« The "She's Your Daughter" Primary | Main | Toward a Sustainable Defense Posture »

Sadism in, Garbage Out

06 Aug 2007 02:22 pm

You owe itself to read Jane Meyer's brilliant exposé of the systematic use of torture and detention without trial by the US government in full, but here's some key excerpts:

Gonzales informed Pearl that the Justice Department was about to announce some good news: a terrorist in U.S. custody—Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda leader who was the primary architect of the September 11th attacks—had confessed to killing her husband. [...] There were no named witnesses to his initial confession, and no solid information about what form of interrogation might have prodded him to talk, although reports had been published, in the Times and elsewhere, suggesting that C.I.A. officers had tortured him. At a hearing held at Guantánamo, Mohammed said that his testimony was freely given, but he also indicated that he had been abused by the C.I.A. (The Pentagon had classified as “top secret” a statement he had written detailing the alleged mistreatment.) And although Mohammed said that there were photographs confirming his guilt, U.S. authorities had found none.

A surprising number of people close to the case are dubious of Mohammed’s confession. [...] Asra Nomani [,] Special Agent Randall Bennett, the head of security for the U.S. consulate in Karachi when Pearl was killed [,] And Judea Pearl, Daniel’s father[.]

“K.S.M. is the poster boy for using tough but legal tactics. He’s the reason these techniques exist. You can save lives with the kind of information he could give up.” Yet Mohammed’s confessions may also have muddled some key investigations. [...] Colonel Dwight Sullivan, the top defense lawyer at the Pentagon’s Office of Military Commissions, which is expected eventually to try Mohammed for war crimes, called his serial confessions “a textbook example of why we shouldn’t allow coercive methods.”

The Phoenix Program, from the Vietnam War. Critics, including military historians, have described it as a program of state-sanctioned torture and murder. A Pentagon-contract study found that, between 1970 and 1971, ninety-seven per cent of the Vietcong targeted by the Phoenix Program were of negligible importance. But, after September 11th, some C.I.A. officials viewed the program as a useful model.

One psychologist advising on the treatment of Zubaydah, James Mitchell [...] Steve Kleinman, a reserve Air Force colonel and an experienced interrogator who has known Mitchell professionally for years, said that “learned helplessness was his whole paradigm.” Mitchell, he said, “draws a diagram showing what he says is the whole cycle. It starts with isolation. Then they eliminate the prisoners’ ability to forecast the future—when their next meal is, when they can go to the bathroom. It creates dread and dependency. It was the K.G.B. model. But the K.G.B. used it to get people who had turned against the state to confess falsely. The K.G.B. wasn’t after intelligence.”

“At every stage, there was a rigid attention to detail. Procedure was adhered to almost to the letter. There was top-down quality control, and such a set routine that you get to the point where you know what each detainee is going to say, because you’ve heard it before. It was almost automated. People were utterly dehumanized. People fell apart. It was the intentional and systematic infliction of great suffering masquerading as a legal process. It is just chilling.”

According to sources familiar with interrogation techniques, the hanging position is designed, in part, to prevent detainees from being able to sleep. [...] An American Bar Association report, published in 1930, which was cited in a later U.S. Supreme Court decision, said, “It has been known since 1500 at least that deprivation of sleep is the most effective torture and certain to produce any confession desired.”

“Waterboarding works,” the former officer said. “Drowning is a baseline fear. So is falling. People dream about it. It’s human nature. Suffocation is a very scary thing. When you’re waterboarded, you’re inverted, so it exacerbates the fear. It’s not painful, but it scares the shit out of you.” (The former officer was waterboarded himself in a training course.) Mohammed, he claimed, “didn’t resist. He sang right away. He cracked real quick.” He said, “A lot of them want to talk. Their egos are unimaginable. K.S.M. was just a little doughboy. He couldn’t stand toe to toe and fight it out.”

Ultimately, however, Mohammed claimed responsibility for so many crimes that his testimony became to seem inherently dubious. In addition to confessing to the Pearl murder, he said that he had hatched plans to assassinate President Clinton, President Carter, and Pope John Paul II. [...] [E]ven supporters, such as John Brennan, acknowledge that much of the information that coercion produces is unreliable. As he put it, “All these methods produced useful information, but there was also a lot that was bogus.” When pressed, one former top agency official estimated that “ninety per cent of the information was unreliable.

So in summary, what they've hit upon is a protocol based on the best practices developed by Soviet and medieval torturers alike to accomplish torture's traditional goal -- the extraction of false confessions -- and seem to have wound up with a bunch of false confessions. Which, of course, is precisely what you'd expect to wind up with if you thought for a minute about why governments have, historically, resorted to the systemic deployment of torture.

Share This

Comments (25)

The people who defend torture and hold themselves out as experts in extracting info from terrorists are the same dumbshits who let Ahmed Chalabi and his "informants" sucker us into Iraq.

But I can see how torture could be of value in some circumstances.

For example, we could hook Scooter Libby up to a polygraph machine and ask him to explain how intelligence was manipulated to draw us into an unnecessary war. And if the machine shows ole Scooter is lying to us, we could put the electrodes someplace else and turn up the voltage.

Next we could bring in Richard Perle. Of course, Richard would cave as soon as we told him his next meal would be delayed an hour or so -- and would be supplied by McDonalds.

After all, the Neocons have killed more Americans than Al Qaeda. Maybe it's time we took the gloves off.

For whatever reason this didn't get 1% of the play, but this Vanity Fair article on the psychologists who actually devised these protocols is an excellent complement to Mayer's piece:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707

Oh, you Bushites and your pre-911(AD) mindset.

Has he forgotten 9/11?

No, no, El Cid, as the cited ABA report explains, the effectiveness of slower methods of torture like sleep deprivation wasn't understood till around 1500. Bush is no Roman Emperor. He's more of a Louis XIV.

False confessions have always seemed to me like a really obvious way to effectively resist torture. (Much more so than the right wing's nice stories about Al Qaeda operatives who are trained to claim human rights abuse.) Like, say I'm being tortured by some evil overlord. I figure I'm not super-human and I'll crack eventually. But if I can just manage to fake-crack a few times first, I should be able to put out enough bullshit that that the bad guy can't rely on anything I might say. And I don't think think this insight is beyond your average Al Qaeda operative, even if it's beyond your average "serious" pundit...

Kalkin -

Why would you need to "fake-crack" more than once? I mean, hell, just spew whatever nonsense you think they want to hear and have it done with. Confess to being a witch, or tell them that there's an insidious plot to poison children's toys with lead paint or to put LSD in the DC drinking water. You've got nothing to lose, so tell them whatever you think they might want to hear - they'll either stop torturing you or kill you, and either way the torturing stops.

RE "False confessions have always seemed to me like a really obvious way to effectively resist torture."
------------

The Brits kinda wrote the book on terrorism ..er.. "freedom fighting" during World War II, with their Special Operations Executive.
They passed the lessons on to the US OSS --forerunner of the CIA.

They trained their officers extensively in false cover stories that would hold up to extensive investigation and were well-rehearsed. Ex: If you claim to be from a French town, then you need to know certain things about that town. Color of the post office, for example.

They hoped officers could hold out for at least a day or two so that the rest of the cell could flee.

One can use security checks -- e.g., every two days, an operative goes to a certain location and wipes his face with a hankerchief to signal to a secret watcher that he is still OK. If he doesn't show up -- or shows up and fails to give the signal -- then he is under control of the enemy.

Needless to say, you should always have someone overwatching a cell who is also totally unknown to members of the cell and whose only job is to watch. No only does that allow you to spot potential harm -- e.g, that one of the cell members is under hostile surveillance -- it also allows you to detect betrayals within the cell. I.e, if one of the cell members visits a hostile safe house periodically.

Plus there is compartmentation of information --you should only know what you need to know to do your job --so that if someone is captured, he can only tell a limited amount and plans can be more easily changed to avoid the damage from his capture.

However, torture can be used to induce fear. If you cause severe pain to someone -- and then threaten to repeat the experience if you catch him lying then you do pressure him to cooperate.
Sometimes the threat is enough.

If he is well-prepared with a cover story, however, then he may have the confidence to continue lying. Unless you convince him that you have a "lie detector" that can detect deception.

Whether or not the polygraph actually works is beside the point. You don't need to have a royal flush to win a poker hand -- you just need to make your opponent think that you do.

That is why the whole Bush meme that we got into Iraq on the basis of "bad intelligence" sounds like utter deceit. We should have polygraphed intel sources like Curveball -- and threatened to hand him over to Saddam if our bullshit detector picked up a whiff. Then kept saying "Our machine is showing us signs of deception. Are you SURE you've told us everything?"

Of course, the Chinese strategist Sun Tzu came up with even better variations about 2400 years ago.
The "doomed spy".

What you do is take one of your more mediocre or lazy spies and exposed him to FALSE information. Then allow him to be captured by the enemy. He gets tortured, gives them the info and viola.

What kind of information? Oh, that certain Neocons are actually working for Bin Laden.
Helps if you plant some physical evidence in their house etc.

Said Neocon will be interrogated as well , if you do your job well. Of course, he won't have any information to give up --only denials. Which will be unfortunate for him since it will seem that he is merely resisting.

These are techniques that were designed to get people to admit that they were witches. And they work!

I remain convinced that the reason why torturing terrorists is so popular isn't because people want to save lives but simply because they relish the idea of terrorists suffering at our hands.

Haven't these guys ever seen Reservoir Dogs?

"If you f---ing beat this prick long enough, he'll tell you he started the goddamn Chicago fire, now that does not necessarily make it f---ing so!"

--Nice Guy Eddie

Leties continue to be immersed in the "Hollywood version" of interrogation.

1. The lone hero (be it American, Islamist terrorist) is always smarter than his interrogators.

2. Interrogators are uniformly stupid sadists easily deceived - across all cultures and civilizations. Despite their high rank and selection from the cream of law enforcement or military, despite their use of psychological experts, they are always more stupid and less professional and cunning than the downed pilot/Jihadi with a Kent State engineering degree. They are easily fooled by cover stories and lies shouted out just to stop their sadistic tortures.

3. Interrogators then feed that false info to leaders as the truth with little care that their credibility and careers and lives of comrades ride on it.

4. Hollywood interrogation always happens to a solitary person with no way for to triangulate his punishment/reward incentives. No way to cross check his statements with others in his plot or cell now in captivity.

5. And in Hollywood, everyone "knows" the best way to get info from a dedicated to the death terrorist/enemy combatant is to respect his right to silence and the 5th Amendment and treat him real nice until he, on his ACLU lawyer's review if not endorsement, elects to blurt out the whole story as a reward for the enemy's frienship and being such nice guys to him.

Real world, now?

1. Interrogators individually, or as a group, tend to be smarter than captured enemy/terrorists who are likely LESS well-trained, less intelligent.

2. Interrogators operate in principle that several people involved, then isolated from one another can tell the truth consistently, but not lies. And cover stories when utilized may work for an individual, but smell when used by two or more people from the same details consistently used in the same wording.

3. Dedicated agents, allowed to remain silent and given all sorts of nice favors, tasty titbits - will remain silent and not switch sides because the enemy is so nice...

4. Communists and other practicioners of spycraft and terror estimate they have but one day, some say only 4 hours before captured agents crack under torture and reveal associates and targets. They know the realities better than Hollywood.

5. British, French, and North Vietnamese interrogators say "torture" and many coercive measures that did not rise to real torture, always got them to the truth. "All the POWs who resisted eventually yielded new information. The key is cross-checking enemy stories with other capturees, not catching them in contradictions. And, interrogators that were found to be fooled were demoted and replaced with better ones. We monitored our interrogators performance as closely as we did the enemy prisoners being queried.."

These are not great mysteries. Ask any experienced, good law eneforcement investigating detective (English common law) or investigating Magistrate, magistrate deputies (Napoleonic law). The real clash is with a faction of the public that roots for the freedom fighter against the Czars secret police, the clever serial killer to "outwit the cops" -sees them as underdogs that need "evening of the odds". And those in the public that seek to sharply reduce the "fighting chance" odds of criminals and terrorists against the sum of the Will of the People - the State they create 1st and foremost to give Security so THEIR liberties under assault by criminals and terrorists are protected.

RE Chris Ford's comment:
"Leties continue to be immersed in the "Hollywood version" of interrogation....[I.E, that ]

3. Interrogators then feed that false info to leaders as the truth with little care that their credibility and careers and lives of comrades ride on it."
---------

Er.. you mean like what happened with pre-war Iraq intelligence? Google "Curveball".

People with SCI clearances have to undergo periodic interrogations on the polygraph --with their jobs/livelihoods and freedom from jail at stake.

CIA officer Aldrich Ames underwent interrogation.

So how did that work out??

Re Chris Ford's comment : "North Vietnamese interrogators say "torture" and many coercive measures that did not rise to real torture, always got them to the truth. "All the POWs who resisted eventually yielded new information."
-----------
My deceased father-in-law was a soldier in Korea. His job was to infiltrate behind enemy lines in order to call artillery down upon them.
He was captured and a POW for several years.

He later rose to full-colonel and was manager of the program that developed the HellFire missile.

You can kiss my ass.

Now, guys, you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. Of course, you also can't throw eggs at a wall without breaking a few eggs either, which seems to be one of this administration's specialties.

One should also note that the militarily naive Lefties who flatly refused to allow military torture (despite the failure of the enemy to reciprocate) include George Washington and virtually the entire military staff of FDR; nor was it legalized in the Vietnam War. Tends not to pay off net, you know, given the resulting combination of piddling strategic benefits with massively increased and lasting hatred on the part of one's enemies. And when it comes to torture victims frequently feeding their interrogators false information that disastrously misleads the latter for a long time: do the name "Abu Zubaydah" ring a bell?

As for torture being occasionally, under some extremely rare circumstances, perhaps strategically justifiable: may one not point out that even then it's very unwise to let any single man -- no matter where he is in the chain of command, right up to the Oval Office itself -- choose by himself when it should and should not be allowed?

My deceased father-in-law was a soldier in Korea. His job was to infiltrate behind enemy lines in order to call artillery down upon them.
He was captured and a POW for several years.
He later rose to full-colonel and was manager of the program that developed the HellFire missile.
You can kiss my ass.
Posted by Don Williams

I guess you are into claiming patriotism by proxy of relatives.
I guess you think that somehow compensates for lacking any of your own.

*****************************

One should also note that the militarily naive Lefties who flatly refused to allow military torture (despite the failure of the enemy to reciprocate) include George Washington and virtually the entire military staff of FDR; nor was it legalized in the Vietnam War.

1. Washington was of the civilization that believed in a Code of Conduct - that the proper thing to do with spies and terorists was to hold military tribunals and public execution or execution in front of massed troops. Sometimes, his tribunals offered a quick death by firing squad rather than slow death by strangulation (5-10 minutes to death) that the Americans and Brits used as normal execution back then. (The quicker neck-breaking method was perfected by the Brits mid-19th Century).

2. FDR and Administration just handed the matter over to the military. Safe on the homefront from enemy aliens and unlawful combatants running free, it was up to the military to exploit captured soldiers for battlefield intel to save lives.
We know that the military set up a secret unit and prison in the UK to "break Nazis". Some of those interrogators, Jews who spoke fluent German, were interviewed and said that was quite effective in getting battlefield intelligence that saved American lives and "maybe hundreds of thousands, millions" still in Nazi camps by hastening the end of the War. The consensus was that a majority hated the Nazis or were convinced the war was lost and were easy to break, and the fanatic Nazi hardcases were "awesome in ability to resist" but almost all broke and gave useful info.
In the Pacific theater, military commanders tried both beating Jap prisoners to a pulp (kinder than the Japs were to their POWs) or "the nice treatment". A debate persists on which was more effective, but the "nice" treatment was far more effective later, than in earlier campaigns, once the Japs were convinced they were losing and only fighting for honor. One thing that helped was Americans promising Jap POW families in Japan would be "well-treated" when occupation started if the Jap POW talked.

3. The fact that coercive interrogations were not "legalized" in 'Nam does not mean that it was not widely practiced by us or by ARVN proxies. In the case of the Tet Offensive, the military strategic, but not willing MSM propaganda effort, was made into a debacle as so many were captured and in turn, squealed out whole networks of VC to experienced CIA, South Vietnamese, S Korean, Thai, and Aussie interrogators that it doubled NVA/Cong Tet losses.

FDR and Administration just handed the matter over to the military. Safe on the homefront from enemy aliens and unlawful combatants running free, it was up to the military to exploit captured soldiers for battlefield intel to save lives.
We know that the military set up a secret unit and prison in the UK to "break Nazis". Some of those interrogators, Jews who spoke fluent German, were interviewed and said that was quite effective in getting battlefield intelligence that saved American lives and "maybe hundreds of thousands, millions" still in Nazi camps by hastening the end of the War. The consensus was that a majority hated the Nazis or were convinced the war was lost and were easy to break, and the fanatic Nazi hardcases were "awesome in ability to resist" but almost all broke and gave useful info.

Why do you hate your country, Chris Ford?

None of this happened and your quote "saved American lives and "maybe hundreds of thousands, millions" still in Nazi camps by hastening the end of the War." proves it. The Soviets shut down the active death camps, all the UK and US troops found were a few abandoned camps where the sick and dying were left behind.

The U.S. hired Swiss observers to ensure German POW's got everything the Geneva conventions allow for.

So you told a pack of lies to try and splint your own amorality, cowardice, and evil backwards on to decent people who would find you disgusting

So you told a pack of lies to try and splint your own amorality, cowardice, and evil backwards on to decent people who would find you disgusting
Posted by Ed Marshall

Decent people revile traitors, Marshall.

So stop projecting the loathing you feel. Stop defending yourself and the lie your life is by calling smarter and better people than yourself "liars". Try being a man for once in your life, stop hating your country.

You appear clueless on the slave labor camps of France, Netherlands and Western Germany that US/UK forces liberated. Or that food had largely stopped coming to the camps, malnutrition and worsening conditions caused raging typhoid, cholera, and tuberculosis epidemics. Plus, outside the camps, those epidemics were hitting civilian towns hard. Even with our intelligence-aided invasion, that got us in and helping far faster than originally planned, one million people still died in our liberated area of Europe and immediately after the war.

The U.S. hired Swiss observers to ensure German POW's got everything the Geneva conventions allow for.

Not high-ranking Nazis and military officers we captured. Beginning in 1941 with the N Africa captures, they went right to an interrogation compound 25Km north of London where teams from the US and UK worked on them to get the intelligence we needed to save lives.. AFTER the Nazis talked, they were treated well as POWs. Beforehand? Coercion was used on hardcore Nazis....Existence of the compound was finally revealed in the 80s.


Re Chris Ford's comment "I guess you are into claiming patriotism by proxy of relatives.
I guess you think that somehow compensates for lacking any of your own."
------------
Somehow I don't think "patriotism" consists of claiming that all of our military men squealed to the North Koreans interrogators.

If you were not a wannabee, you would know that the Army is not run by morons -- it has something called OpSec. Which means that front line troops likely to be captured are not briefed on the Great Spring Offensive. The knowledge they have -- passwords to pass through the lines,etc -- is ephemeral and is changed frequently. Conversely, those with knowledge of plans are in the rear.

Giving up worthless info is of no consequence -- the Army says honor only demands resisting to the best of one's ability. And an interrogator has no way of knowing what valuable info you have if you do not volunteer it.

I personally think that "patriotism" consists of loyalty to the PEOPLE of this country -- not to whores of special interests who win elections with lies and big money.

I think someone who serves in the military deserves great respect. He should only be used in defense of THIS country. His life should not be thrown away in the service of special interests -- sucking up to Israeli billionaires by taking care of a threat to Israel while grabbing more oil deposits for Houston.

The most disgusting thing about the right wing Bush supporters is that they wave the flag while betraying this country.

If, perchance, anyone thinks Chris Ford knows what the fuck he is talking about, that person might read the recent Washington Post OpEd "War Crimes and the WHite HOuse" by P.X. Kelley.

P.X Kelley was appointed Commandant of the Marine Corps by Ronald Reagan.

See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501881.html

An extract:
"But we cannot in good conscience defend a decision that we believe has compromised our national honor and that may well promote the commission of war crimes by Americans and place at risk the welfare of captured American military forces for generations to come.
...
The Geneva Conventions provide important protections to our own military forces when we send them into harm's way. Our troops deserve those protections, and we betray their interests when we gratuitously "interpret" key provisions of the conventions in a manner likely to undermine their effectiveness.

Policymakers should also keep in mind that violations of Common Article 3 are "war crimes" for which everyone involved -- potentially up to and including the president of the United States -- may be tried in any of the other 193 countries that are parties to the conventions.

In a letter to President James Madison in March 1809, Jefferson observed: "It has a great effect on the opinion of our people and the world to have the moral right on our side." Our leaders must never lose sight of that wisdom."

I would love to see a single usable citation or even a Google-able proper name from "Chris Ford," if that is your real name, to support any of his fairly outlandish historical theories, above. I know I won't, though.

You owe itself to read Jane Meyer's brilliant exposé...

Is "you owe itself" a new, acceptable shorthand for "you owe it to yourself"? Maybe an apostrophe would be appropriate, if we're coining a new contraction. You owe it'self to make it clear that you understand what the words you're typing mean.

I mean, I don't want to be one of those naggers who harp on MY's grammar and syntax, and maybe I'm just being an annoying stickler, but this kind of thing still bugs me. I may be in a minority here, but I'd trust MY's political points if I weren't worried about whether or not he actually thought about what he was writing so much of the time. Maybe I just shouldn't be reading blogs.

I know I won't, though.

There isn't one or he's embarassed by whatever Action Comics #14 kind of cite it is.

American attrocities against Nazi's is a staple of holocaust deniers and I know what we did and didn't do, and Germans (unlike the Japanese) were universally treated deferentially as long as there were allied POW's. After the war was over it was a different matter, but if there was a shred of documentary (or even first hand anecdotal evidence)that contradicts the.

In World War II there was a big difference between an unlawful combatant (eg: spies) and POW's. If you were caught as a spy you could end up "interrogated" and then executed within a very short time period because you were classified by the Geneva convention as an unlawful combatant. But a POW would be provided with all of the Geneva protections to a greater or lesser degree.

So my question to all those who are outraged about interrogations of terrorists like KSM is - do you consider these terrorist suspects to be POW's or unlawful combatants? Because they really don't fit the classification of POW that the Geneva conventions use.

Re Mike's comment "If you were caught as a spy you could end up "interrogated" and then executed within a very short time period because you were classified by the Geneva convention as an unlawful combatant "
------------
Actually, the Brits gave German spies a choice : turn, become a double agent and broadcast false information to Germany. Or be executed.

Any citations on the torture claim? Because SOE officer Vera Atkins hunted down a number of Nazis after WWII who had tortured and killed female SOE agents and had those Nazis executed as war criminals by British Military Courts.

The Rules of War allow spies to be executed. I know of nothing that allows torture.


Comments closed August 20, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.