Amazon.com Widgets

Friday, January 7, 2005

Excellent and lengthy report on the issue of torture in the War on Terror. Read it if you have the time.

The sub-text of the problem - the reason there never will be a resolution on this issue - is that what many of the critics won't come out and tell you is that the issue of "torture" is a just a pre-text, the sharp end of the wedge, against the War on Terror generally. They simply don't believe in it - whether in Iraq, Afghanistan or elsewhere. This is "The Bush Administration's War on Terror," after all, and not simply the "War on Terror" period. They don't believe in it, they don't believe in the USA's goals or methods and they'll do anything to make it more difficult for the US to pursue those goals. In their world, Jihadis are less dangerous than "Neocons." In the Left-wing (and even some of the Right-wing) fever swamps, all of the prisoners are being held unjustly - therefore subject to a kind of torture - since the conflict itself is unjust.

True of all critics of administration policy? No. It's right and understandable to be suspicious and worried about government power unleashed in secret. Sadly, though, so much of the information we receive in order to make our judgments and inform our worries is woefully agenda-driven or just naive and ill-informed. It's one thing to be a critical supporter of the effort, and quite another to be a critic simply hiding their true agenda - opposition to the effort itself, or using the WoT efforts as a wedge for domestic political gain. Read the piece for at least one sober examination of the issues.

City Journal: How to Interrogate Terrorists by Heather Mac Donald

...But the Kandahar prisoners were not playing by the army rule book. They divulged nothing. “Prisoners overcame the [traditional] model almost effortlessly,” writes Chris Mackey in The Interrogators, his gripping account of his interrogation service in Afghanistan. The prisoners confounded their captors “not with clever cover stories but with simple refusal to cooperate. They offered lame stories, pretended not to remember even the most basic of details, and then waited for consequences that never really came.”

Some of the al-Qaida fighters had received resistance training, which taught that Americans were strictly limited in how they could question prisoners. Failure to cooperate, the al-Qaida manuals revealed, carried no penalties and certainly no risk of torture—a sign, gloated the manuals, of American weakness.

Even if a prisoner had not previously studied American detention policies before arriving at Kandahar, he soon figured them out. “It became very clear very early on to the detainees that the Americans were just going to have them sit there,” recalls interrogator Joe Martin (a pseudonym). “They realized: ‘The Americans will give us our Holy Book, they’ll draw lines on the floor showing us where to pray, we’ll get three meals a day with fresh fruit, do Jazzercise with the guards, . . . we can wait them out.’ ”

Even more challenging was that these detainees bore little resemblance to traditional prisoners of war. The army’s interrogation manual presumed adversaries who were essentially the mirror image of their captors, motivated by emotions that all soldiers share. A senior intelligence official who debriefed prisoners in the 1989 U.S. operation in Panama contrasts the battlefield then and now: “There were no martyrs down there, believe me,” he chuckles. “The Panamanian forces were more understandable people for us. Interrogation was pretty straightforward: ‘Love of Family’ [an army-manual approach, promising, say, contact with wife or children in exchange for cooperation] or, ‘Here’s how you get out of here as fast as you can.’ ”

“Love of family” often had little purchase among the terrorists, however—as did love of life. “The jihadists would tell you, ‘I’ve divorced this life, I don’t care about my family,’ ” recalls an interrogator at Guantánamo. “You couldn’t shame them.” The fierce hatred that the captives bore their captors heightened their resistance. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan reported in January 2002 that prisoners in Kandahar would “shout epithets at their captors, including threats against the female relatives of the soldiers guarding them, knee marines in the groin, and say that they will escape and kill ‘more Americans and Jews.’ ” Such animosity continued in Guantánamo...

(Hat Tip: mal)

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Heather MacDonald: How to Interrogate Terrorists.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/3757

They strip him naked and sit him in a chair with his legs forced apart. They bring in a large Doberman pincher whose muzzle is placed inches from his genitals. They explain: “This is Herman. Herman is a very unusual dog. Read More

They strip him naked and sit him in a chair with his legs forced apart. They bring in a large Doberman pincher whose muzzle is placed inches from his genitals. They explain: “This is Herman. Herman is a very unusual dog. Read More

They strip him naked and sit him in a chair with his legs forced apart. They bring in a large Doberman pincher whose muzzle is placed inches from his genitals. They explain: “This is Herman. Herman is a very unusual dog. Read More

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

Search


Archives
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]