On April 16, the Obama Administration released the memos authored by Bush's Office of Legal Counsel that provided the legal rationale for torture.
Though this comparison seems a little over the top, the 2002 memo from Jay Bybee authorized "attention grasp, walling (hitting a detainee against a flexible wall), facial hold, facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, stress positions, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box, and waterboarding."
Some in the CIA felt betrayed, "broken and bewildered" by the release of the memos. President Obama tried to allay these fears in his statement on the memos' release, saying:
In releasing these memos, it is our intention to assure those who carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution...We must protect their identities as vigilantly as they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence that they can do their jobs.
Not one, not two, but three scientists cited in the memos objected to their work's inclusion. The scientists researched the effects of sleep deprivation, and their conclusions were used to support using sleep deprivation as an interrogation technique. But those who participated in their studies were (a) not deprived of sleep for as long as prisoners were (40 vs. 180 hours), (b) were in perfect health, and (c) were not simultaneously subjected to anything else.
The Bybee memo predicted that walling and cramped confinement would not constitute "serious physical injury." Compare to the Red Cross report:
Abu Zubaida's [often romanized as 'Zubaydah'] attorneys said he "has suffered approximately 175 seizures that appear to be directly related to his extensive torture -- particularly damage to Petitioner's head that was the result of beatings sustained at the hands of CIA interrogators and exacerbated by his lengthy isolation."...
"The stress on my legs held in this position [crouched in a confined wooden box] meant my wounds both in my leg and stomach became very painful," he told the ICRC.
The "learned helplessness" that psychologist James E. Mitchell believed was integral to a successful interrogation (even though he had never personally conducted one) leads to depression. ("You put an animal, human or non-human, in a situation in which bad things happen that it can neither escape nor control, and eventually it just gives up.") Furthermore:
Most of the released detainees, to this day, live with severe anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder, including intrusive recollections of trauma suffered in detention, hyperarousal (persistent symptoms of increased arousal, e.g., difficulty falling or staying asleep, anger, and hypervigilance), avoidance and emotional numbing behavior. PHR’s clinicians determined that these symptoms were directly related to the torture and ill-treatment reported having taken place while in US custody.
Sounds like "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" and "prolonged mental harm" (which constitute torture under US law) to me. So it's illegal, but was it, at least, effective?
Dick Cheney thinks so, and, bastion of openness that he is, thinks we should declassify "the memos that showed the success of the effort" so we could have an "honest debate."
However, it seems clear from items already in the public domain that torture techniques are ineffective and unnecessary. These techniques had, after all, solicited false statements when they were used on Americans in the Korean War.
A footnote in the 2005 Bradbury memo notes that:
The CIA, at least initially, could not always distinguish detainees who had information but were successfully resisting interrogation from those who did not actually have information. . . . On at least one occasion, this may have resulted in what might be deemed in retrospect to have been the unnecessary use of enhanced techniques.
Those who believe that information was acquired from torturing Khaled Sheikh Mohammed and used to foil a plot to attack the Library Tower in Los Angeles are completely wrong. The plot was foiled a full year before Sheikh Mohammed was even captured. (h/t)
And a former FBI agent (h/t) who interrogated Abu Zubaydah argues that:
There was no actionable intelligence gained from using enhanced interrogation techniques on Abu Zubaydah that wasn’t, or couldn’t have been, gained from regular tactics. In addition, I saw that using these alternative methods on other terrorists backfired on more than a few occasions.
But effectiveness is ultimately irrelevant:
If “effectiveness” is all we care about, any form of torture would necessarily be ok. One could, for instance, drag in a detainee’s child and begin torturing him or her in front of the detainee. I assume that even the most hardened torture advocates would draw a line there. If they didn’t, that tells you pretty much all you need to know.
But if they do concede that certain methods go too far (i.e., that such things are relevant), then they’re stuck having to argue that the methods we used simply
aren’t that bad. In other words, if they concede a line exists, then they’re forced to argue that these methods don’t cross it.
Sundry items of note:
- The memos were only lightly redacted, in contrast with documents released by the Bush administration, which were so heavily redacted that the Onion joked that the CIA had been accidentally using black highlighters.
- Glenn Greenwald: "Finally, it should be emphasized -- yet again -- that it was not our Congress, nor our media, nor our courts that compelled disclosure of these memos. Instead, it was the ACLU's tenacious efforts over several years which single-handedly pried these memos from the clutched hands of the government." (h/t)
- Andrew Sullivan: "If you want to know how democracies die, read these memos." (h/t)
