Ensuring Lawful Interrogations
January 24th, 2009 by Admin
I need to reiterate something here because this is going to be a touchy subject. In accordance with AR 360-1, the opinions expressed on A Soldier's Perspective are those of the individual writer and do not reflect the official positions or policies of the Department of Defense, the United States Army, or the United States Government." Theses views are based upon personal experiences, research on the facts, and analysis. This blog is maintained as a citizen of the United States and NOT as a US Soldier. Though the author may be a Soldier, in no way, shape, or form am I writing in that capacity. I write this post on my personal time, using my personal computer, and my personal funds and do so under the guarantees of the United States Constitution, Amendment 1.
Now let's move along to the issue of interrogations and the recent decision regarding interrogations by President Barack Obama.
Much has been made of the fact that President Obama recently signed an Executive Order banning any interrogation methods not expressly covered in FM 2-22.3, Human Intelligence Collector Operations. I will NOT be linking to this regulation, nor will I specifically discuss what is in it. The Executive Branch of our government has already given the enemy enough notice and insight that I do not need to help it along. The following is a hypothetical situation.
In just a few weeks, the United States will experience our annual ritual called the Super Bowl. The teams this year are the Arizona Cardinals versus the Pittsburgh Steelers (I'm rooting for the Cardinals, by the way). It's probably no secret that the Steelers are highly favored to win. They are a superior team. They have a spectacular offense and defense. The NFL Commissioner recently decided that the Steelers were simply TOO good. They use plays that the Cardinals don't even know about. They are highly complex and successful.
To ensure that the odds are evened out a bit, the Commissioner decided the Steelers can only play in the Super Bowl if they use the Cardinals' playbook. Any plays that are not contained within the Cardinals playbook are strictly forbidden. The Steelers are to IMMEDIATELY cease any and all training on all strategies they have successfully used to get to the Super Bowl.
On top of this, if the Steelers wish to use 2 or 3 specific plays in the playbook, the Steelers must request approval from the Commissioner prior to using them. Some of their plays are simply too sneaky and the Steelers can't be trusted to use them unless it can be assured they truly need them to win. The Cardinals may continue to play as they always have and use whatever tricks and options they choose in addition to the standard plays the Steelers are restricted to.
Under these circumstances, what do you think the outcome of the Super Bowl is going to be? Ladies and gentlemen, we're playing the Super Bowl EVERY DAY in this country. Only we're not looking to catch a football down the sidelines or prevent the other team from putting points on the board. We're playing for our very lives. A touchdown by the other team results in dead Soldiers, Civilians, and poor, helpless puppies and sea kittens.
In establishing his new interrogation playbook, President Obama revoked the previous playbook initiated by the Bush Administration. Now you tell me, does the following sound reasonable to anyone here?
1. Torture is prohibited as defined in section 2340 of title 18, United States Code.
2. Murder, torture, cruel or inhuman treatment, mutilation or maiming, intentionally causing serious bodily injury, rape, sexual assault or abuse, taking of hostages, or performing of biological experiments is prohibited.
3. Other acts of violence serious enough to be considered comparable to murder, torture, mutilation, and cruel or inhuman treatment, as defined in section 2441(d) of title 18, United States Code are prohibited.
4. Any other acts of cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment are prohibited.
5. We are prohibited from engaging in willful and outrageous acts of personal abuse done for the purpose of humiliating or degrading the individual in a manner so serious that any reasonable person, considering the circumstances, would deem the acts to be beyond the bounds of human decency, such as sexual or sexually indecent acts undertaken for the purpose of humiliation, forcing the individual to perform sexual acts or to pose sexually, threatening the individual with sexual mutilation, or using the individual as a human shield.
6. Acts intended to denigrate the religion, religious practices, or religious objects of the individual will not be tolerated.
I mean, is this really a good idea? What's that? You agree with all six of those points? Then why did President Obama just revoke them? Those were all outlined in Executive Order 13440 signed by President George W. Bush on July 20, 2007. That's right. Those aren't Obama's words although he does restate in less plain terms than President Bush did. That's right. Much like the Gitmo issue, this EO simply restates what was already US policy. So why revoke it and recreate the wheel?
Well, that wasn't all that President Bush's EO 13440 said. President Bush reiterated what the Geneva Conventions already tell us about unlawful enemy combatants – that they aren't entitled to protections under the law. Specifically, according to Bush, "members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war." Translation: terrorists will be treated as such so long as they continue to fight in violation of the established Conventions agreed to by most nations.
President Bush also gave the CIA latitude to conduct interrogations against said unlawful combatants in any manner the Director of the CIA may deem necessary to "detect, mitigate, or prevent terrorist attacks, such as attacks within the United States or against its Armed Forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities, or against allies or other countries cooperating in the war on terror with the United States, or their armed forces or other personnel, citizens, or facilities." These tactics MUST provide "the basic necessities of life, including adequate food and water, shelter from the elements, necessary clothing, protection from extremes of heat and cold, and essential medical care." Additionally, they are not exempt from the six areas listed above.
You read me correctly. The CIA was not above the law and neither was the military. Neither agency or department was given tacit or implied permission to commit those six acts. And when it was discovered that some rogue elements or personnel DID commit these offenses, they were promptly dealt with and a rash of new training was conducted to ensure future compliance.
The media is going through great pains to let the enemy know that they can now breathe a sigh of relief from US pressure. The CIA is now restricted to a particular set of interrogation approaches that the Army currently uses. I'll get to that later. There are more important areas that need to be addressed first.
As of the 22nd of January, the CIA must close any detention facilities that it currently operates and cannot operate any such detention facility in the future. Where are they supposed to put all of America's enemies that are covertly trying to kill another 3,000 innocent citizens? Gitmo is out of the question. I guess Pennsylvania's 12th Congressional District is going to get pretty populated soon.
The EO on interrogations requires a comprehensive "study and evaluation" on interrogation techniques and their usefulness. It will also "study and evaluate" how our enemies are being transferred to other nations. This has been done. It's constantly done. The Field Manual in question just underwent an extensive review and update thanks to our not-so-illustrious Senator from Arizona, Mr. John McCain. The result was a much more restrictive and hands-tied approach to gathering information.
Which brings me to the Field Manual. And I refuse to discuss that. Sorry, but I'm not going to give our enemy any more ammunition and information than our Executive Branch has already given them. I love my country and truly care for its protection. Why would I tell the enemy how I'm going to pull information from them? I'm not. So, I'll stop here. I think you get the point. I will provide this much though:
Below are some of the links to my sources used in this post:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/EnsuringLawfulInterrogation s/
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-13440.htm
I am flummoxed! If all this was already in place, I guess this was just another photo op for BO – and yes, I think we should transfer all the bad guys to Murtha's HOUSE!
I'll be posting this (and linking to you) on my site Monday.
Thanks for ALL you do, CJ!!!
[...] order Ensuring Lawful Interrogations, which revokes President Bush's Executive Order 13440, CJ comes to the conclusion that President Obama's executive order says much the same thing as the one it revokes: [...]
Look, if you want to defend the Bush interrogation program on the merits, then do that. make that case. But please don't deny reality. there is just way too documentation at this point about what actually happened at Guantonomo, at the CIA black sites, in the corridors of the White House. read jane mayer's The Dark Side. read the senate armed services committee report. read any number of news exposes. The torture program was systematic and it was authorized at the highest levels of the U.S. government.
cbsnews.com/s...976928.shtml
"At the age of 19, Murat Kurnaz vanished into America's shadow prison system in the war on terror. He was from Germany, traveling in Pakistan, and was picked up three months after 9/11. But there seemed to be ample evidence that Kurnaz was an innocent man with no connection to terrorism. The FBI thought so, U.S. intelligence thought so, and German intelligence agreed. But once he was picked up, Kurnaz found himself in a prison system that required no evidence and answered to no one.[...]
After six weeks in Afghanistan, Kurnaz was loaded onto another plane, this time bound for Guantanamo. The Pentagon labeled the prisoners "unlawful enemy combatants." They didn’t have the rights of prisoners of war and were beyond the reach of any court.
At Guantanamo Kurnaz says he endured endless months of interrogations, beatings at the hands of soldiers in riot gear, and physical cruelty which included going without sleep for weeks and solitary confinement for up to a month in cells that were sealed without ventilation or were set up to punish him with extreme conditions.
"It's dark inside. No lights. And they can punish you in isolation by coldness or by the heat. They have special air conditioners over there. Very strong. They can turn it very cold or very hot," Kurnaz says.
He says it went on year after year, always the same questions about al Qaeda, and the endless effort to break his will. He heard nothing from the outside and wondered whether anyone knew that he was there.
Then, in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Guantanamo prisoners did have the right to lawyers. And to his complete surprise, one day Kurnaz was told he had a visitor. It was Baher Azmy, an American lawyer.
"He was chained to a bolt in the floor around his ankle," Azmy says, recalling his first meeting with Kurnaz. "And had an absolutely enormous beard that had marked the years that he was in detention. He looked like someone who had been shipwrecked, which, of course, in a sense, he really was."
washingtonpos...3372_pf.html
"The top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo Bay detainees to trial has concluded that the U.S. military tortured a Saudi national who allegedly planned to participate in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition."
"We tortured [Mohammed al-]Qahtani," said Susan J. Crawford, in her first interview since being named convening authority of military commissions by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in February 2007."
Oh no! Not the Seakittens!! Now that's just too much! (/sarc for those with no sense of humor)
Thanks for the post, CJ – you have laid it all out so that anyone can understand the duplicitous grandstanding on the left (at the expense of our troops again) that will now dominate the rest of the coverage about the wars.
Good, CJ. I'm passing this one along.
Bush has already admitted he was aware that his advisors signed off on waterboarding and other techniques, and he approved:
From April 2008:
"Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people." Bush told ABC News White House correspondent Martha Raddatz. "And yes, I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved."
As first reported by ABC News Wednesday, the most senior Bush administration officials repeatedly discussed and approved specific details of exactly how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the CIA.
These top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects — whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding, sources told ABC news.
So tell me, why is waterboarding a war crime when Americans did it in the Phillipines or when the Japanese did it in WW2, but not now?
War crimes only apply to the innocent civilian populace and lawful enemy combatants. Al Qaeda and Taliban forces are neither. Can you show me please, where people were prosecuted for waterboarding "war crimes" during those times please? Additionally, what is "torture" about depriving someone of sleep, being slapped or pushed? I got worse than that at SERE school! Are my kids torturing me by depriving me of sleep?
The problem isn't "torture", it's the watered down definition of it these days – pun intended.
It's pitiful how quickly and eagerly fearful people will discard their civilized values. I guess that speaks to what kind of person you truly are, when you will torture (or more cowardly, approve of someone else torturing) a prisoner into confessing whatever you want him to.
Agreed, Doug. We used to be a nation of values and morals. Thanks to bush/cheney, and those few who still support them, we are now engaged in a race to the bottom, right along with those we are told to hate and fear.
When we analogize war with Super Bowl games and torture with sleep deprivation, we have really let go of our compass.
Or you're just really ignorant about how war works. "Bush/Cheney" did not turn away from values and morals – expect the ones espoused by Clinton.
I don't look to Bush or Clinton to define my values and morals. They have their weaknesses, as we all do. I expect them to govern and make/enforce public policy. That said, I'd like to see two things answered:
1. If we send troops out and they get captured by the other side, how can we expect them not to be severely tortured if we permit the same. I say "severe" as opposed to "milder" such as sleep deprevation, discomfort, etc.
2. If some sixty-odd former detainees found their way onto the battlefield after being released, then I agree with Obama in that the process needs review. This is not to say that Gitmo should be closed. It should be closed when it no longer serves a purpose and not the other way around.
NY-David
It is people like you Doug and your way of thinking that will take us to the bottom. I didn't need anyone to tell me to hate them. I saw what evil was when those planes went into the buildings in NY. One of my sons best friends father just went to work one day and never came home. You and your kind just don't get and until you or your loved ones are at their mercy you never will.
Everything we have we owe to our troops who put their lives on the line for us and commit selfless acts of bravery everyday. On behalf of my family thank you just doesn't encompass what I feel in my heart for each and everyone of you. God Bless
I'm not aware of Clinton ordering waterboarding, intimidation with dogs, sleep deprivation, etc. We've gone 225 years through invasions, rebellion, and world wars without sanctioning torture, suddenly we have to abandon our humanity in a face of a virtually powerless gang?
And yes, we did use to prosecute people for this:
From Wiki:
Spanish-American war: Major Edwin Glenn of the United States was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using the water cure. The Army judge advocate said the charges constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession" and recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to sanction the addition of torture."
WW2:
Several Japanese guards convicted of water torture:
At the trial of his captors, then-Lt. Chase J. Nielsen, one of the 1942 Army Air Forces officers who flew in the Doolittle Raid and was captured by the Japanese, testified: "I was given several types of torture. . . . I was given what they call the water cure." He was asked what he felt when the Japanese soldiers poured the water. "Well, I felt more or less like I was drowning," he replied, "just gasping between life and death."
Present:
In 1983, federal prosecutors charged a Texas sheriff and three of his deputies with violating prisoners' civil rights by forcing confessions. The complaint alleged that the officers conspired to "subject prisoners to a suffocating water torture ordeal in order to coerce confessions. This generally included the placement of a towel over the nose and mouth of the prisoner and the pouring of water in the towel until the prisoner began to move, jerk, or otherwise indicate that he was suffocating and/or drowning."
The four defendants were convicted, and the sheriff was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
washingtonpos...0201170.html
Whoa, Doug! Heaven forbid we don't use "intimidation with dogs" (when were they ever used to actually inflict pain again?) or "sleep depravation"! Such torture!! What level could we possibly stoop to? Next thing you know, we'll be tickling!! And I can GUARANTEE you that these tactics were used under Clinton. President Bush never sanctioned or ordered torture either and I've given the proof of that.
And whether you agree to it or not, I personally have no problems with the use of "waterboarding". I'd never use it and never allow my troops to use it, but I have no problem with it.
Does this mean you'll stop coming by here now? Have I disappointed you enough yet?
What is "pitiful" are the ignorant who refuse to see or understand the enemy we are now engaged in fighting. Those who refuse to understand the gravity of the situation and ignore what is plain to others. People are trying to kill us. They dont care who of "us" it is as long as they take enormous numbers with them. I can only hope that this new administration now sees the gravity of the situation he obviously didn't as a candidate.
sue:
Let's assume that all of a sudden, we "pitifully ignorant" saw the "gravity of the situation" as you refer. What would you have us do differently than we are doing today?
I say why don't you go join your friends?
I think in every generation there's some people who feel more important if they're living in world-historical times, and inflate the threat of their day accordingly. They're attracted to threats that are more tangible, unusual and exciting (terrorism, pirates) than those that, while more serious and fatal to large numbers of people, are slow-moving and not prone to action movie solutions (water-borne disease, plummeting economy, global warming, marine die-offs, etc.)
So I expanded upon what is talked about here, namely on section 4(a) about the CIA closing secret prisons.
politicalcart...on-doctrine/