Expert Advice on Torture for President Bush

Oh, Excuse me Mr. President. Let me rephrase that. “Expert Advice on Alternative Interrogation Practices.” That better? From Sunday’s Washington Post, Section B, Page 5:

In a recent statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee, a group of former Army interrogators disagreed. “Prisoner/detainee abuse and torture are to be avoided at all costs, in part because they can degrade the intelligence collection effort by interfering with a skilled interrogator’s efforts to establish rapport with the subject,” they wrote.

(cont.)
Now please pay attention, Mr. President. We’ll try to keep this as short and simple a presentation as we can for you. If you’d like, I’d be happy to read it aloud so you can avoid straining your eyes. If you don’t know the meaning of any of the words or phrases used, feel free to ask. Let’s start with Peter Bauer, Army interrogator, 1986-1997:

I conducted interrogation operations and training, and served as an interrogator near the front lines during Operation Desert Storm. When prisoners of high intelligence value were captured, they were brought to me immediately. I often just glared at them and in a stern voice asked their name, their rank, their unit affiliation, and then questions related to the intelligence collection mission. Direct questioning is usually effective.

Just as a point of emphasis, let me reiterate what Mr. Bauer said, Mr. President.

Point One: Direct questioning usually worked with prisoners of high intelligence value.

What else does Mr. Bauer have to say?

I know the techniques in the field manual work, and I know torture isn’t as effective. I was stationed in Europe almost all of my career and I did resistance-to-interrogation training for NATO forces. We simulated the sort of abuse they could expect should they fall into the hands of the Warsaw Pact. This treatment is quite similar to the sort of techniques described as the CIA’s “alternative interrogation procedures.” We invariably obtained more reliable information using our own techniques than we did using the abusive procedures. I cannot name one instance in which abuse was successful after standard interrogation techniques failed. When you abuse or degrade somebody, the reaction of the source is: “You’re putting ladies’ underwear on my head. [Expletive] you.” In the hands of a skilled and trained interrogator, you wouldn’t have to torture. Not a single military interrogator with whom I have communicated expressed anything but contempt for the idea that torture could be more effective than standard interrogation techniques.

Point Two: Torture — er, Sorry again Mr. President — “Alternative Interrogation Procedures” were less effective that standard interrogation techniques.

What’s that Mr. President? What does “less effective” mean? It means they don’t work. Torture doesn’t work. I know it may be more personally satisfying to torture someone who is an evil doer, but it isn’t as effective — uh, doesn’t work as well — as the usual interrogation methods. Got it now?

Yes, Mr. President, we do have a little bit more. Now we have the testimony of Chief Warrant Officer Marney Mason (retired), who was an interrogator during the Cold War. You remember the Cold War, don’t you sir? The one with the Soviet Union? Russia? Evil Empire? The Commies? Yes, that one.

In some training sessions, I’ve even administered mild forms of torture. And I think anyone who believes torture is a useful means of extracting information has been watching too many Sly Stallone movies.

What’s that? No, Mr. President, I don’t think he’s criticizing your preference in movies. Shall we continue with Chief Warrant Officer Mason, please? Thank you, Mr. President.

In a training environment (a mock prisoner-of-war camp), my students would be subjected to hostile forms of interrogations: loud noises, fake burials, 15- to 20-volt electric shocks. And I got people to confess to things that they absolutely did not do. The information you receive is worthless.

What’s “worthless” mean? Well sir, in this context it mean’s it isn’t worth a damn. Uh, yes sir. Correct. It means the information you get from torture is total bullshit. Very nicely put Mr. President.

Now we have just one more to do Mr. President, sir, and then you can proceed to your morning bike ride. Yes sir. Fall is a lovely time to be riding your bike in the DC area. Just lovely. Now, to return to the matter at hand, here is the last expert witness who testified. Travis W. Hall, former Army interrogator and captain in the Army’s Judge Advocate General’s Corps:

What I saw firsthand as an interrogator and, later, as a JAG in Iraq in 2003 working on detainee issues, has left me with a strong belief that torture is counterproductive. What has proven effective in interrogation, time and again, regardless of what culture the detainee is from, is building a positive relationship with an individual. Americans really want their soldiers to not only come home, but come home with honor. I would challenge the current administration to come up with one example where torture in interrogation has produced actionable intelligence that saved American lives in the United States.

No, Mr. President, he not calling you out for a fight! Please don’t refer his name to the Secret Service, sir. What he was saying, if I may be so bold, is to question whether the torture — uh, alternative interrogation practices — have given us any good intelligence. He doesn’t believe they have sir. No sir, despite what Mr. Cheney may have told you, he doubts the intelligence we have been getting. Remember your own words sir. Total bullshit? Yes, precisely. No sir, I can’t imagine why Dick — uh, I mean the Vice President — would lie about something like that. Perhaps he’s been getting some bad advice on the matter, too.

Okay, that’s all for now Mr. President. Thank you for you time. Have a great bike ride.

Torture