Condi unscripted
Condoleezza Rice answers some impromptu student questions on tape at a dorm talk on Tuesday (Roble).
The striking part for me, other than that she actually allowed herself to be taped, is her emphasis on the word legal when discussing what she will only call “enhanced interrogation.”
While I agree with her that after seeing people fall 80 stories, public sentiment demanded everything necessary to occur to prevent another attack, here again she bounds this claim with the word legal. Everything legal.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the biggest problem with all of the torture disclosures that what occurred happened illegally and secretly? Even when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, at least he was open about it…
Why isn’t there more outrage from conservatives about the giant increase in assumed executive powers that allowed such a subversion of Congress, international treaties, and the U.S. Constitution? I’m hearing too many people allegedly representative of the GOP (and who often label themselves as emblematic conservatives) defend these “enhanced interrogation” policies blindly. At what point does the fear of big government return? What happened to the party of individual liberty?
Please provide a list of interrogation techniques you would find acceptable.
Tristan, check out the Army field manual, yo. Cross-reference with the Geneva convention, you’ve got pretty good guidelines.
Or you could just check out what the US has traditionally claimed was torture when accusing other actors, including such things as:
Waterboarding
Withholding food and medical care
Threatening with dogs
Threatening with death / mock execution
I could go on. This shit is not rocket science– we wrote it all down sometime around WWII.
If it’s not rocket science, why can’t you give me a simple list of approved practices?
Tristan:
Whipple gave you a simple list by referring you to the Army Field Manual. You want the manual copy-pasted into the comments section?
Here, we’ll make this easy. See FM 2-22.3: Human Intelligence Collector Operations:
http://www.army.mil/institution/armypublicaffairs/pdf/fm2-22-3.pdf
The list you’re looking for can be found in Chapter 8: Approach Techniques and Termination Strategies (note that “termination” refers to ending the interrogation session, not “terminating” the detainee).
If you have time, you might also want to skim over Appendix A: Geneva Conventions.
When the President does it, that means it is not illegal.
Tristan:
In addition to the legal issues of enhanced interrogation, another crucial consideration is that it didn’t work. Under duress, captives say whatever they think the interrogator wants to hear. Did you see this piece by Ali Soufan, an FBI agent who participated in some of the Al-Qaeda interrogations? Here are a few quotes, but the whole thing is worth reading:
“One of the most striking parts of the memos is the false premises on which they are based. The first, dated August 2002, grants authorization to use harsh interrogation techniques on a high-ranking terrorist, Abu Zubaydah, on the grounds that previous methods hadn’t been working. The next three memos cite the successes of those methods as a justification for their continued use.
It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence…
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions — all of which are still classified. The short sightedness behind the use of these techniques ignored the unreliability of the methods, the nature of the threat, the mentality and modus operandi of the terrorists, and due process…
Fortunately for me, after I objected to the enhanced techniques, the message came through from Pat D’Amuro, an F.B.I. assistant director, that “we don’t do that,” and I was pulled out of the interrogations by the F.B.I. director, Robert Mueller (this was documented in the report released last year by the Justice Department’s inspector general).”
So, basically, if I’m reading this correctly, the only acceptable techniques are variations of talking to them in a businesslike manner.
Very interesting op-ed by the FBI agent, but those of us who have zero experience with or operational knowledge of interrogation should not make bold declarations about what does and does not work. That includes Wilkerson and Abbey — and most definitely Craft.
Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden unit, is on the record as saying that enhanced interrogation is indeed effective, so where does that leave us? Add to this the fact that the past four CIA directors — a bipartisan group stretching all the way back to the Clinton administration — opposed the release of the memos. Again, where does that leave us? I’m not sure, but certainly not at “it doesn’t work.”
Wait, so an FBI agent who participated in the actual interrogations, and said they got what they needed without waterboarding is not a credible source for a bold declaration? We are not allowed to read an eyewitness account and then repeat its conclusion because we weren’t there?
Does it even register as a possibility that the past four CIA directors may have opposed the release out of a desire to avoid exposing how far the U.S. strayed from its own laws and to protect their agents from prosecution, not because the methods worked?
I guess this is breaking that rule of not talking about anything you weren’t there to see, but how about the army psychiatrist assigned to Guantanamo:
“A large part of the time we were focused on trying to establish a link between Al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful… “The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link…there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce immediate results.”
Strangely, after enough waterboarding, people started admitting to the long-since debunked link. That is why it doesn’t work. And dozens of interrogation experts have written and testified as much. Does it really not bother you that we tortured people and allowed dozens of prisoners to die in our facilities?
I don’t see how the psychiatrist’s testimony has any bearing on this discussion. The topic at hand is the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation, not whether officials were frustrated at the lack of evidence indicating an al Qaeda-Iraq link. You cited an FBI agent who says it is ineffective. I cited a retired senior CIA officer who says it is effective. I then asked: Where does that leave us? Your retort is ask whether torture and death bother me. Reminds me of IHUM and PWR.
Reading in between the lines of Obama’s press conference yesterday, it seems clear our commander-in-chief knows the methods are effective — even if he believes they are wrong.
Basically her stance is that “No, we didn’t torture or do anything illegal because we changed the legal definition of what torture was.”
The end result is the same, you just obfuscated it with legal jargon. Condi, Condi, Condi. Frankly, you are unworthy of your PhD. It should be stripped from you with all the ceremony your betters can muster.
Tristan, as a big fan of Bellum I’m trying really hard to keep this civil. Before you launch more devastating IHUM comparisons, please keep that in mind. I respect your work there, and perhaps did not make the connections between my points clearly enough. Let me spell out the relevance of the psychiatrist and the “retort” to this discussion more explicitly.
Your question is that with the counterexample of a former CIA agent claiming “enhanced interrogation” is effective in response to an FBI agent claiming it isn’t, where does that leave us? I’d like to first note that this neutralization by counterexample presumption is less than convincing given that the FBI agent was the lead interrogator on some of the high value targets, and we don’t know where Scheuer was (he was a special advisor to the Bin Laden unit by then–so plausibly could have been involved, but knowing his penchant for publicity, if he was I bet he’d have said so by now).
Regardless, as you know, dozens of expert interrogators have written articles explaining why such measures do not result in reliable information, regardless of legal or moral ramifications. Again, you are just as capable as I am of procuring that list
(and as an aside I’d appreciate a link to the Scheur example)(found it above). Given Scheuer’s hypothetical of Bin Laden in custody dangling knowledge of a nuclear attack, yes, maybe you’d want to go after him regardless of the legal ramifications, but that doesn’t mean you change the law and do that to every prisoner every time.The Guantanamo example I cited above is an explicit example of why the methods are ineffective as a standard practice–Bin Laden doomsday examples aside. Waterboarding and slamming people into walls are effective ways of making people talk, it just turns out they’ll say anything to get it to stop. You want an Iraq–Al-Qaeda link? Sure, after getting waterboarded 20 or so times I’ll tell you all about it. This is what happened. Can I make this more clear? It paints a much more visceral, and frankly disheartening example of the methods’ effectiveness that goes beyond pitting one “expert” against another. I hope you don’t still think it’s a non-sequitur.
My “retort” of asking whether torture and death of prisoners in U.S. custody bothers you is the basic non-ideological question at stake, which, by the way you didn’t respond to. Does it? Have you read the ICRC report about Guantanamo? Where does that leave us? Oh well, sucks for the people who got “enhanced interrogation” and turned out to be innocent or had already spilled what they knew?
(Incidentally, shall we get into a semantic debate too, or can we agree with the army, Geneva conventions, Pol Pot, John McCain, and Obama last night that waterboarding is torture?)
As our mutual friend PC can explain to you offline, I think the semantics of the discussion are extremely important, under-appreciated, and far from suitably developed. The emphasis by the opposition on legalities of this or that cuts both ways: as in a legal case, we need to define our terms precisely, construct and dissect our arguments carefully, follow our logic through to the end, and contextualize everything. The presumption that we can know all the answers to the tough questions by sitting on Google and reading rags like the New York Times is a faulty one.
Last on this for the day:
Tristan I respect your agnosticism when it comes to pronouncing certainty on anything. I disagree with your disdain for the NYT because I see a value in newsgathering and don’t know who else will do it professionally if papers like the NYT go under, but hey, that’s life, and I know I won’t convert you tonight, if ever.
What I think is most frustrating though about this discussion thus far is your unwillingness to seriously engage on many of the points in question. If you’re up for something other than declaring the impossibility of certainty, please respond to some specific points. It’s not about declaring positivity; it’s about a thoughtful discussion:
1. (and for the third time) Eschewing all questions of legality, does it give you no pause that our country, which is supposed to be a shining example of democratic values and individual rights, used interrogation methods which it has condemned (and called torture) for decades? If this doesn’t bother you, why not?
2. You also never responded to the primary amoral critique of “enhanced interrogation” which is that it produces false information a la the spurious connections of Bin Laden to Iraq. Isn’t this a reason most other countries with advanced intelligence services don’t use waterboarding?
3. Assuming we decide such techniques are legal and effective, doesn’t the use of them increase the likelihood they’ll be use on our own troops by enemies? Isn’t avoiding that part of the reason we signed the Geneva conventions (along with the moral high ground we used to have)?
I don’t presume to have any, or all of the answers. But I value the search more than condemning the effort.
Michael, I think your concerns are real and substantial ones that remain very much in play. These are questions we have to (and do) reflect on nationally, and our answers to them as a society will no doubt shift and change as we move forward. There are clear indications already that the Obama administration is coming to different conclusions — conclusions which are on many levels probably better for the traditional image of the United States (at least in some circles); we can only hope that we do not arrive at worse national security outcomes and consequences.
I have never condemned the search for answers. I condemn a search for answers that presumes to know them already and I condemn a search for answers that lacks any degree of humility and respect for men and women who were forced to make tough calls to protect us — calls far tougher than the agonizing over class schedules that probably consumes most of Grimmlok’s day.
Your questions don’t get to what I consider to be the heart of the matter — and this is not a slam against you, but a critique of how the entire national debate has been framed. But I’ll answer them:
1. It bothers me whenever the United States says one thing and does another. Inconsistency bothers me in general.
2. I don’t know what techniques other countries use. I doubt you can find any reliable information about that on the Internet. Not everyone keeps as many memos around as we do. I have also never argued that water boarding is 100% effective. No technique in the Army Field Manual is 100% effective, but I certainly don’t think that talking to detainees should be banned on the grounds that spurious intelligence may be produced. Your mistake is to presume that perfect solutions exist in an imperfect world.
3. Yes, this is a real concern and goes to the first question you asked. We should remember, however, that Islamic terrorists certainly enjoyed beheading and mutilating our soldiers long before the water boarding became an issue.
And so we come to the heart of the matter. Set aside the Geneva Conventions and the laws and the norms and whatever else. Why is it immoral to pretend to drown a terrorist but not immoral to fire a missile at his truck and blow his legs off? Why is it alright to fire .50 caliber rounds at an enemy soldier 50 yards away, severing him in half, but not alright to slam him up against a wall?
Face it, kid. You got PWNED, and there’s no amount of Monday morning quarterbacking that will make it look like you won.
If I got verbally annihilated in public and on camera like you did, I’d curl up in a fetal position and not come out of my home for 6 months at least. You got DESTROYED by someone with 10 times the brain power than you or your blogger heroes ever will. Grow up.
“And so we come to the heart of the matter. Set aside the Geneva Conventions and the laws and the norms and whatever else. Why is it immoral to pretend to drown a terrorist but not immoral to fire a missile at his truck and blow his legs off? Why is it alright to fire .50 caliber rounds at an enemy soldier 50 yards away, severing him in half, but not alright to slam him up against a wall?”
In response to this, I think the bottom line here is that the only reason these people oppose any of this activity is that George Bush was the one behind them. If Al Gore had won in 2000, and done the exact same thing, none of this would even be questioned by the left. They’re intellectually dishonest. It’s as simple as that.
“At what point does the fear of big government return?”
From the looks of things, certainly not any time during the next 4 to 8 years. It’s continuing to expand, and being cheered on as it does.
As for your 3 questions, here are a few points I’ll offer for your consideration:
1. We’re far from a beacon of individual rights. We’re pretty high up there in terms of comparing us to other countries, yet given our history, a couldn’t call us a beacon with a straight face. Do we strive to be, would be a better statement. Sure we do, but we’re quite a long way from that point, and we’re still hitting a few pitfalls along the way. So no, it doesn’t bother me that when we were confronted with arguably the most catastrophic attack we’ve ever endured, we leaned on interrogation methods that we had been using for decades, in the hopes of gaining information for doing just that. I say this because with any luck at all, we can use this as a point to learn and move forward in how we deal with future situations.
2. I’m curious, as to what first-hand knowledge you have to be able to say that “most other countries with advanced intelligence services don’t use waterboarding”? Are you privy to the interrogation rooms of Russia, England, Germany, China, France, etc.? Do you have the luxury of being a fly on the wall when they’re interrogating individuals they deem as threats to their national security? Somehow, I don’t think you’re able to make such a claim.
3. Your statement here is akin to saying that using guns against the enemy increases the likelihood that they’ll use guns against our troops. Therefore, we shouldn’t use guns against the enemy. That’s a rather childish argument. Not to mention that soldiers undergo training in how to deal with interrogation techniques, should they be subject to them.
As for the Geneva Conventions, arguments can be made for or against whether these people fall under the provisions. Until a conclusion is reached as to their standing, it’s useless to bring it up in this discussion.
As a side note, I see Tristen had brought up the issue of beheading. I’d be interested to see a poll of US soldiers asking them which they would rather be on the receiving end of if captured by the enemy: waterboarding or beheading.
That made you look like a little girl. When she told you “do your homework,” I bet your tampon fell out.
Sissy boys like you make it so much easier for guys like me to take your women.
Opie and Anthony played this on XM Radio and everyone thought you got faced.
Take this as a lesson, chump. Now go play some ultimate Frisbee, smoke some pot, and chase some tail…that’s what college is for.
Frrrrrrunkis.
Seeing you get owned like that made me so hungry I ate 3 hoagies.
From Emmett Brown above:
“As for the Geneva Conventions, arguments can be made for or against whether these people fall under the provisions. Until a conclusion is reached as to their standing, it’s useless to bring it up in this discussion.”
This is a really worthwhile topic for discussion, and I hope you check out Daniel Slate’s recent post. The legal question of whether detainees are prisoners of war and subject to those provisions is truly up in the air. My question though, is if we decide they are not POW’s in the traditional sense, what governs what can be done to them? The Constitution? Anything?
Also, this may be a waste of time to clarify, but I was not the person asking questions. I don’t know who it was (yet) and while yes, Condi was kind of harsh at moments, I’m still glad someone had the nerve to attempt asking tough questions, homework or not. She’s a pro. As Secretary of State she had to take on well-researched aggressive questions all the time, so I don’t think it’s surprising that she largely stayed in control.
Reyna Garcia, who filmed the interaction, also deserves tons of credit. Regardless of how you come down on the topic, having candid footage of one of the key decision makers defending herself helps inform the debate.