May 13, 2004
HARSHER, PLEASE:
Harsh C.I.A. Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogations: The C.I.A. has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda. (JAMES RISEN, DAVID JOHNSTON and NEIL A. LEWIS, 5/13/04, NY Times)
The Central Intelligence Agency has used coercive interrogation methods against a select group of high-level leaders and operatives of Al Qaeda that have produced growing concerns inside the agency about abuses, according to current and former counterterrorism officials.At least one agency employee has been disciplined for threatening a detainee with a gun during questioning, they said.
In the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, a high-level detainee who is believed to have helped plan the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, C.I.A. interrogators used graduated levels of force, including a technique known as "water boarding," in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown.
These techniques were authorized by a set of secret rules for the interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A. The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.
Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only be gleaned by extracting information from often uncooperative detainees. Interrogators were trying to find out whether there might be another attack planned against the United States.
So, last month's storyline was that the intelligence services didn't do enough to stop al Qaeda from launching 9-11. This month's is that they're doing too much to prevent the next one? Posted by Orrin Judd at May 13, 2004 9:55 AM
Those complaining are willing the end without willing the means. It's childish.
Posted by: Brandon at May 13, 2004 11:54 AMWell said, OJ.
Posted by: Paul Cella at May 13, 2004 1:29 PMNor do I understand the argument that we should abide by the Geneva Conventions to protect our captured troops, when in reality the enemy is clearly in violation and our troops (and civilians) are mistreated anyway.
I'm a Jacksonian on this: we start by abiding by the rules and presume the enemy will too; if not, then all bets are off, and bar-fight-rules (i.e., no rules at all) are in effect.
Posted by: jd watson at May 13, 2004 2:50 PMOJ, why are you seeking rational consistantcy from Democratic Party talking points?
As long as the major media never call them on it, whatever is uttered today only has a shelf life of as long as that message is deemed politically viable. Then it's on to the next quote, even if it's 360 degree's opposite yesterday's remarks.
Posted by: John at May 13, 2004 3:13 PMThe Chocolate ration of TWENTY GRAMS has been INCREASED to TEN GRAMS! LONG LIVE PRESIDENT KERRY!
Posted by: Ken at May 13, 2004 4:39 PMThe most disheartening thing I found in the article is the realization, apparent to the interrogators, that they're going to be scapegoated and sold down the river should Kerry win. Which means they're already modifying they're methods, which may very well mean they are being less effective. We Americans are indeed a strange people.
Posted by: brian at May 13, 2004 5:04 PMBian,
Strange? Some of us are suicidal. Party before country you know.
"I have found the enemy and it is [some of] us."
Posted by: genecis at May 13, 2004 9:37 PMJD,
You might like this:
Boalt Professor, John Yoo: A response to criminal action by individual soldiers should begin with the military justice system, rather than efforts to impose a one-size-fits-all policy to cover both Iraqi saboteurs and al Qaeda operatives. That is because the conflict with al Qaeda is not governed by the Geneva Conventions, which applies only to international conflicts between states that have signed them. Al Qaeda is not a nation-state, and its members--as they demonstrated so horrifically on Sept. 11, 2001--violate the very core principle of the laws of war by targeting innocent civilians for destruction. While Taliban fighters had an initial claim to protection under the Conventions (since Afghanistan signed the treaties), they lost POW status by failing to obey the standards of conduct for legal combatants: wearing uniforms, a responsible command structure, and obeying the laws of war.Posted by: Meaty Fly at June 2, 2004 7:08 PMAs a result, interrogations of detainees captured in the war on terrorism are not regulated under Geneva. This is not to condone torture, which is still prohibited by the Torture Convention and federal criminal law. Nonetheless, Congress's definition of torture in those laws--the infliction of severe mental or physical pain--leaves room for interrogation methods that go beyond polite conversation. Under the Geneva Convention, for example, a POW is required only to provide name, rank, and serial number and cannot receive any benefits for cooperating.
The reasons to deny Geneva status to terrorists extend beyond pure legal obligation. The primary enforcer of the laws of war has been reciprocal treatment: We obey the Geneva Conventions because our opponent does the same with American POWs. That is impossible with al Qaeda. It has never demonstrated any desire to provide humane treatment to captured Americans. If anything, the murders of Nicholas Berg and Daniel Pearl declare al Qaeda's intentions to kill even innocent civilian prisoners. Without territory, it does not even have the resources to provide detention facilities for prisoners, even if it were interested in holding captured POWs.