Jump to content

Enhanced interrogation techniques: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Nescio (talk | contribs)
11,956 edits
Nescio (talk | contribs)
11,956 edits
expand
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Mergeto|Torture|date=November 2007}}
{{Mergeto|Torture|date=November 2007}}
[[Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg|frame|right|Painting of [[waterboarding]] from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison]]
[[Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg|frame|right|Painting of [[waterboarding]] from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison]]
'''Enhanced interrogation techniques''' is a term that the [[George W. Bush administration|Bush administration]] uses to describe methods of aggressively extracting information from [[unlawful enemy combatant|captives]], which is purportedly necessary in the [[War on Terror]].<ref name="CSM on the techniques">[http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0531/p99s01-duts.html White House nears completion of new torture guidelines Critics say administration's endorsement of 'enhanced interrogation' is 'immoral,' draw comparisons to Nazi war crimes] By Arthur Bright, [[The Christian Science Monitor]], May 31, 2007</ref> Despite the alternate name, many experts consider this to be [[torture]], and also consider the techniques ineffective<ref name="Mayer">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070219fa_fact_mayer Whatever it takes. The politics of the man behind “24.”] by [[Jane Mayer]], [[The New Yorker]], February 12, 2007</ref><ref name="SERE">[http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html The Pentagon's IG Report Contradicts What the APA Has Said About the Involvement of Psychologists in Abusive Interrogations - A Q&A on Psychologists and Torture] By Stephen Soldz ''(Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development & Professor, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; University of Massachusetts, Boston),'' Steven Reisner ''(Senior Faculty and Supervisor, International Trauma Studies Program, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical School),'' and Brad Olson ''(Assistant Research Professor, at Northwestern University),'' [[Counterpunch]], June 7, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/26/1466/ ‘Fill The Jails’, Part II] by Sean Gonsalves, [[CommonDreams]], May 26, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT">[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B11F83F540C738FDDAC0894DF404482 Advisers Fault Harsh Methods In Interrogation] By SCOTT SHANE AND MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, May 30, 2007</ref>. Although reactions by the administration and its supporters remain ambiguous, former US president [[Jimmy Carter]] is among those who publicly stated it is torture in an interview on October 10, 2007, "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law."<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/ Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners] in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007</ref>. Only a handful of [[CIA]] interrogators have had training in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques after U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] first authorised them in mid-March 2002.<ref>{{cite journal| url=http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866| title=CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described| journal=ABC News| month=November 18| year=2005}}</ref>
'''Enhanced interrogation techniques''' is a term that the [[George W. Bush administration|Bush administration]] uses to describe methods of aggressively extracting information from [[unlawful enemy combatant|captives]], which is purportedly necessary in the [[War on Terror]].<ref name="TAP on the techniques">[http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=torture_and_americas_crisis_of_faith Torture and America's Crisis of Faith - The Senate's retreat from its initial demand that now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey denounce waterboarding is detrimental to the country's moral fabric. For the first time, torture bears an imprimatur of democratic approval] by [[Jonathan Hafetz]], [[The American Prospect]], November 28, 2007 </ref><ref name="CSM on the techniques">[http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0531/p99s01-duts.html White House nears completion of new torture guidelines Critics say administration's endorsement of 'enhanced interrogation' is 'immoral,' draw comparisons to Nazi war crimes] By Arthur Bright, [[The Christian Science Monitor]], May 31, 2007</ref><ref>
[http://hnn.us/articles/32497.html The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture] by Alfred W. McCoy</ref> Despite the alternate name, many experts consider this to be [[torture]], and also consider the techniques ineffective<ref name="Joyce Appleby">[http://hnn.us/articles/44089.html So Mukasey Doesn't Know If Waterboarding Is Torture? Please] by Joyce Appleby, [[History News Network]], October 29, 2007</ref><ref name="Mayer">[http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/070219fa_fact_mayer Whatever it takes. The politics of the man behind “24.”] by [[Jane Mayer]], [[The New Yorker]], February 12, 2007</ref><ref name="SERE">[http://www.counterpunch.org/soldz06072007.html The Pentagon's IG Report Contradicts What the APA Has Said About the Involvement of Psychologists in Abusive Interrogations - A Q&A on Psychologists and Torture] By Stephen Soldz ''(Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development & Professor, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; University of Massachusetts, Boston),'' Steven Reisner ''(Senior Faculty and Supervisor, International Trauma Studies Program, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical School),'' and Brad Olson ''(Assistant Research Professor, at Northwestern University),'' [[Counterpunch]], June 7, 2007</ref><ref>[http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/05/26/1466/ ‘Fill The Jails’, Part II] by Sean Gonsalves, [[CommonDreams]], May 26, 2007</ref><ref name="NYT">[http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70B11F83F540C738FDDAC0894DF404482 Advisers Fault Harsh Methods In Interrogation] By SCOTT SHANE AND MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, May 30, 2007</ref>. Although reactions by the administration and its supporters remain ambiguous, former US president [[Jimmy Carter]] is among those who publicly stated it is torture in an interview on October 10, 2007, "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law."<ref>[http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/10/carter.torture/ Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners] in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007</ref>. Only a handful of [[CIA]] interrogators have had training in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques after U.S. President [[George W. Bush]] first authorised them in mid-March 2002.<ref>{{cite journal| url=http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866| title=CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described| journal=ABC News| month=November 18| year=2005}}</ref>


==History==
==History==
Line 65: Line 66:


Also, according to the [[New York Times]]:
Also, according to the [[New York Times]]:
<blockquote>Experts advising Bush administration on new interrogation rules warn that harsh techniques used since 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.<ref name="NYT"/></blockquote>
<blockquote>Experts advising the Bush administration on new interrogation rules warn that harsh techniques used since 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.<ref name="NYT"/></blockquote>

The Washington Post described the report by the [[Intelligence Science Board]]:
<blockquote>There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.<ref>[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501204.html Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says
Few Studies Have Examined U.S. Methods] By [[Josh White]], [[Washington Post]] January 16, 2007</ref></blockquote>


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 11:59, 31 December 2007

Painting of waterboarding from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison

Enhanced interrogation techniques is a term that the Bush administration uses to describe methods of aggressively extracting information from captives, which is purportedly necessary in the War on Terror.[1][2][3] Despite the alternate name, many experts consider this to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective[4][5][6][7][8]. Although reactions by the administration and its supporters remain ambiguous, former US president Jimmy Carter is among those who publicly stated it is torture in an interview on October 10, 2007, "The United States tortures prisoners in violation of international law."[9]. Only a handful of CIA interrogators have had training in the use of enhanced interrogation techniques after U.S. President George W. Bush first authorised them in mid-March 2002.[10]

History

Verschärfte Vernehmung

Experts Marty Lederman, H. Candace Gorman, Arthur Bright, Scott Horton have reported that blogger, political commentator and former editor of The New Republic Andrew Sullivan claimed that "enhanced interrogation" bears remarkable resemblance to the techniques the Gestapo called "Verschärfte Vernehmung," for which some of them faced prosecution in Norway after World War II and were "found guilty of war crimes and sentenced to death."[11][12][13][14][15][2][16][17] Besides the similarity of the practices, the German term "verschärfte Vernehmung" also directly translates to "enhanced interrogation". These techniques included:

  1. Simplest rations
  2. Hard bed
  3. Dark cell
  4. Deprivation of sleep
  5. Exhaustion exercises
  6. Blows with a stick

A 1948 Norwegian court case[18] described the use of hypothermia identical to the reports from Guantanamo Bay. Sullivan and Gorman contend that the defense used by the Nazis for applying the techniques "is almost verbatim that of the Bush administration." Most notably the concept of unlawful enemy combatant is invoked avant la lettre to justify its implementation on "insurgent prisoners out of uniform", and notes the identical logic propagated by John Yoo today.[11][13] The now familiar ticking time bomb scenario, as rationale for allowing torture, had its precursor in the Gestapo's "Third degree" measures.[16] According to The Christian Science Monitor:

But while the Nazis' interrogative methods were found to be torture, The New York Times writes that the Allies' methods at the time were far more effective and far less abusive than those the United States uses now.[2]

SERE program

Main article: SERE

Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner and Brad Olson wrote an article describing how these techniques mimic what was taught in the SERE-program: "the military's Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape program that trains US Special Operations Forces, aviators and others at high risk of capture on the battlefield to evade capture and to resist 'breaking' under torture, particularly through giving false confessions or collaborating with their captors."[6] They cite the following examples:

  1. Prolonged isolation,
  2. Prolonged sleep deprivation,
  3. Sensory deprivation,
  4. Extremely painful "stress positions,"
  5. Sensory bombardment (such as prolonged loud noise and/or bright lights),
  6. Forced nakedness,
  7. Sexual humiliation,
  8. Cultural humiliation (such as desecration of holy scriptures),
  9. Being subjected to extreme cold that induces hypothermia,
  10. Exploitation of phobias,
  11. Simulation of the experience of drowning and controlled drowning, i.e., waterboarding.

Technique details under the Bush administration

According to ABC News[19], former and current CIA officals have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorized in the CIA. These include:

  1. The Attention Grab: The interrogator forcefully grabs the shirt front of the prisoner and shakes him.
  2. Attention Slap: An open-handed slap aimed at causing pain and triggering fear.
  3. The Belly Slap: A hard open-handed slap to the abdomen. The aim is to cause pain, but not internal injury. Doctors consulted advised against using a punch, which could cause lasting internal damage.
  4. Long Time Standing: This technique is described as among the most effective. Prisoners are forced to stand, handcuffed and with their feet shackled to an eye bolt in the floor, for more than 40 hours. Exhaustion and sleep deprivation are effective in yielding confessions.
  5. The Cold Cell: The prisoner is left to stand naked in a cell kept near 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees Celsius).
  6. Waterboarding: The prisoner is bound to an inclined board, feet raised and head slightly below the feet. Material is wrapped over the prisoner's face and water is poured over him. Unavoidably, the gag reflex kicks in and a terrifying fear of drowning leads to almost instant pleas to bring the treatment to a halt.

Legality

International Law

  • In 1994, the United States filed a declaration qualifying its compliance with the Convention against Torture. According to the UN Secretary General, the Government of the United States of America said, "... nothing in this Convention requires or authorizes legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[20]
  • Countries that are signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights agreed that Article 5 prohibits "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
  • Marty Lederman observes that:
Even if some of these techniques are arguably short of legally defined "torture" in some cases, surely they are the sort of "cruel treatment" that the Geneva Conventions prohibit -- particularly when one recalls that those treaties were written largely with Germany's practices in mind. (The techniques might also, at least in many cases, violate the federal assault law and the McCain Amendment, as well.) And therefore the techniques are plainly unlawful -- and a President committed to faithful execution of the law would not authorize their use by the CIA -- whether or not they are subject to the criminal sanctions reserved for "torture" as such.[17]

US Law

  • In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[21], more than 100 U.S. professors stated unequivocally that waterboarding is torture, and is a criminal felony punishable under the U.S. federal criminal code.
  • Senior law enforcement agents with the Criminal Investigation Task Force (CITF) told MSNBC.com in 2006 that they complained inside the Defense Department in 2002 that the "interrogation" tactics used by a separate team of intelligence investigators were unproductive, not likely to produce reliable information, and probably illegal. Unable to get satisfaction from the Army commanders running the detainee camp, they took their concerns to David Brant, director of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), who alerted Navy General Counsel Alberto J. Mora.[22]. General Counsel Mora and Navy Judge Advocate General Michael Lohr believed the detainee treatment to be unlawful, and campaigned among other top lawyers and officials in the Defense Department to investigate, and to provide clear standards prohibiting coercive interrogation tactics.[23] In response, on January 15, 2003, Donald Rumsfeld suspended the approved interrogation tactics at Guantánamo until a working group, headed by General Counsel of the Air Force Mary Walker, could produce a set of guidelines. The working group based its new guidelines on a legal memo from the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel written by John Yoo and signed by Jay S. Bybee, which would become known as the "Torture Memo". General Counsel Mora led a faction of the Working Group in arguing against these standards, and argued the issues with Yoo in person. The working group's final report, was signed and delivered to Guantánamo without the knowledge of Mora and the others who had opposed its content. Nonetheless, Mora maintained that detainee treatment complied with the law since the January 15 2003 suspension of previously approved interrogation tactics.[24]
  • Elizabeth de la Vega wrote that under Title 18, United States Code, Section 2340, there is no confusion as to whether these techniques constitute torture.

This argument - that a person cannot know whether his conduct falls within the definition of torture unless it is expressly proscribed by Section 2340 - is precisely the one we've heard from Michael Mukasey with regard to waterboarding.[25]

Criticism

A report by Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH) stated that these techniques constitute torture. Their press release said:

The report concludes that each of the ten tactics is likely to violate U.S. laws, including the War Crimes Act, the U.S. Torture Act, and the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005.[26]

According to HRF, PFH and Stephen Soldz et al. medical and psychological literature shows that torture may have "profound long-term negative effects upon individuals, including psychosis, depression, suicidal ideation and/or post-traumatic stress disorder."[6][26] They also cite the Office of the Inspector General report which concluded that

SERE-type interrogation techniques constitute "physical or mental torture and coercion under the Geneva conventions."[6]

Also, according to the New York Times:

Experts advising the Bush administration on new interrogation rules warn that harsh techniques used since 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable.[8]

The Washington Post described the report by the Intelligence Science Board:

There is almost no scientific evidence to back up the U.S. intelligence community's use of controversial interrogation techniques in the fight against terrorism, and experts believe some painful and coercive approaches could hinder the ability to get good information, according to a new report from an intelligence advisory group.[27]

See also

Articles

Books

References

  1. ^ Torture and America's Crisis of Faith - The Senate's retreat from its initial demand that now-Attorney General Michael Mukasey denounce waterboarding is detrimental to the country's moral fabric. For the first time, torture bears an imprimatur of democratic approval by Jonathan Hafetz, The American Prospect, November 28, 2007
  2. ^ a b c White House nears completion of new torture guidelines Critics say administration's endorsement of 'enhanced interrogation' is 'immoral,' draw comparisons to Nazi war crimes By Arthur Bright, The Christian Science Monitor, May 31, 2007
  3. ^ The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture by Alfred W. McCoy
  4. ^ So Mukasey Doesn't Know If Waterboarding Is Torture? Please by Joyce Appleby, History News Network, October 29, 2007
  5. ^ Whatever it takes. The politics of the man behind “24.” by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, February 12, 2007
  6. ^ a b c d The Pentagon's IG Report Contradicts What the APA Has Said About the Involvement of Psychologists in Abusive Interrogations - A Q&A on Psychologists and Torture By Stephen Soldz (Director, Center for Research, Evaluation, and Program Development & Professor, Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis; University of Massachusetts, Boston), Steven Reisner (Senior Faculty and Supervisor, International Trauma Studies Program, Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University; Clinical Assistant Professor, Department of Psychiatry, New York University Medical School), and Brad Olson (Assistant Research Professor, at Northwestern University), Counterpunch, June 7, 2007
  7. ^ ‘Fill The Jails’, Part II by Sean Gonsalves, CommonDreams, May 26, 2007
  8. ^ a b Advisers Fault Harsh Methods In Interrogation By SCOTT SHANE AND MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, May 30, 2007
  9. ^ Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners in a CNN interview on October the 10th 2007
  10. ^ "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". ABC News. 2005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  11. ^ a b Torture By Another Name - The origins of “enhanced interrogation techniques” can be traced to the German Gestapo by Candace Gorman, In These Times, June 14, 2007
  12. ^ Coming to a Theater Near You: Five Years in Guantánamo by Lou Dubose, Washington Spectator, July 1, 2007
  13. ^ a b Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led by Andrew Sullivan, The Sunday Times, October 7, 2007
  14. ^ "Verschärfte Vernehmung" by Andrew Sullivan, May 29, 200
  15. ^ How The Nazis Defended "Enhanced Interrogation" Andrew Sullivan, June 14, 2007
  16. ^ a b Defending Enhanced Interrogation Techniques by Scott Horton, Harper's
  17. ^ a b One of Those Rare Instances in Which the Nazi Analogy is Unavoidable Marty Lederman, Balkinization, May 29, 2007
  18. ^ CASE No. 12 - Trial of Kriminalsekretär RICHARD WILHELM HERMANN BRUNS and two others BY THE EIDSIVATING LAGMANNSRETT AND THE SUPREME COURT OF NORWAY, 20TH MARCH AND 3RD JULY, 1946 - Torturing as a War Crime. The Legal Status of the Norwegian Underground Military Organisation. The Defences of Legitimate Reprisals, Superior Orders and Duress
  19. ^ "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". ABC News. 2005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  20. ^ Multilateral treaties deposited with the Secretary-General. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment New York, 10 December 1984 (backup), footnote 11
  21. ^ letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
  22. ^ "Gitmo interrogations spark battle over tactics". 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  23. ^ "Memorandum for Inspector General, Department of the Navy. Statement for the record: Office of General Councel involvement in interrogation issues" (PDF). 2005. Retrieved 2006-03-19. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  24. ^ "Tribunals Didn't Rely on Torture". Washington Post: A20. 2004. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  25. ^ What Real DOJ Trial Attorneys Say About Torture By Elizabeth de la Vega, truthout, November 18, 2007
  26. ^ a b Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH) report
  27. ^ [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/15/AR2007011501204.html Interrogation Research Is Lacking, Report Says Few Studies Have Examined U.S. Methods] By Josh White, Washington Post January 16, 2007
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enhanced_interrogation_techniques&oldid=181173216"