The debate over U.S. torture policy erupted yesterday on the Hill, in the wake of yesterday’s NYT blockbuster, highlighting secret legal opinions from the Bush administration, which endorsed “the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency.” After insisting publicly that “torture is abhorrent,” Bush officials “provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics,” including simulated drownings and freezing temperatures.
The president’s aides fanned out to deny, defend, and spin the revelations, but for my money, the most impressive argument came by way of Frances Fragos Townsend.
White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend also dismissed objections to the CIA program yesterday, saying during an appearance on CNN that al-Qaeda members are trained to resist harsh interrogations. She said that “we start with the least harsh measures first” and stop the progression “if someone becomes cooperative.”
Now, this is amazing for a couple of reasons. First, the notion of being trained to resist drownings has always seemed rather far-fetched. Unless al Qaeda has figured out a way to equip terrorists with gills, there isn’t much anyone can do to prepare for waterboarding.
But it’s that second part that’s particularly noteworthy. As Townsend described it, on national television, the painful physical and psychological tactics, which are unlawful, are suspended when the a detainee “becomes cooperative.” In other words, “We stop torturing when we get what we want out of the suspect.”
That’s not a defense for abuse; that’s insane. Townsend is arguing that we stop torturing people after they give us the intelligence we’ve beaten out of them? That’s supposed to make us feel better about abusive, illegal interrogation techniques?
This is exactly why torture produces unreliable information — the tortured will simply say anything to get the abuse to stop. The detainees become desperate to be “cooperative,” whether they have the intelligence officials want or not. Townsend’s defense, in this sense, is patently ridiculous.
Indeed, consider this tidbit from yesterday’s NYT piece.
[W]hen the C.I.A. caught Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks, interrogators were again haunted by uncertainty. Former intelligence officials, for the first time, disclosed that a variety of tough interrogation tactics were used about 100 times over two weeks on Mr. Mohammed. Agency officials then ordered a halt, fearing the combined assault might have amounted to illegal torture. A C.I.A. spokesman, George Little, declined to discuss the handling of Mr. Mohammed. Mr. Little said the program “has been conducted lawfully, with great care and close review” and “has helped our country disrupt terrorist plots and save innocent lives.”
“The agency has always sought a clear legal framework, conducting the program in strict accord with U.S. law, and protecting the officers who go face-to-face with ruthless terrorists,” Mr. Little added.
Some intelligence officers say that many of Mr. Mohammed’s statements proved exaggerated or false. One problem, a former senior agency official said, was that the C.I.A.’s initial interrogators were not experts on Mr. Mohammed’s background or Al Qaeda, and it took about a month to get such an expert to the secret prison. The former official said many C.I.A. professionals now believe patient, repeated questioning by well-informed experts is more effective than harsh physical pressure.
The point isn’t that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed should have been coddled; the man is a cold-blooded killer. The point is that we tortured the monster and came up with “exaggerated or false” intelligence, which is what someone produces when they’re desperate to stop the abuse.
As for the consequences of the NYT revelations, Congress, at least for now, appears to be taking this very seriously.
The disclosure of secret Justice Department legal opinions on interrogation on Thursday set off a bitter round of debate over the treatment of terrorism suspects in American custody and whether Congress has been adequately informed of legal policies.
Democrats on Capitol Hill demanded to see the classified memorandums, disclosed Thursday by The New York Times, that gave the Central Intelligence Agency expansive approval in 2005 for harsh interrogation techniques.
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote to the acting attorney general, Peter D. Keisler, asking for copies of all opinions on interrogation since 2004.
“I find it unfathomable that the committee tasked with oversight of the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program would be provided more information by The New York Times than by the Department of Justice,” Mr. Rockefeller wrote.
So far, White House officials are resisting disclosure (natch), and the House Judiciary Committee is vowing to hold hearings on the issue. “Both the alleged content of these opinions and the fact that they have been kept secret from Congress are extremely troubling,” Chairman John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) said in a letter to acting Attorney General Peter D. Keisler.
Stay tuned.