posted by ![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
laurificus at 03:22pm on 25/04/2009 under politics
laurificus at 03:22pm on 25/04/2009 under politicsHey, you know what's worse than torturing people for information they can actually give you? Torturing people for information you're told they almost certainly don't have, and which they couldn't have, on account of the information not existing in the first place. Sort of, I dunno, like this:
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.
"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
I've been a little ambivalent about the recent memos. I mean, not in the sense that I think torture is right or good--obviously, I hope--but I couldn't quite work myself up to a lot of the kneejerk anger I've seen displayed, or to even decide that they were unequivocally wrong, or that reasonable people couldn't have made the same decision. I always thought it was bad policy, because I believe that the methods they used aren't effective; that they're more likely to provide unreliable information; and that in the long term, they damage America's standing in the world--and the west's, probably by extention. And all of that leaves out how backward it seems to me as a strategy; if people are willing to kill themselves for a cause they believe in, then it hardly seems obvious that they're going to cave if they're tortured long enough. It's also just lazy; if noone's ever met suspects like these before, then bring in people who have. Find a better way.
But all those things seem, to me, to be practical objections. I kept coming up short because I think it's easy from the outside to say it's abhorrent and should never, ever be done, but in a ticking timebomb scenario (as unlikely as it is), I don't know if that's always the right answer, just as I don't know what my response would be if it turned out that what Bush authorised really did produce intelligence that saved lives (also, I admit, unlikely). I remember, even over here, what it was like after 9/11, when many, many people really did believe it was just the sstart. Everyone got a little crazy, I think, and for a while, everyone was waiting for the next thing--I can remember when The BBC would occasionally have breaking news alerts, like when the Concorde crashed, and for just a second, everything would stop, because maybe it was happening again. When people argue, now, that that was the climate those policies were introduced in, I could kind of understand where they were coming from, partly because I'm not sure I can honestly say I think there's never a point when holding to a principle is worth more than saving lives. Now, though, they can't say they were using torture in good faith at all. (Torture and good faith. Three words that probably never actually belong in a sentence together.) I forgot that if you can't trust people not to lie their way to war, you probably shouldn't trust them to do anything at all.
Also, there's this, on the documents Cheney wants made public to prove how necessary torture was. All...two of them. And maybe, when your own military isn't in favour of torture, it's time for a rethink.
And lest it look like I am only paying attention to American politics (a fact only sort of not-true), I really like this Lib Dem take on the current climate in Britain. I suspect that if the Lib Dems really did have a shot at winning, they wouldn't make half so much sense, which is sad, in and of itself. Stil, I am leaning more and more towards voting for them next year.
Also, how cool is the DW crossposting thing? Very cool, I believe.
"There were two reasons why these interrogations were so persistent, and why extreme methods were used," the former senior intelligence official said on condition of anonymity because of the issue's sensitivity.
"The main one is that everyone was worried about some kind of follow-up attack (after 9/11). But for most of 2002 and into 2003, Cheney and Rumsfeld, especially, were also demanding proof of the links between al Qaida and Iraq that (former Iraqi exile leader Ahmed) Chalabi and others had told them were there."
It was during this period that CIA interrogators waterboarded two alleged top al Qaida detainees repeatedly — Abu Zubaydah at least 83 times in August 2002 and Khalid Sheik Muhammed 183 times in March 2003 — according to a newly released Justice Department document.
"There was constant pressure on the intelligence agencies and the interrogators to do whatever it took to get that information out of the detainees, especially the few high-value ones we had, and when people kept coming up empty, they were told by Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people to push harder," he continued.
"Cheney's and Rumsfeld's people were told repeatedly, by CIA . . . and by others, that there wasn't any reliable intelligence that pointed to operational ties between bin Laden and Saddam, and that no such ties were likely because the two were fundamentally enemies, not allies."
Senior administration officials, however, "blew that off and kept insisting that we'd overlooked something, that the interrogators weren't pushing hard enough, that there had to be something more we could do to get that information," he said.
I've been a little ambivalent about the recent memos. I mean, not in the sense that I think torture is right or good--obviously, I hope--but I couldn't quite work myself up to a lot of the kneejerk anger I've seen displayed, or to even decide that they were unequivocally wrong, or that reasonable people couldn't have made the same decision. I always thought it was bad policy, because I believe that the methods they used aren't effective; that they're more likely to provide unreliable information; and that in the long term, they damage America's standing in the world--and the west's, probably by extention. And all of that leaves out how backward it seems to me as a strategy; if people are willing to kill themselves for a cause they believe in, then it hardly seems obvious that they're going to cave if they're tortured long enough. It's also just lazy; if noone's ever met suspects like these before, then bring in people who have. Find a better way.
But all those things seem, to me, to be practical objections. I kept coming up short because I think it's easy from the outside to say it's abhorrent and should never, ever be done, but in a ticking timebomb scenario (as unlikely as it is), I don't know if that's always the right answer, just as I don't know what my response would be if it turned out that what Bush authorised really did produce intelligence that saved lives (also, I admit, unlikely). I remember, even over here, what it was like after 9/11, when many, many people really did believe it was just the sstart. Everyone got a little crazy, I think, and for a while, everyone was waiting for the next thing--I can remember when The BBC would occasionally have breaking news alerts, like when the Concorde crashed, and for just a second, everything would stop, because maybe it was happening again. When people argue, now, that that was the climate those policies were introduced in, I could kind of understand where they were coming from, partly because I'm not sure I can honestly say I think there's never a point when holding to a principle is worth more than saving lives. Now, though, they can't say they were using torture in good faith at all. (Torture and good faith. Three words that probably never actually belong in a sentence together.) I forgot that if you can't trust people not to lie their way to war, you probably shouldn't trust them to do anything at all.
Also, there's this, on the documents Cheney wants made public to prove how necessary torture was. All...two of them. And maybe, when your own military isn't in favour of torture, it's time for a rethink.
And lest it look like I am only paying attention to American politics (a fact only sort of not-true), I really like this Lib Dem take on the current climate in Britain. I suspect that if the Lib Dems really did have a shot at winning, they wouldn't make half so much sense, which is sad, in and of itself. Stil, I am leaning more and more towards voting for them next year.
Also, how cool is the DW crossposting thing? Very cool, I believe.
cold