Dick and Liz Cheney tell us that enhanced interrogation is not torture and that it made the US safer by providing actionable intelligence. They say it was unwise to make the US techniques public, because the terrorists can now train to them. Both of these claims are hogwash. More importantly, though, they expose a flaw in the Cheney mindset. The Cheneys adhere to The Rambo Myth: Subjects of torture will grant a true confession in order to avoid the pain of more torture. If we are just sadistic enough, we will get the truth out of those bastards.

Cheney et al. provided pressure to waterboard several high value prisoners to obtain information in short order. While there is some disagreement about whether or not waterboarding was used to forge a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda, it is clear that we waterboarded one prisoner 83 times and another 183 times in one month. What did this likely accomplish?

Let's have a look at the ticking bomb.

           Read more... 

We watched Christopher Hitchens and Erich "Mancow" Muller spend a few seconds on a waterboard and emerge convinced that waterboarding is torture. While I welcome their conversions, their stunts really did not teach us anything new. Though the initial panic of having water come at them was suffering enough, they both quit before the real effects of waterboarding kicked in: they have no idea what would come if the torture did not stop when they cried "uncle."

Torture is the systematic use of trauma to provoke a change in consciousness: the only goal of torture is to drive a person to unbearable madness. The purpose of the torture -- interrogation, extortion -- immaterial. Mancow and Hitchens spent a short time on the waterboard and saw that rabbithole in the distance. They bailed before any of the real terror kicked in...

But what if ending the torture at will was not an option? What if they would have undergone waterboarding as Bybee prescribed?

           Read more... 

Dave Waldman writes on Obama's reluctance to prosecute for torture:

That poses an extraordinarily broad array of difficulties, not the least of which is that it's an open an ongoing threat to the greater Obama agenda, which is itself often invoked as a reason for not dabbling in the "distraction" of "looking backward." But unless we can demarcate Cheneyism -- the "anything goes" philosophy as explicitly illegal, unconstitutional and illegitimate, its continued existence (and threatened practice by future administrations) calls into question the value and durability of the whatever parts of the Obama agenda are ultimately implemented, on detainee policy or anything else.

Last week, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations had a hearing entitled Confronting Rape and Other Forms of Violence Against Women in Conflict Zones: DRC and Sudan. The US Senate wishes to tackle rape as a weapon of war. Barbara Boxer feels we are in good position to affect the atrocities in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and Sudan.

Why conflate these two subjects?.

           Read more... 

The new news is that there is a mounting body of evidence that Dick Cheney ordered waterboarding to produce the connections necessary to wage a war on Saddam Hussein. (See diaries by dday for a primer, and buhdydharma for a link to Rachel Maddow.) Our knowledge of Dick Cheney's penchant for torture now grows and convolves with the dubious War on Iraq. While the Bush team is morally reprehensible for creating evidence to strike, it is not clear that lying to wage a war is actually illegal in the United States. We do know that torture is illegal -- we signed the Geneva Convention. The Bush team must be breaking the law by ordering prisoners to the waterboard...

...except there is a contemporary controversey in the United States about whether or not waterboarding qualifies as torture...

What follows is not for polite company -- it is a graphic description and analysis of waterboarding.

The 2002 Bybee memo describes the technique beginning at the bottom of page three:

           Read more... 

Ladies and gentleman, if I may have your ear.

The DoJ is making noises like they will not prosecute the people who wrote the memos that "rationalized" using torture. (See Edger's diary.) This is tragic because, with the exception of the high-ranking Bush officials who conspired to make these opinions the rule of law, the memo writers are the most complicit criminals on the list. They were the sleight-of-hand smiths who made the torture program possible. There are few involved who can approach the vulgarity that these lawyers attained.

We cannot take these prosecutions off the table and self-consistently seek justice.

Please have a look at Section 2340-2340A written by Daniel Levin, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel:

That statute prohibits conduct "specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering." This opinion concludes that "severe" pain under the statute is not limited to "excruciating or agonizing" pain or pain "equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily functions, or even death."

           Read more... 

Torture apologists are shouting desperate arguments from the rooftops to justify their support for enhanced interrogation, and it is common to see people in liberal and progressive circles take a "no harm done" position regarding many of the techniques the US used on their political prisoners. Here, I want to discuss flaws in two common statements:

Myth 1: It isn't torture if the technique is psychological.

Myth 2: It isn't torture because our techniques have no long term effects.

If we want to fight pushback -- if we want to make sure that our country does not torture again -- we need to understand what is wrong with these memes. In particular, we need to understand the popularized fiction that was created by the people who tortured in your name.

Myth 1: It isn't torture if the technique is psychological.

Whether a perpetrator uses a rack, insects, or a red hot poker, the purpose of torture is to provoke an emotional response -- not a physical one. The goal of torture is to break a person emotionally: it is entirely psychological. Torture is the systematic use of severe trauma to force a mental breakdown -- the goal of the exercise is not to alter the body. The goal is to alter the mind.

           Read more... 

Reading through opinion about "enhanced interrogation", you will find that there is a pervasive assumption that if there is no physical evidence of torture after the fact, the victim of torture remains unharmed. In fact, the Bush administration defined this as one of the axioms that justified their legal opinions that supported their methods -- and it is one that softens public opinion toward torture, as well. The fact is that if this assumption is wrong, the W administration's torture policy falls like a house of cards.

The crucial issue at hand is that, in the memos, torture was defined as something different than it was in practice. To understand the fundamental flaw in a way that is more than superficial, though, we have to think about what happens to a prisoner that undergoes "enhanced interrogation." We have to consider why these tactics cause long term harm. We also have to understand why a subject in a "cracked" state of mind will always provide dubious information.

So, what happens when Rambo cracks? Will he walk away unchanged by the experience? Even if he has no pre-existing psychological conditions?

           Read more... 

(After quantifying US casualties on September 11, 2001.)

These measurements obviously did not capture the full meaning of September 11. A familiar terrorist threat announced itself that day with frightening new proximity and ambition. But decision made in the White House, in response, had incomparably greater impact on American interests as a society.

Barton Gellman in Angler - The Cheney Vice Presidency, page 132.

It is entirely by design that bringing abusers of power to justice will be riddled with setbacks. The Bush 43 leaders and high level advisors used deliberate sleight of hand to insure their prosecution was improbable. They are counting on the fact that the decision to prosecute them is entirely political, and that willingness to to spend political capital for crimes gone by will be small. But they've also fortified their steps with subtleties that make it harder to figure what went wrong.

It will take a lot more than just energizing the left wing behind the cause and supporting Senator Leahy to bring lawbreakers to justice. We have to convince the American mainstream if we are going to make prosecution happen. A mainstream that has demonstrated time and again that they are certain to miss the subtlety.

           Read more... 

My goal in writing this essay is to convince you that using torture -- techniques that use hypoxia particularly -- cannot be tolerated as a method to gain intelligence. You are already convinced? Good. Let me suggest that you are probably convinced for the wrong reasons. But I want your ear, even if you're convinced for the right reasons -- because, to my way of thinking, many of the people who advise our lawmakers about torture policy in the United States overlook critical information about the effects of waterboarding. Even many of the well-meaning ones suffer from a critical lack of understanding when they make their policy decisions.

My problem is with what I'll call The Rambo Myth: Subjects of torture will grant a true confession in order to avoid the pain of more torture, and The Rambo Corollary: Any method that is not painful enough to make Rambo crack will not extract a true confession.

           Read more...