argument, must be PRO BUSH (implying that only the percentage that was BAD exists, and that your detractors must be in favor of the BAD STUFF – like war and dead babies and torture).
You see absolutely NO dissonance in that fact that “some CIA agents appear to have gone well beyond their mandate from BUSH”, and this seems well documented and easily available to Obama and to the public and to the international press, but, we can’t discuss except speculatively any successes the CIA may have had with the “torture”.
You have ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM with the dicotomy between saying we can’t release Cheny’s memos because of secuity concerns – they contain classified stuff – but, they must be of NO VALUE and we can confidently say THEY CONTAIN NO USEFUL INFORMATION.
If we don’t like PRESIDENTS who are liars and agenda driven, to the detriment of humanity and the US, then why don’t those standards apply to the rabidly-left activists?
I recently heard a good statement about why torture has endured into the modern age: “It’s easier to hit someone than to outsmart them.”
Can anyone point me to any information on why the myriad of pharmaceutical advances haven’t produced some sort of wonder drug that makes people talk? I’ve heard of sodium pentothal, but with a billion dollar drug industry that gets a lot of government funding research, there has to be something that works better than a rubber hose and doesn’t leave any scars.
Yawwn. TomT back again with his strawmen in tow happily taking up the Bush apologist line. The phony line of assigning a percentage of good and bad, while not doing so himself is quite amusing. The predictable claim that the CIA is rogue from the directions of Bush, just as it was predictable that contractors hired by the CIA would “exceed” the President’s “directions.”
The ALL CAPS don’t help either. Cheney, et al, are dead men walking and doubtless hoping for another terror attack to vindicate them.
Wake me when you’re done.
Jack – in college, after I got out of the military (late 60′s), in the psychology class, the teacher sarcastically told us about the standard things that psychology students do to the teacher.
Seems that a standard joke used to be, that the students would “unk” (drop their heads and stare down at the desk), then look up and stare at the teacher for the number of seconds equal to the number of feet the teacher is standing from the “from spot”. Then “unk” for an equivalent number of seconds. The closer to the “destination spot”, the more he had everyone’s attention.
The teacher claimed he had “fallen for it” one time, and it had taken the class about 40 minutes to unknowingly “train” him to stand on a certain spot, for the remainder of the class (about 15 minutes). At the end of the class, he said, everyone stood and clapped, then they explained the joke to him.
We had sat around (the “coffeshop”, maybe smoking or something), and discussed whether or not it would be possible to put a computer in charge of something benign, like “white noise”, and use it to make captured soldiers “more talkative”. That is, beautiful music is clear and pleasant, but is interrupted by varying levels of white noise unless there is the desired behavior (we were studying SKINNER at the time).
We figured the best you could hope for is to get them to “talk more” (computers did not do speech recognition at the time), and then let a human operator take over.
But the ICRC (Intl Red Cross) is way ahead of us, and this too has been classified as “torture”, as is also the drug thing you mentioned. (Go to their website, and read the text of some of their “Geneva” Conventions). They are dead-serious about handicapping “developed countries” in any conflict.
Jack Tracey — I believe the quote is from Ali Soufan.
Also, IINM interrogators have used drugs such as marijuana, MDMA, and similar less-than-harsh drugs to encourage people to talk. I’m not sure what the legality of that is.
I read through (most of) the convention language. It doesn’t mention drugs. (I also searched an electronic copy.) It talks about mental pain and suffering and “…cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment…” So, I guess if you’re just getting someone wasted– and they feel great– there’s no harm done. I know I’ve divulged information under the influence. The best part is that I didn’t remember doing it, so I didn’t know that the secret had been compromised until much later. I bet those terrorists can’t hold their drink, but they could probably smoke Tommy Chong under the table. My prescription: bourbon and ginger. If it became known that they were drinking like alcoholics to prepare for interrogation – bang, there goes their cred with the faithful.
I think you’re right about Ali Soufan.
Also: WRT the original post, in Cheney’s case I don’t think you can really rule out the possibility that he’s just lying. As in, knowingly and deliberately lying.
Sometimes the simplest explanation turns out to be so.
Important to remember that there were several “conventions”, as well as what the ICRC considers the “generally accepted International Humanitarian Law” that they claim binds the signers of any of the conventions.
Nearly all “conventions” mentioned “medical experiments” as prohibited. It is unclear whether “mechanical and computerized” methods of unconscious behavior modification would be included.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/612?OpenDocument
Rule 92. Mutilation, medical or scientific experiments or any other medical procedure not indicated by the state of health of the person concerned and not consistent with generally accepted medical standards are prohibited. [IAC/NIAC]
Rule 153. Commanders and other superiors are criminally responsible for war crimes committed by their subordinates if they knew, or had reason to know, that the subordinates were about to commit or were committing such crimes and did not take all necessary and reasonable measures in their power to prevent their commission, or if such crimes had been committed, to punish the persons responsible. [IAC/NIAC]
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/375?OpenDocument
No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.
http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/475-760015?OpenDocument
4695 Amongst the cases of being compelled to perform acts which were most often raised during the discussions in Committee, mention should be made of administering drugs to prisoners in order to modify their behaviour and obtain information; one delegation even wanted this to be explicitly prohibited and submitted an amendment to that effect. (14) Medical experiments are another example.