Yesterday, John McCain took to the Senate floor to set the record straight about waterboarding and the intelligence that led us to Osama bin Laden:
With so much misinformation being fed into such an essential public debate as this one, I asked the Director of Central Intelligence, Leon Panetta, for the facts. And I received the following information:
The trail to bin Laden did not begin with a disclosure from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times. We did not first learn from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed the real name of bin Laden’s courier, or his alias, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti — the man who ultimately enabled us to find bin Laden. The first mention of the name Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti, as well as a description of him as an important member of Al-Qaeda, came from a detainee held in another country. The United States did not conduct this detainee’s interrogation, nor did we render him to that country for the purpose of interrogation. We did not learn Abu Ahmed’s real name or alias as a result of waterboarding or any ‘enhanced interrogation technique’ used on a detainee in U.S. custody. None of the three detainees who were waterboarded provided Abu Ahmed’s real name, his whereabouts, or an accurate description of his role in Al-Qaeda.
In fact, not only did the use of ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed; it actually produced false and misleading information. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed specifically told his interrogators that Abu Ahmed had moved to Peshawar, got married, and ceased his role as an Al-Qaeda facilitator — which was not true, as we now know. All we learned about Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti through the use of waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ against Khalid Sheik Mohammed was the confirmation of the already known fact that the courier existed and used an alias.
I have sought further information from the staff of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and they confirm for me that, in fact, the best intelligence gained from a CIA detainee — information describing Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti’s real role in Al-Qaeda and his true relationship to Osama bin Laden — was obtained through standard, non-coercive means, not through any ‘enhanced interrogation technique.’
In short, it was not torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees that got us the major leads that ultimately enabled our intelligence community to find Osama bin Laden. I hope former Attorney General Mukasey will correct his misstatement. It’s important that he do so because we are again engaged in this important debate, with much at stake for America’s security and reputation. Each side should make its own case, but do so without making up its own facts.
The entire speech deserves our attention, but for the sake of the pro-torture pragmatists I want to focus on the highlighted section. The torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed produced false and misleading information. This isn’t surprising since a key fact about waterboarding and other “enhanced interrogation techniques”—and it remains indisputable—is that they are less effective than non-coercive means. Forget whether torture can ever be effective. For the sake of argument, let’s grant that point. The fact remains that those methods are less effective than non-coercive means.
This simple truth has been proven time and time again. Indeed, interrogators with the FBI and the military have said for decades that harsh methods simply do not work as well as non-coercive means. In testimony presented to the Senate Judiciary committee, FBI interrogator Ali Soufan said, “These [enhanced interrogation] techniques, from an operational perspective, are ineffective, slow and unreliable, and as a result harmful to our efforts to defeat al Qaeda.”
Anyone who has taken a class in economics should be able to understand why harsh interrogation techniques are inefficient. As economists frequently note, people respond to incentives. This is certainly true in interrogation situations, and harsh techniques ensure that the incentives for the interrogator and the prisoner are exactly opposite. If a prisoner responds to torture by providing reliable information, then the interrogator has a strong incentive to keep torturing the prisoner. Why would a prisoner tell the truth when the “reward” is more torture? Torture provides a strong incentive to lie.
Considered from the perspective of incentives, it becomes easier to understand why non-coercive methods have historically produced better results.
Imagine that you are a high-level member of Al Queda being held at Guantanamo detention center. You know you will never, ever be going home. This is now your life. The dull routine of the prison is interrupted only by the occasional interrogation session. What incentives would you be most likely to respond to favorably? If you’re like most humans, you’ll be willing to trade some relatively innocuous pieces of information (e.g., the name of Osama’s courier) for small comforts that improve your life. If fact, one of the most successful interrogations of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials after 9/11 involved giving the prisoner sugar cookies.
It sounds ridiculous until you put yourself in the place of the prisoner. Their incentive structure has been radically altered. They’ve been denied even the most trivial luxuries for years and will never again have such pleasures. That is, unless they tell their captors something useful. Being rewarded provides a strong incentive for them to tell the truth.
This should be obvious to everyone. Yet the the pro-torture armchair interrogators, the folks that tend to confuse reality with an episode of 24, have a hard time recognizing this obvious truth. They find it difficult to fathom that intelligence gathering in the real-world is slower and much duller than in the world of Jack Bauer. While the CTI agent would break out the jumper cables and threaten to induce great pain in order to get a terror suspect to talk, a real interrogator would offer up an extra blanket and hold out the promise of a small pleasure. The real world method is not as dramatic, not as cinematic as a Bauer-style torture session. But it has the advantage of being effective.
For those who are deaf to moral arguments against torture and consider only the pragmatic case, isn’t that what really matters?
(Quoted text via Outside the Beltway)
May 13th, 2011 | 10:12 am
Seems to be some confusion at the CIA. Seems previous directors tell a different story.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:36 am
Our enemies have and will continue to torture US prisoners of war. Our actions in torturing enemy combatant prisoners of war in the 2000s make it easier for our enemies to justify to themselves what they are already doing and will continue to do anyway.
Impressive speech by Senator McCain.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:36 am
Mr. McCain’s opposition to torture is understandable. I am skeptical of Mr. Panetta.
If a sugar cookie is so effective, why would the operatives, who are the experts, want to ever use waterboarding? The obvious answer is that waterboarding is effective, or it would not be used. In all likelihood, the process of obtaining information from prisoners involves a combination of both negative and positive tactics. Why would someone give more reliable information for a reward? Because he knows that if the information is determined to be false, he may face waterboarding or some other negative consequence.
Any kind of extreme measure should be avoided. But we are talking about people who rejoiced as other humans in the World Trade Centers had to choose between a hundred story fall and being burned alive rather than between a sugar cookie and water up their nose.
May 13th, 2011 | 10:37 am
Arguments against enhanced interrogation techniques should not be based on whether or not these techniques gave us great information or bad information. The ends don’t justify the means — or not justify the means!
May 13th, 2011 | 10:49 am
Ex-CIA Counterterror Chief Jose Rodriguez. former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and former DCI Michael Hayden have all stated that ‘Enhanced Interrogation’ led the U.S. to Bin Laden. Did they learn this from watching episodes of ’24.’? Or are they just lying?
May 13th, 2011 | 10:52 am
One disturbing aspect of this is that the moral dimension of torture is being ignored in light of the purely utilitarian aspect. It’s either wrong, or it’s not (and yes, there’s room for a just war type discussion on exactly what, when, and to what degree). The fact it may have been useful doesn’t change the morality. The ‘pro-torture’ lobby is using exactly the same type of argument that denies there’s a moral aspect to things like research on human embryos or abortion.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:00 am
So, J. Bob, if the ‘different story’ were correct, that would justify the Chrisian baptism of torture?
May 13th, 2011 | 11:12 am
If only McCain had kept to this argument for all of the last 10 years he would be more credible. This should not be about usefulness, although that is clear thoughout all the real studies, but about US values. Read the book Unbroken and a variety of other stories of torture of prisoners of war. The US will never have a reputation for standing against torture. It is sad.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:12 am
It must be comforting to live in a simple world where everything is black and white, where you can make statements like “The ‘pro-torture’ lobby is using exactly the same type of argument that denies there’s a moral aspect to things like research on human embryos or abortion.” Was it immoral for President Bush to authorize the waterboarding of KSM and two others (the media loves to make it seem like hundreds were waterboarded) if he thought they might reveal information that could save the lives of thousands of Americans? Was it immoral, when Bush was told in the fall of 2001 that al Qaeda had smuggled some typre of nuclear weapon into the U.S., for him to say “take the gloves off”? I wish I lived in your simple, manichean world.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:15 am
First Things is a wonderful publication, but its standards become a little tarnished when you have folks like Mr. Carter, who is not an expert in the area of enhanced interrogations, making statements about things he isn’t qualified to judge and/or lacks the information to make such judgements.
First, the 183 is misleading.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
Next, here’s a reply that disputes McCain’s assertions.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/267149/mukasey-fires-back-mccain-andrew-c-mccarthy
Finally, if some of these procedures were or are legal torture, the Congress is guilty of serious malfeasance. Why? They permit our own military to undergo such procedures.
This is not to say that EITs are effective all the time, but at least put forth opinions by someone who is qualified to speak about the subject.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:19 am
Panetta, by the way, told the public something different from what he allegedly told McCain:
Here’s an excerpt from an interview with Brian Williams done within 48 hours of the raid:
WILLIAMS: Can you confirm that it was as a result of waterboarding that we learned what we needed to learn to go after Bin Laden?
PANETTA: Brian, in the intelligence business you work from a lot of sources of information and that was true here… It’s a little difficult to say it was due just to one source of information that we got… I think some of the detainees clearly were, you know, they used these enhanced interrogation techniques against some of these detainees. But I’m also saying that, you know, the debate about whether we would have gotten the same information through other approaches I think is always going to be an open question.
WILLIAMS: So finer point, one final time, enhanced interrogation techniques — which has always been kind of a handy euphemism in these post-9/11 years — that includes waterboarding?
PANETTA: That’s correct.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:21 am
[...] to seem like I’m picking on Joe, but I’ll point out a few things in connection with his post below on whether waterboarding “worked” and helped us find Osama bin [...]
May 13th, 2011 | 11:25 am
Publius,
You missed my point. The utility of torture doesn’t justify its use. It’s moral or it’s not. And no, I don’t regard this as a simple issue, there is room for debate as I stated in my comment. (I’m a SERE-trained Navy vet, I’ve had to give a lot of thought to these ‘simple’ issues.) My point was that the discussion on this issue over the last couple of weeks has been purely utilitarian, the end justifies the means.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:48 am
mushroom If a sugar cookie is so effective, why would the operatives, who are the experts, want to ever use waterboarding? The obvious answer is that waterboarding is effective, or it would not be used.
Let’s examine that logic:
Techique X has been used in the past.
Only techniques that are effective are ever used.
Ergo, Technique X must be effective.
Do you really think that is an effective line of reasoning?
Mollie The ends don’t justify the means — or not justify the means!
Amen. It’s disheartening to see so many Christians discard Christian morality when they find it to be inconvenient.
publius Did they learn this from watching episodes of ’24.’? Or are they just lying?
Let’s keep in mind that all three of those men have strong motives to claim that EIT work. They could be charged with committing war crimes under the Geneva Convention so they will do whatever they can to justify themselves.
Also, the NSA has already disputed the claims of Rodriguez, a man who was investigated for destroying evidence that might implicate the CIA is illegal torture.
Can you find someone that wasn’t in the Bush administration that claims the techniques were effective?
adam shields If only McCain had kept to this argument for all of the last 10 years he would be more credible.
He has. McCain has had the same argument since his days in Vietnam.
publius Was it immoral for President Bush to authorize the waterboarding of KSM and two others (the media loves to make it seem like hundreds were waterboarded) if he thought they might reveal information that could save the lives of thousands of Americans?
Yes, it was immoral. The ends do not justify the means.
Was it immoral, when Bush was told in the fall of 2001 that al Qaeda had smuggled some typre of nuclear weapon into the U.S., for him to say “take the gloves off”?
Yes, and it was also dumb. The military interrogators said that “taking the gloves off” was ineffective and would not make the U.S. safer nor lead to reliable intelligence.
I wish I lived in your simple, manichean world.
Is Jesus a Manichean?
JohnFirst, the 183 is misleading.
And the article you linked to is misleading. If I said a prisoner was pocked with a hot iron 183 times, would you say it was misleading because the “pokes” were done in a smaller span of time?
Waterboarding works in a matter of seconds. Each “pour” is the equivalent of being tortured one time.
Next, here’s a reply that disputes McCain’s assertions.
John McCain was essentially saying that Mukasey lied. Mukassey helped justify the use of torture so his reputation hangs on it being effective. If it turns out that the techniques are ineffective, then he looks like an immoral idiot.
Finally, if some of these procedures were or are legal torture, the Congress is guilty of serious malfeasance. Why? They permit our own military to undergo such procedures.
Oh good grief. First of all, do you know why the military uses the technique in training? To teach servicemembers how to endure torture. Second, men in the military must volunteer to undergo the torture technique. It is not forced on them. There is an insurmountable difference between voluntarily undergoing a technique in order to learn how to endure torture and actually being tortured.
May 13th, 2011 | 11:54 am
Michael Snow writes:
if the ‘different story’ were correct, that would justify the Chrisian baptism of torture?
Presuming that it works, which I don’t, isn’t it a Christian justification of torture to say that we’re called to love our neighbors, and that this begins with defending them against unjust harm? Supposing torture works and we oppose it, aren’t we saying that causing extreme pain to mass murderers and would-be mass murderers is worse than allowing innocents to be killed?
May 13th, 2011 | 12:01 pm
Joe,
You note “Let’s keep in mind that all three of those men have strong motives to claim that EIT work. They could be charged with committing war crimes under the Geneva Convention so they will do whatever they can to justify themselves.”
Incorrect: Hayden shut down the use of waterboarding; Mukasey was AG long after it was shut down. They could not be charge with anything.
You also note: “Yes, it was immoral. The ends do not justify the means.”
OK, by that standard Harry Truman was a war criminal. Thankfully you’ve never held a postition of high authority. I’d prefer a president more interested in protecting American lives than in protecting the civil rights of KSM.
“The military interrogators said that “taking the gloves off” was ineffective and would not make the U.S. safer nor lead to reliable intelligence.”
We’re not talking about the “military interrogators.” Jose Rodriguez who ran the CIA’s counterrorism program has stated that KSM only started talking after being waterboarded.
By the way, forget Hayden, Muksaey etc., is George W. Bush a “war criminal? He’s the one who authorized all of this. I noticed at this blog that whenever this issue comes up you dodge the question of whether George W. Bush was a “war criminal”? (I know he was a believer, and something of a Manichean, but was he a war criminal? By your aforementioned standards I think I know the answer but I’d love some clarification).
May 13th, 2011 | 12:03 pm
In this video, a man that was tortured is asked, regarding the confusion of his countrymen, “What would you say to them, professor?”
“To stop torturing their fellow man. It is a shame and a dishonor.”
May 13th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
@Joe Carter
“There is an insurmountable difference between voluntarily undergoing a technique in order to learn how to endure torture and actually being tortured.”
Good point. For all the people who support torture, I hope you think about what that must be like the next time you are in a dentist’s chair. Also, I’d love to know where you draw the line? Can suspected murderers and rapists be tortured? What about convicted murderers? I guess you don’t care what the constitution says.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:33 pm
Mr. Carter, I am not an expert at interrogation — and neither are you. However, I am an expert at my profession, as are you. The techniques I use are the techniques of a professional. Knowledge and experience guide my choice of techniques.
A logical assumption would be that the people who are extracting information from terrorists are professionals as well and that they would use techniques that work best.
Other assumptions you could make are that the people doing the interrogating enjoy torture for its own sake, are bad people, or are ignorant and uninformed about their own area of expertise.
The latter appears to be your assumption.
You may choose to say that you are against torture in every circumstance because it is immoral in your opinion. I can accept that. Your little logical construction is, though, silly.
May 13th, 2011 | 12:59 pm
Publius — yes, Harry Truman was a war criminal. And I don’t know what kind of people you hang out with, but I know exactly no one who would justify the dropping of the atomic bombs under a Christian view of morality. Under a utilitarian one, sure. But let’s be honest about what kind of moral system we’re using. You want a utilitarian president. I may agree with you that such a president would be effective. But effectiveness is not morality.
May 13th, 2011 | 1:59 pm
This is not where the rest of the conversation is going, but I think McCain clearly backed down on torture and his refusal to push harder is part of why we are in this mess.
His language in the 2005 Defense appropriations bill passed the Senate requiring all treament of prisoners to follow the guidelines in US military field manual, which clearly prohibits torture. After negotiations he agreed to remove the language and said, “I think you do understand that there are some people who are very, very bad people, and I think that to continue a program for some of them, without torture, is something that we can’t deprive the President of the United States of.” And then vocally supported the president. Who then in a signing statement reserved his presidential constitutional authority to avoid further terrorist attacks at home or abroad.
McCain also voted against the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act that would explicitly ban torture by US intelligence agencies.
McCain has balked on torture several times. He holds a strong vocal position but then votes with the party and now he wants to regain the high ground.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:01 pm
Nobody on this forum can know with precision the efficacy of the EITs used on Al Qaeda because the information is confidential. Having said that Joe thinks EITs are immoral and ineffective because McCain said so (i.e. Mukasey lied), and there is evidence that supports his position, but that doesn’t mean that EITs have not been vital to our ability to gather important intelligence.
Furthermore, according to AG Holder, the legal question involves intent.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/181884/holder-waterboarding-proving-its-not-torture-while-insisting-it-andrew-c-mccarthy
Does Joe also know the intent of the interrogators?
In addition, based on email from Mark Thiessen, I believe by law we are obliged to tell the interrogation subjects that they will not be physically harmed. I may be wrong about this. However, assuming this is correct, would Joe argue that forcing Al Qaeda to wear pink g-strings and watch gay porn is a form of psychological torture?
Finally, our military undergoes voluntary EITs to prepare them in the event they are captured and interrogated, but Joe says EITs are ineffective with regard to intelligence gathering?
May 13th, 2011 | 2:16 pm
Adam Shields After negotiations he agreed to remove the language and said, . . .
Let’s look at the full context of McCain’s remarks from 2006:
McCain may be naive, but at least he is consistent.
McCain also voted against the 2008 Intelligence Authorization Act that would explicitly ban torture by US intelligence agencies.
McCain said he opposed the language because it applied military standards to intelligence agencies. He also said that it was unnecessary to include language about waterboarding since it was already forbidden under current law. Obviously, he made those changes to ensure that the bill (which he co-sponsored) would make it through Congress.
I wish he had been a bit less trusting about the GOP, but I think he deserves credit for taking the stance he has.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:23 pm
Then I am sad that that the only ‘consistant’ senator against torture has been naive enough to to vote against rules that would have strengthen the currently existing laws that were violated.
I am even more disappointed that we are still having this discussion. Seriously people, Torture is immoral, does not work and our use of it is exactly what we have prosecuted in the past. End of story.
May 13th, 2011 | 2:48 pm
Chris: “Harry Truman was a war criminal. And I don’t know what kind of people you hang out with, but I know exactly no one who would justify the dropping of the atomic bombs under a Christian view of morality.” Actually, I ‘hang’ out with people in the military, who protect you and your fellow Americans from Islamic extremists, et. al. Enjoy your comfortable existence while these people, these “war criminals,” like Bush and Truman (where’s Lincoln? His Generals killed civilians) allow you and your fellow hypocrites to pontificate in a free country.
May 13th, 2011 | 3:14 pm
@Publius: You write: “Enjoy your comfortable existence while these people, these “war criminals,” like Bush and Truman (where’s Lincoln? His Generals killed civilians) allow you and your fellow hypocrites to pontificate in a free country.”
The point is not whether the actions that caused these presidents to be called “war criminals” were effective—that’s a separate discussion—it’s whether it is whether they were morally right.
But to answer you, yes, Lincoln and Truman both would be war criminal by modern standards.
May 13th, 2011 | 3:26 pm
Michael Snow:
I’ll ask again: Presuming that torture works, which I don’t, isn’t it a Christian justification of it to say that we’re called to love our neighbors, and that this begins with defending them against unjust harm? Supposing torture works and we oppose it, aren’t we saying that causing extreme pain to mass murderers and would-be mass murderers is worse than allowing innocents to be killed?
May 13th, 2011 | 3:53 pm
Carson,
OK, so we’ve establised that Lincoln and Truman were “war criminals.” Hell, throw George Washington into the mix, his troops executed Tories on occasion and looted from civilians. I had no idea I was reading the blog for “The Nation.” . . . This is getting better by the minute. . . Anyway, is plotting an assassination a “war crime”?
May 13th, 2011 | 4:07 pm
@Publius: You write, “Anyway, is plotting an assassination a “war crime”?”
No, I’m pretty sure that’s just a regular crime.
May 13th, 2011 | 4:17 pm
I wonder if Joe approves of targeted assassinations? Why? I can’t prove Osama’s death was an assassination, but it sure looks that way.
May 13th, 2011 | 4:26 pm
OK, so the Hitler conspirators, including members of the OSS, were just regular criminals. Good to know. It must be such a stress free existence living with such pat answers.
May 13th, 2011 | 4:28 pm
Let’s examine that logic:
Techique X has been used in the past.
Only techniques that are effective are ever used.
Ergo, Technique X must be effective.
Do you really think that is an effective line of reasoning?
Joe Carter: Do you really think that was his line of reasoning?
May 13th, 2011 | 4:30 pm
his or her line of reasoning, that is.
May 13th, 2011 | 5:02 pm
@Publius: The military leaders (which includes Hitler) of a country one is at war with are legitimate military targets. Killing them is not “assassination,” any more than killing a front-line soldier is.
May 17th, 2011 | 11:18 pm
This is another Carter/ Shea distortion of fact.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact