Given the length of this post, it’s strongly recommended that you print it for offline reading using the following link: Print This Post
A theory I will be exploring on this site is the idea that America, as a country, is going through an identity crisis. I’ll be fleshing things out in a series of articles on various events that I feel demonstrate a country groping with self identity, much like a young college student who has just realized that the world isn’t quite what he thought it was. And so we begin our long hard look in the mirror…
One of the schisms that has contributed to America’s identity crisis is the Global War on Terror, which was made possible by the post-9/11 mindset. Not since Pearl Harbor had America seen such an attack on the Homeland. Many Americans had come to believe that acts of terrorism were something that only happened in far away places like Beirut or Kenya. But after the attacks on the twin towers and the Pentagon, Americans were sharply reminded that the world is a dangerous place and there are people who wish us harm and have the ability to inflict it upon us. The shock and disbelieve quickly turned to anger and the need for retribution. People were starting to realize that terrorism was no longer something that could be dealt with through law enforcement means.
On September 16th, 2001, Dick Cheney indicated as much on NBC’s Meet The Press when he said
We have to work the dark side, if you will. Spend time in the shadows of the intelligence world. A lot of what needs to be done here will have to be done quietly, without any discussion …
One of the key divisive issues of the war is the issue of torture and specifically waterboarding. There are basically two camps to this fight; those who oppose harsh treatment of any kind, who believe any treatment contrary to the Geneva Conventions or the Army Field Manual is considered immoral. They believe that America should never stoop to the level of harsh treatment of prisoners, regardless of what information it may provide, as any information provided as a result of torture is unreliable. They also believe that by treating prisoners harshly, the U.S. loses the moral high-ground. The other camp believes that fighting terrorism is a dirty business and sometimes you have to get a little dirty yourself. They believe that if a terrorist has information that will help keep Americans safe, it is acceptable to utilize what they call enhanced interrogation techniques to gain access to this information.
The debate over torture spilled into the 2008 campaign cycle. The following two videos are indicative of the tone and verbiage that run fairly consistent whenever torture is discussed:
On January 22, 2009, President Obama signed two executive orders, one to review detention policies and the other to ensure lawful interrogation. This was a bold move, as many people believed that enhanced interrogation techniques (or torture, depending on your views) saved American lives.
In response, former Vice President Dick Cheney began speaking on various news programs claiming that by preventing the use of enhanced techniques, “you reduce the intelligence flow to the intelligence community upon which we based those policies that were so successful.” Mr. Cheney further argued that what occurred was legal and furthermore, honorable:
“I think it’s very, very important that we have a clear understanding that what happened here was an honorable approach to defending the nation, that there was nothing devious or deceitful or dishonest or illegal about what was done,”
On August 24th, 2009, the Justice Department released a redacted copy of a report by the C.I.A. Inspector General detailing the use of enhanced interrogation techniques. In the report, you can see the dilemma they faced. They clearly intended to save American lives but also felt they weren’t going to get the information they needed without stronger actions.
The capture and initial Agency interrogation of the first high value detainee, Abu Zubayadah, in March, 2002, presented the Agency with a significant dilemma. The Agency was under pressure to do everything possible to prevent further terrorist attacks. Senior Agency officials believe Abu Zubayadah was withholding information that could not be obtained through then-authorized interrogation techniques. Agency officials believed that a more robust approach was necessary to ellicit threat information from Abu Zubayada and possibly from other senior Al-Qaida high value detainees.
The report went on to note that there “were few instances of deviations from approved procedures [REDACTED] with one notable exception described in this Review.” Those two exceptions were cases of waterboarding that exceeded the approved use and frequency of waterboarding.
For me it is important to note that the Agency was working with the Department of Justice to obtain authorization for enhanced interrogation techniques and the Agency reacted to reported violations by providing “systemic, clear, and timely guidance to those involved in the CTC Detention and Interrogation Program.” They were actively taking steps to seek guidance as well as to correct mistakes, which they did not find to be systemic. This indicates to me an honest belief that what they were doing was approved by a higher legal authority (the Department of Justice) and the Agency wasn’t acting on its own or going rogue.
The report went on to indicate that they did indeed receive accurate and actionable intelligence that lead to the “identification and apprehension of other terrorists and warned of terrorist plots planned for the United States and around the world.” However, in Congressional testimony, Ali Soufan, someone with substantial experience “from going undercover as an al Qaeda operative, to unraveling terrorist cells, to tracking down the killers of the 17 U.S. sailors murdered in the USS Cole bombing” and one who was directly involved with the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah stated the following:
From my experience – and I speak as someone who has personally interrogated many terrorists and elicited important actionable intelligence– I strongly believe that it is a mistake to use what has become known as the “enhanced interrogation techniques,” a position shared by many professional operatives, including the C.I.A. officers who were present at the initial phases of the Abu Zubaydah interrogation.
These techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda. (This is aside from the important additional considerations that they are un-American and harmful to our reputation and cause.) (emphasis mine)
He went on to say the technique he deployed, called the Informed Interrogation Approach, was already producing a “steady stream” of actionable intelligence from Zubaydah. So why then did the C.I.A. pursue ‘enhanced’ techniques, which according to Soufan, shut down Zubaydah rather than coerce him to talk?
In response to the C.I.A. IG’s report, Attorney General Eric Holder appointed Assistant Deputy Attorney General John Durham to investigate alleged torture by C.I.A. interrogators in spite of the expressed intent of President Obama to avoid becoming involved in past controversy and to avoid damaging relations between the White House and the C.I.A.. This further illustrates the level of discord within the country and the government itself. It will be interesting to see if the investigations stop with the interrogators or continues up the chain of authorization.
After 9/11 it was easy for Americans to tacitly approve of taking the fight into the shadows. The visceral urge of those in power to stop at nothing to prevent further attacks and to protect American lives at all costs was undoubtedly difficult to resist. What couldn’t have been foreseen is the way the interrogation techniques would split the country between two conflicting philosophies; one steeped in moral values and the other ground in pragmatism.
Is America a country of high moral substance or one of raw strength of will?
Further reading
US Code, Title 18 > Part I > Chapter 113C > Section 2340 (Legal definition of torture)
C.I.A. Report on Interrogation Methods
Similar Posts:
- Interesting Reading; The Ongoing Interrogation Debate
- Book Review: Because It Is Wrong: Torture, Privacy and Presidential Power in the Age of Terror
- Supreme Court Agrees; Torture Is A Foreseeable Consequence
- Book Review: Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA’s Rendition Flights
- Collateral Damage In A War Of Choice