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
senate bill
Line 129: Line 129:
* [[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.
* [[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.
<blockquote>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]].<ref name="Elizabeth de la Vega"/></blockquote>
<blockquote>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]].<ref name="Elizabeth de la Vega"/></blockquote>

===Ban on Interrogation Techniques===
On Februari 13, 2008 the US Senate, in a 51 to 45 vote, approved a bill limiting the number of techniques allowed to only "those interrogation techniques explicitly authorized by the [[2006 Army Field Manual]]."<ref name="Senate Ban">Senate bannes interrogation techniques
*[http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/02/senator-mccain-is-against-torture-but.html Senator McCain Is Against Torture -- But Votes Against the Bill That Would Prevent It] [[Marty Lederman]], [[Balkinization]], February 13, 2008
*[Senate backs intelligence bill restricting CIA interrogation tactics
Mike Rosen-Molina, [[JURIST]], February 13, 2008</ref> The Washington Post stated:
<blockquote>The measure would effectively ban the use of simulated drowning, temperature extremes and other harsh tactics that the CIA used on [[al-Qaeda]] prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.<ref name="WaPo Ban">[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302888.html?hpid=topnews Senate Passes Ban On Waterboarding, Other Techniques] By [[Dan Eggen]], Washington Post, February 14, 2008</ref> </blockquote>
President Bush has said he would veto any such bill<ref name="WaPo Ban"/> after signing an [[executive order]] that
<blockquote>allows "enhanced interrogation techniques" and may exempt the CIA from [[Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions]].<ref name="Senate Ban"/></blockquote>


==Criticism==
==Criticism==

Revision as of 20:30, 15 February 2008

Painting of waterboarding from Cambodia's Tuol Sleng Prison

Enhanced interrogation techniques, rough interrogation, and alternative set of procedures are terms 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][4] Despite the alternate name, the United Nations,[5] the Commissioner for Human Rights,[1], Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH),[6] Elizabeth de la Vega,[7] and many other experts consider this to be torture, and also consider the techniques ineffective[2][8][9][10][11][12]. For its use on Canadian citizen Omar Khadr Canada listed the U.S. prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on a watch list for torture.[13]

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."[14]. 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.[15]

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."[16][17][18][19][20][3][21][22] 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[23] described the use of hypothermia identical to the reports from Guantanamo Bay. Sullivan and Gorman contend that the defence 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.[16][18] The now familiar ticking time bomb scenario, as rationale for allowing torture, had its precursor in the Gestapo's "Third degree" measures.[21] 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.[3]

SERE program

Main article: SERE

According to Human Rights First:

Internal FBI memos and press reports have pointed to SERE training as the basis for some of the harshest techniques authorised for use on detainees by the Pentagon in 2002 and 2003.[24]

And according to Salon:

A March 22 2005, sworn statement by the former chief of the Interrogation Control Element at Guantánamo said instructors from SERE also taught their methods to interrogators of the prisoners in Cuba.[25]

In addition, Stephen Soldz, Steven Reisner and Brad Olson also 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."[10] Soldz et al. and Salon 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.

The War on Terror

Main article: War on Terror

Initial program

Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, several memos[26] were written analysing the legal position and possibilities in the treatment of prisoners. The memos, known today as the "torture memos," advocate enhanced interrogation techniques, but point out that refuting the Geneva Conventions would reduce the possibility of prosecution for war crimes.[27] In addition, a new definition of torture was issued. Most actions that fall under the international definition do not fall within this new definition advocated by the U.S.[28] Several top military lawyers, including Alberto J. Mora, reported that policies allowing methods equivalent to torture were officially handed down from the highest levels of the administration, and led an effort within the Department of Defence to put a stop to those policies and instead mandate non-coercive interrogation standards.[29]

Application on alleged terrorists

In December 2007 C.I.A. director Michael V. Hayden stated that "of about 100 prisoners held to date in the C.I.A. program, the enhanced techniques were used on about 30, and waterboarding used on just three."[30][31]

Allegations of prisoner abuse

Notwithstanding the suggestion of official policy, the administration repeatedly assured critics that the publicised cases were incidents, and President Bush later stated that:

"The United States of America does not torture. And that's important for people around the world to understand."[32]

The administration adopted the McCain Detainee Amendment to address the multitude of incidents of detainee abuse. However, in his signing statement, Bush made clear that he reserved the right to waive this bill if he thought that was needed.[33]

Over the years numerous incidents have been made public and a UN report denounced the abuse of prisoners as tantamount to torture.[34]

Several legal analysts — such as Elizabeth Holtzman, Marjorie Cohn, and Human Rights First — have advocated that writing the so-called "torture memos," not preventing or stopping the abuse could result in legal challenges involving war crimes[35] under the command responsibility.[36][37] This view was confirmed when the US Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that, contrary to what the Bush administration advocated, the Third Geneva Convention (regarding the treatment of prisoners) applies to all detainees in the war on terrorism and as such the Military Tribunals used to try suspects were violating the law. The Court reaffirmed that those involved in mistreatment of detainees violate US and international law.[38]

On May 19 2006, the UN Committee against Torture issued a report stating the U.S. should stop, what it concludes, is "ill-treatment" of detainees, since such treatment, according to the report, violates international law. It also calls for cessation of the US-termed "enhanced interrogation" techniques, as the UN sees these methods as a form of torture. The UN report also admonishes against secret prisons, the use of which, is considered to amount to torture as well and should be discontinued.[5]

Destruction of evidence

In December 2007 it became known that the CIA had destroyed videotapes depicting prisoners being interrogated. This was allegedly done to protect the agents' identities from being disclosed. The New York Times reported that according to "some insiders" an inquiry into the C.I.A.’s secret detention program which analysed these techniques "might end with criminal charges for abusive interrogations."[39] Marty Lederman, Glenn Greenwald, and other commentators suggested these tapes might have revealed serious violations of US and international law, i.e. evidence of torture.[40] In an Op-ed for the New York Times Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton, chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission stated:

As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.’s failure to disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that obstruction.[41]

Technique details under the Bush administration

According to ABC News[42], former and current CIA officals have come forward to reveal details of interrogation techniques authorised 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.


U.S. State Department position on its use by other nations

Human Rights Watch (HRW) observed that numerous countries engage in activities that are similar to the ones allegedly used by the C.I.A.:[43]

  1. Forced standing
  2. Sleep deprivation
  3. Exposure to cold
  4. Waterboarding

The organisation also reported that:

The U.S. State Department has condemned as torture or other inhuman treatment many of the techniques that have allegedly been used by the CIA in Iraq, Afghanistan, and at secret detention sites in other countries.[43]

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 authorises legislation, or other action, by the United States of America prohibited by the Constitution of the United States as interpreted by the United States."[44]
  • 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 authorise their use by the CIA -- whether or not they are subject to the criminal sanctions reserved for "torture" as such.[22]

US Law

  • In April 2006, in a letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales[45], 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 Defence 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.[46]. 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 Defence Department to investigate, and to provide clear standards prohibiting coercive interrogation tactics.[47] 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.[48]
  • 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.[7]

Ban on Interrogation Techniques

On Februari 13, 2008 the US Senate, in a 51 to 45 vote, approved a bill limiting the number of techniques allowed to only "those interrogation techniques explicitly authorized by the 2006 Army Field Manual."[49] The Washington Post stated:

The measure would effectively ban the use of simulated drowning, temperature extremes and other harsh tactics that the CIA used on al-Qaeda prisoners after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.[50]

President Bush has said he would veto any such bill[50] after signing an executive order that

allows "enhanced interrogation techniques" and may exempt the CIA from Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions.[49]

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.[6]

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."[10][6] 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."[10]

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.[12]

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.[51]

See also

Articles

Books

References

  1. ^ a b "Torture can never, ever be accepted" by Thomas Hammarberg, Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe
  2. ^ a b 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
  3. ^ 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
  4. ^ The U.S. Has a History of Using Torture by Alfred W. McCoy
  5. ^ a b UN Committee against Torture report
  6. ^ a b c Human Rights First (HRF) and Physicians for Human Rights (PFH) report
  7. ^ a b What Real DOJ Trial Attorneys Say About Torture By Elizabeth de la Vega, truthout, November 18 2007
  8. ^ So Mukasey Doesn't Know If Waterboarding Is Torture? Please by Joyce Appleby, History News Network, October 29 2007
  9. ^ Whatever it takes. The politics of the man behind “24.” by Jane Mayer, The New Yorker, February 12 2007
  10. ^ 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
  11. ^ ‘Fill The Jails’, Part II by Sean Gonsalves, CommonDreams, May 26 2007
  12. ^ a b Advisers Fault Harsh Methods In Interrogation By SCOTT SHANE AND MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, May 30 2007
  13. ^ US on list of states where prisoners risk torture Canada puts U.S. on torture watch list: CTV, CTV.ca, January 17, 2008
  14. ^ Carter says U.S. tortures prisoners in a CNN interview on 10 October 2007
  15. ^ "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". ABC News. 2005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  16. ^ 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
  17. ^ Coming to a Theater Near You: Five Years in Guantánamo by Lou Dubose, Washington Spectator, July 1 2007
  18. ^ a b Bush’s torturers follow where the Nazis led by Andrew Sullivan, The Sunday Times, October 7 2007
  19. ^ "Verschärfte Vernehmung" by Andrew Sullivan, May 29 2007
  20. ^ How The Nazis Defended "Enhanced Interrogation" Andrew Sullivan, June 14 2007
  21. ^ a b Defending Enhanced Interrogation Techniques by Scott Horton, Harper's
  22. ^ a b One of Those Rare Instances in Which the Nazi Analogy is Unavoidable Marty Lederman, Balkinization, May 29 2007
  23. ^ 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
  24. ^ Responsibility: Detainee Deaths in U.S. Custody in Iraq and Afghanistan Abed Hamed Mowhoush, Human Rights First
  25. ^ Torture teachers - An Army document proves that Guantánamo interrogators were taught by instructors from a military school that trains U.S. soldiers how to resist torture By Mark Benjamin, Salon, June 29 2006
  26. ^ The Interrogation Documents: Debating U.S. Policy and Methods the memos written as part of the war on terrorism
  27. ^ War crimes warning
  28. ^ US definition of torture
  29. ^ Torture as policy?
  30. ^ Lawmakers Back Limits on Interrogation Tactics By SCOTT SHANE, New York Times, December 7, 2007
  31. ^ Lawyers for Detainee Refer In Filing to More CIA Tapes By Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, January 19, 2008
  32. ^ We don't torture
  33. ^ U.S. Cites Exception in Torture Ban McCain Law May Not Apply to Cuba Prison, By Josh White and Carol D. Leonnig, Washington Post, March 3 2006
  34. ^ UN calls for Guantanamo closure BBC, Read the full UN report into Guantanamo Bay, February 16 2006
  35. ^ Draft Impeachment Resolution Against President George W. Bush, 108nd Congress H.Res.XX by Francis A. Boyle, professor of law, University of Illinois School of Law, January 17 2003
  36. ^ The Constitution in Crisis; The Downing Street Minutes and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, and Coverups in the Iraq War Investigative Status Report of the House Judiciary Committee Democratic Staff
  37. ^ Accountability
  38. ^ A Supreme Rebuke Bush Loses Guantanamo Case Marjorie Cohn -professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president-elect of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists- CounterPunch, June 30 2006
  39. ^ Tapes by C.I.A. Lived and Died to Save Image By SCOTT SHANE and MARK MAZZETTI, New York Times, December 30 2007
  40. ^ Possible obstruction of Justice
  41. ^ Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton
  42. ^ "CIA's Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described". ABC News. 2005. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  43. ^ a b Descriptions of Techniques Allegedly Authorized by the CIA by Human Rights Watch, November 21, 2005
  44. ^ 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
  45. ^ letter to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
  46. ^ "Gitmo interrogations spark battle over tactics". 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-05. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  47. ^ "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)
  48. ^ "Tribunals Didn't Rely on Torture". Washington Post: A20. 2004. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  49. ^ a b Senate bannes interrogation techniques Mike Rosen-Molina, JURIST, February 13, 2008
  50. ^ a b Senate Passes Ban On Waterboarding, Other Techniques By Dan Eggen, Washington Post, February 14, 2008
  51. ^ 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=191713935"