The US & Interrogation (catch all)

[SWJED]

... let's assume we are not engaged in a "war of ideology" but a "war of civilizations".

Does that change the equation?

One assumption here is that world opinion really does not matter much, as it is inevitable that lines are being drawn and there is nothing we can do in the information operations arena that can change Islamist ideology and its increasing acceptance in the Muslim world.

The only variable is when each Western country will realize they are in a fight for survival of their way of life.

[Jedburgh]

One assumption here is that world opinion really does not matter much, as it is inevitable that lines are being drawn and there is nothing we can do in the information operations arena that can change Islamist ideology and its increasing acceptance in the Muslim world.

I strongly disagree with that last bit. In effect, that mindset condones incompetence and accepts failure. By continuing along such a path the worst case scenario becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

The only variable is when each Western country will realize they are in a fight for survival of their way of life.

As others have stated and explained in great detail, it is not the terrorism that truly threatens our way of life, it is the reaction to that terrorism.

The terrorists are not soldiers - they are criminals, and should be prosecuted as such. But even a scumbag that has raped a number of pre-teen girls under his responsibility in a day-care center has to be interviewed, investigated and prosecuted under the rule of law. Terrorists are also criminal scum - and they should be treated no different.

Despite our emotional feelings about the rightness of summary justice for either the terrorist or the child-rapist, following the rules ensures that the rights of innocent people aren't violated (it isn't about protecting the rights of the bad guy - its about ensuring that he is the bad guy). It also demonstrates to the world that we are truly a free country, unafraid to display to the world the bad guys we've captured, the evidence clearly linking them to terrorism, and then try them openly as common criminals. This diminishes the status of the terrorist and enhances our moral standing.

On the other hand, indefinite detention in the absence of evidence, secret evidence, secret tribunals, prosecutions hidden from view are things for which we used to vilify the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc (I'm sure there's a few of you on here that remember those days...). Such methods enhance the status of the bad guys we hold, clearly display a disturbing mix of national arrogance and fear, and then those that are inevitably eventually released spread tales of that system which have a significant negative impact upon our already virtually non-existent IO campaign.

Let's just do this the right way. And I mean that in both aspects: being morally right as well as operationally effective. Believe it or not, we can do it.

[aktarian]

One assumption here is that world opinion really does not matter much, as it is inevitable that lines are being drawn and there is nothing we can do in the information operations arena that can change Islamist ideology and its increasing acceptance in the Muslim world.

Wold opinion matters because it will influence where lines will be drawn.

If western countries will loose it's moral high ground than conflict will be seen as clash of two evils by many. And as many Soviets did, people will choose that evil which will speak their language (I'm not saying west will be evil but if it adopts measures that will make it loose it's moral high ground it will be seen as such).

[carl]

I strongly endorse the sentiments of Jedburgh and LawVol.

It seems to me the Geneva Conventions as they stand are just a codification of simple humanity. For us to "re-define" them will be seen as, and I think is, an attempt to get around doing the right thing. If we stand for the right when it is hard and painful to do so, it ennobles and strengthens us in the long run. It doesn't weaken us.

On a personal note, as an American living overseas, I don't like the Administration placing me in a position where I have to explain this kind of thing.

[SWJED]

... we adhere to all the Conventions - down to the last dotted i and crossed t. But, say in 5 or 10 years, there is little or no progress in defeating the threat we now face. Is there some "line in the sand" scenario where we should throw caution to the wind in reference to the Geneva Conventions?

[Jedburgh]

... we adhere to all the Conventions - down to the last dotted i and crossed t. But, say in 5 or 10 years, there is little or no progress in defeating the threat we now face. Is there some "line in the sand" scenario where we should throw caution to the wind in reference to the Geneva Conventions?

We have made tremendous progress in the broader fight against terrorism in the past five years. This despite continuing turf battles, blinkered parochialism, and plain old bureaucratic stupidity. I tend to agree with the sentiments expressed in the article I posted in the "The Whole News" forum earlier today. We are generally on the right path, although much still remains to be done. Dispensing with the questionable procedures under discussion and bringing the processes to light would enhance our current efforts, not impede them.

Where we are having significant problems is with Iraq and, increasingly, Afghanistan. Much of what has been discussed on this board since its inception deals broadly with those two areas of conflict. Although events in both areas certainly have an effect upon the wider GWOT, there is no "line-in-the-sand" where we should throw out the Law of War in the conduct of those operations in a desperate final attempt to maintain control. There may come a time when we have to admit failure and withdraw, from one or both. And that will cause us some significant strategic headaches, should it come to that.

Rather than a line-in-the-sand, the situation where I can see the US throwing out the Conventions and all other restraints, is if there is a massive failure that results in a catastrophic attack on our shores. Say, along the lines of a nuclear explosion at a major US port, as described in the recent RAND pub, Considering the Effects of a Catastrophic Terrorist Attack. If such a horrific scenario should come to pass, the American public would not accept, they would demand the gloves come off completely.

[zenpundit]

I have to point out that treating illegal combatants -those whose actions preclude being given POW status - humanely in accord with Geneva and the Torture conventions in no way preclude us for trying and executing them for the commission of war crimes.

The USG is fully within it's sovereign rights to try terrorists simply for being members of al Qaida, proscribing it as an outlaw organization as we once did with the SS, Gestapo, SD and other Nazi affiliates. Especially, trials for fighting out of uniform, for deliberately targeting civilians, for the wanton murder of injured American soldiers on the battlefield, streamlined military trials are justified under international law, the laws of war ( as saboteurs) and Ex Parte Quirin. The recent SCOTUS decision pointed, in fact, to Ex Parte Quirin as the appropriate model and not the vague, shifting, arguments offered by the Bush administration..

In the latter examples, the death penalty is both reasonable and an appropriate outcome upon conviction, barring any mitigating circumstances in terms of cooperation on intelligence matters. As this option could not be, legally and historically speaking, more clear, I can only conclude that the Bush administration, as an act of policy, seeks to avoid any kind of trials indefinitely or at least until they can drop the issue in the next administration's lap.

[slapout9]

These two posts have said it all. In my humble or not so humble opinion. Terrorism is a man made concept (problem) and it's counter is a man made solution (Rule of Law). The more we stray from this the more our country will loose the moral high ground. Zen especially points out that there are laws to handle this situation that we have not even begun to use!! Why we haven't done this I don't know, but we need to get at it!!!

As for line drawing that is exactly what the enemy wants, for us to have a half baked policy of you do this and I will drop the big one. If we follow this policy what do we think the enemy will do?? exactly that which will provoke us into killing huge numbers of civilians. Just like they do !!!

One area that we can exploit is non-lethal and less lethal weapons development. Weapons of mass protection!!! I have never seen a detailed study of the Russian experience where they used knock out agents to paralyze the bombers in Moscow. The bad side effects were that there were not enough medical personnel on site ready to deploy the anti-dote which resulted in about 1/3 of the hostages being killed. But this could be overcome I am sure.

The other is the seizure of terrorist financial assets and give them to the victims family!!! They may kill a family member but the family as a whole will become stronger. I believe this would have a dramatic effect on the terrorist. If we can ever figure out a way that terrorism can be turned into a benefit to this country instead of a financial drain, I suspect it will help change their method of operation and push it more toward a political dialog in order to achieve a long term solution.

[Merv Benson]

9-11 was the result of following the lawfare model embraced by some of the comments above. By treating the enemy as criminals, entitled to due process and discovery we revealed intelligence that permitted Osama to hide his plans for the 9-11 attacks. This occurred when evidence was provided to defendents in the African Embassy bombing case that the US was intercepting Osama's satelite phone conversations. Many have mistakenly attributed Osama's halt in using his satelite phone to media stories about the fact he used one, but Osama never hid that fact. He instead used his satelite phone to talk to the media and among otherthing deny that he was responsible for the embassy bombings.

Besides the problems caused by having to reveal intelligences sources and methods, the lawfare approach has another problem. It leaves us on the strategic defensive, mainly reacting to attacks rathr than taking the battle to the enemy and disrupting his plans.

The current debate over what form the trials of unlawful enemy combatants will take is in many ways a result of a flawed interpretation of the Geneva Conventions by the Supreme Court in the Hamdan case. I would take a more passive aggressive approach to dealing with that problem. The unlawful enemy combatants would be told that they will be held until the ened of the conflict like any other detainee in a war. If that results in an effective life sentence so be it.

As for the issue over interrigation techniques, it is clear to me that the President's approach will be more effective at preventing future attacks and that the PR advantages of the alternative approach do not offset the risks of not preventing further acts of mass murder. Supporters of the alternative approach are asking the US to risk paying a high price for some minimal PR brownie points with people who are at best, indifferent to our national security.

[Jedburgh]

Besides the problems caused by having to reveal intelligences sources and methods, the lawfare approach has another problem. It leaves us on the strategic defensive, mainly reacting to attacks rather than taking the battle to the enemy and disrupting his plans.

If we can't convict a bad guy without supposedly compromising a significant source, we obviously ain't got that much on him. Translation: somebody isn't doing a very good job. Look at the record of domestic terror-related cases that have been dismissed for lack of evidence in the past year. There is an issue that needs to be fixed there, but it has more to do with building competencies than with changing the rules.

Your disparaging comment about adhering to the rule of law putting us on the "strategic defensive" is utterly false. We have made a lot of progress in advancing beyond the traditional LE post-incident investigative approach towards leveraging inter-agency intelligence fusion in support of both LE and SOF ops disrupting the bad guys before they can act. There have been many unheralded successes over the past few years, although we still have a long way to go - especially domestically.

I would take a more passive aggressive approach to dealing with that problem. The unlawful enemy combatants would be told that they will be held until the ened of the conflict like any other detainee in a war. If that results in an effective life sentence so be it.

I believe that by treating them as captives in a war, we unjustifiably elevate their status. Treat them as common criminals - with due procedure and appropriate sentencing.

As for the issue over interrigation techniques, it is clear to me that the President's approach will be more effective at preventing future attacks and that the PR advantages of the alternative approach do not offset the risks of not preventing further acts of mass murder. Supporters of the alternative approach are asking the US to risk paying a high price for some minimal PR brownie points with people who are at best, indifferent to our national security.

...and your experience with interrogation is...?

[Merv Benson]

Most of my experience in interrigation has been in depositions where the person being questioned has more to lose in being caught in a lie as he does in telling the truth. I think the opposite is the case when questioning terrorist.

And your experience in prosecuting cases?,,,

[aktarian]

I believe GC provide distinction on who is entitled to it's protection and who is not. What US should do, instead of considering modifying GC, is to determine who falls outside os it and what to do with them.

This is why I have troubles with terms like "unlawfull combatant". What the hell does that mean? If you are combatant you get GC protection, if you are not you don't. It seems this is just something that's neither terrorist nor soldier so you can treat them as neither so you don't have to put them on trial with fair trial (as you would do if they were terrorists) or put them in POW camps and allow RC visits (as you would do if they were soldiers).

[Bill Moore]

A subject worth debating, but I tend to side on protecting our laws and maintaining the moral high ground. Those of us in the service took an oath to defend the constitution, and the constitution is a body of laws that governs the greatest nation in the world. While the GC has little to do with our constitution, the principle of following the law does. We're defending principle and a way of life, not a piece of land. We shouldn't throw that out in an attempt to achieve a short term "tactical" victory.

For one I used to enjoy wearing the white hat and preaching the values of human rights from the moral high ground as a U.S. soldier. That high ground is getting tougher to defend when our government kidnapps and illegally detains "suspects" for years on end that are then too frequently found to be incident. We haven't declared a war of civilizations, if we do it will look more like Baghdad on a global scale. Battle in this conflict is an extension of ideas, and the moral high ground is our virtual center of gravity that only we can destroy.

In short I don't think the military should comprise its professional values for short term gains as a matter of policy. We should continue to represent the promise of something better.

I hear a lot of spin relating the terrorists to Nazi's, which I think is off the mark, but regardless we didn't sacrifice our values as a matter of policy to deal with Nazi's. Of course there individual atrocities and violations, because we're human and sometimes act on emotion, but it wasn't policy.

There may be extreme cases where the information we need isn't tactical in nature, such as a WMD plot unfolding, and I think the Executive Branch should be able in very select cases be able to implement an all measures necessary to pre-empt the attack, but that is far from a blanket policy.

[LawVol]

... we adhere to all the Conventions - down to the last dotted i and crossed t.

In light of the proposed legislation regarding tribunals, I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Art 99 of Geneva Convention III says that no POW can be tried without having an opportunity to defend himself (although we call these guys detainees rather than POWs, the same rule applies given the prevailing winds right now). By not allowing these guys to have access to the evidence against them, we disregard this article.

That being said, my issue is not so much whether we adhere to the letter of the conventions, but whether we are perceived as doing so. Basically, whether we adhere or not is irrelevant if we are perceived as not doing so or as manipulating the law to our advantage. What may be seen as necessary or even heroic by a criminal law attorney on TV does not play well with world opinion when it comes to GWOT. I think this feeling that we do not adhere to international law and play fast and loose with the rules, causes us to lose support (e.g. Turkey would not allow us flyover rights in part because they viewed the was as illegal). This takes us closer to the attrition point. Once we reach that point, i.e. the point at which we lose public support for the war effort, we've lost. We have to do it right and be viewed as doing it right.

As for the line in the sand, I sincerely hope there isn't one. A nation of laws is what we are. Isn't that what we fight for? I think this quote sums it up quite well:


Roper: “So now you'd give the Devil the benefit of law!”
More: “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get to the Devil?”
Roper: “I'd cut down every law in England to do that!”
More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat. This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man’s laws, not God’s -- and if you cut them down -- and you're just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”

[slapout9]

This is an essay I found that covers a lot of issues we are and have discussed. “Just War Theory” vs. American Self-Defense by Yaron Brook and Alex Epstein.