Republican Revolt over interrogation techniques?

[SSG Rock]

Three prominent Republicans who either have presidential aspirations or have an axe to grind with the administration disagree with Bush and it is an "Open Revolt?" Sheeesh.

I don't know what all of the hubub is really about. I read this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091400160.html and I'm still not sure what the debate is. The Washington Post dedicates more space to the fact that there is a disagreement between Republicans than the issue itself. Someone who knows about this clarify please?

[Tom Odom]

Quite simply, do we relook Geneva convention statutes on interrogation or not.

Senators and GEN Powell: No

Adminstration: Yes

[SSG Rock]

I tend to come down on the side of the administration don't you? The Geneva Convention doesn't adequately address asymetrical warfare. Obviously it needs to be updated. I think part of the reason Bush has so much trouble prosecuting the GWOT is that we have no precedent for almost anything concerning it.

These arguments make no sense to me. Why should we fear that Islamic radicals would treat our captured troops any worse than they already have? Didn't the SC ruling suggest that the administration go back to the Congress to clarify this issue?

[LawVol]

As I see it, the problem is not how terrorists will treat our troops in response to this proposed program (they do not respect law and that won't change), but how our actions are perceived in the world community. Speeches regarding our fight for democracy and the rule of law ring hollow in the face of legislation designed to strip away fundamental legal rights. Rightly or wrongly, it has been determined that captured terrorists will be tried criminally for their actions. If we are going to do this, it should be done the right way. Our society does not tolerate a kaflaesque trial wherein the accused is merely permitted to show up. If we are to champion the rule of law and advertise our desire to bring it to Iraq and other such places, we must not disregard its tenets simply because it suits our immediate needs. This serves only to weaken our position and support in the world community.

Part of the issue with GWOT is world support. Many countries do not see the legal justification for the war in Iraq and the Bush administration has not adequately confronted this issue. Similarly, the Bush administration often attempts to redefine or invent law to fit particular situations (tribunals, etc.). This has caused a number of countries (and our own citizens) to doubt our sincerity when we profess to come from the side of law and righteousness. The problem with this is that it has a negative effect on our chief center of gravity.

Since at least Vietnam, our enemies have recognized that to beat us, they need to influence US public opinion. This is done a number of ways, from body counts, to spent treasure, to a feeling that we cannot win, to convincing the public that we are on the wrong side both morally and legally. All of these things contribute to what I call the attrition point, i.e. the point at which US public opinion determines that the costs are no longer worth the benefits conferred. By seeking to circumvent law (or create such a perception), we merely step closer to the attrition point.

Yes, it is rather difficult to obey the rule of law when the enemy does not. However, if we are truly in a war of ideology we cannot afford to foresake more than 200 years of being a nation of laws to defeat the current enemy. We must wear the white hat not because others say we should but because it is who we are.

[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]

Originally Posted by SWJED

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]

Originally Posted by SWJED

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Merv Benson

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?,,,

[SWJED]

Let's stay on subject. I intentionally provoked a debate because that is what we do here.

I see good points on both sides of this issue. Moreover, each are seeking the same conclusion (successful prosecution of the GWOT) and may not be as far apart as the previous posts might indicate.

No one here is saying to throw out the Geneva Conventions - though some are distrustful as to how they might be interpreted when faced with terrorist prisoners on an asymmetric battlefield.

As far as personal experience and how it might relate to future Small Wars scenario I'll offer this up.

My personal history with interrogations (proper) is limited - cursory training in the Army’s CI/HUMINT course, OJT at a USMC training prisoner of war camp, and OJT at three SOF Robin Sages.

As a Division G-2 OPSO during Desert Storm I also visited our EPW Collection Point to sit in on some interrogations. My CI Team also provided some, though limited, classroom instruction from time to time. I also read the Army’s FM.

What I learned from all that, prior to having to do “real world” field interrogations, is that there is a certain personality trait that makes a good interrogator – something innate that no amount of training or experience can substitute for. First and foremost, we must ensure we have the “right people” selected, trained and deployed as interrogators. We also must insure that when an interrogator is not available in the field and there is a time-critical requirement for info / intel we have the same type of “right people” conducting these ad hoc interrogations.

So, now it is 1991 and on G + 1 in the middle of the burning Al Burqan oil field and just after our DIV FWD CP had almost been overrun I get word that we have captured an Iraqi BDE commander. It was my responsibility to interrogate him as it was a fluid sit and there was no time to send him back and wait. Earlier I had conducted several field interrogations of other prisoners – but they had nothing of value to offer.

My only two worries at this point were Iraqi use of chemicals and any potential for another counterattack prior to our seizure of Kuwait International Airport. Bottom line – my previous training, PME and experiences made me comfortable that I had many “legal” options in interrogating this commander. I opted on ‘ego-up’ – gave the colonel a smart salute when I met him and he proceeded to spill his guts – no chemical attacks – not worth the risk – no more counterattacks as they shot their wad earlier – and on a map the entire Iraqi army disposition (though dated by a day or two due to our offensive) - an OOB that very closely mirrored our enemy sit overlay in the 2-shop.

Okay, what does all that have to do with this discussion? In 1991 I had many tried and true interrogation techniques available for my use and more importantly I had no worries about a possible UCMJ action against me should I utilize any of those techniques.

Now fast forward 15 years to 2006 to a hypothetical situation. Let's say I am back in SWA, but this time in support of a relief column that is slugging it out along an IED and ambush-laden LOC. A captured al-Qaeda (not Iraqi) terrorist with possible time-sensitive intel / info is captured and once again I am responsible for a field interrogation. “Ego-up” won’t provide jack. Probably the direct, incentive, emotional, etal approaches won’t either. Now I am faced with the gray area – as could very well be interpreted by those who take the Geneva Conventions to the extreme – can I or can I not use fear up without “my fear” of possible charges. Moreover, can I stray from the established interrogation techniques, short of torture, based on my judgment of the criticality of the information I may receive.

Don’t just dismiss those of us who question the Conventions – we do not fear them – we fear how they may be interpreted and the consequences.

[slapout9]

Dave, In Police world two concepts offer protection against just such a hypothetical situation you mentioned. One is exigent circumstances. A situation is so critical and the loss of life is so great that normal due process is suspended. No need for a warrant, no need for Miranda, no need for permission,etc. (physical torture is out).

The other is qualified immunity. A police officer can make the most drastic mistakes possible (killing an innocent person) if he shows he was acting in good faith. An example would be shooting an innocent person during a hostage rescue. Under qualified immunity he could NOT be prosecuted!!!

I think your issues would be better served by changing the UCMJ to allow for such situations as opposed to trying to change the Geneva Convention.

My experience with interrogating POW"s none, zero.

My experience with interrogating and prosecuting every low life,robbing,rapping,stealing,murdering,drug dealing,dope smoking son of a bitch out there, more than I like to remember.

[Jedburgh]

I think I've already gone over all I'm willing to discuss on an open board in this previous thread:

A Lesson About Torture, Half Century On

However, if anyone wishes to discuss interrogation methodology, issues and problems, please contact me off-line.

[selil]

I won't make a mistake on thinking law enforcement and military circumstances are the same, but the UCMJ should provide protections as much as punishments.

I can perceive points in a militiary campaign where summary execution could be used (never leave an enemy at your back?). Any lesser asault against a human is just quibbling with degrees of abuse.

Civilized-War is an oxymoron, and to many people worry about perceptions of comabt. Deal with the enemy with honor and good judgement whether they would with you or not. Terms like terrorist, infidel, revolutionary, etc.. are the talismans of politicians and soldier should define the enemy in the terms of their mission orders.

Just some late Saturday night thoughts.

[SWJED]

17 September Voice of America - Bush Defends Push to Clarify Geneva Convention by Scott Stearns (reposted in full per USG terms of use).

President Bush says Congress must act to save a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) interrogation program that he says has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including planned strikes inside the United States and on a U.S. Marine base in East Africa, an American consulate in Pakistan, and Britain's Heathrow Airport.

Mr. Bush says the previously-secret program is in jeopardy because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that military commissions the president wants to use to put suspected terrorists on trial must be authorized by Congress.

So the president is pushing legislation to allow classified evidence to be withheld from defendants during their trials. He wants coerced testimony to be allowed as evidence, and he wants U.S. interrogators to be protected from prosecution for using methods that might violate the Geneva Conventions.

But some senior Republican senators disagree. They say those rules do not meet constitutional standards outlined by the Supreme Court and could endanger U.S. troops overseas if other countries choose to reinterpret the Geneva Convention in their own way.

In his weekly radio address, President Bush said legislation approved by the Republican-led Senate Armed Services Committee this past week would force the CIA program to close because it does not protect U.S. interrogators from possible prosecution for violating international treaty obligations.

"There is debate about the specific proposals in this bill, and my Administration will work with Congress to find common ground," said Mr. Bush. "I have one test for this legislation: The intelligence community must be able to tell me that the bill Congress sends to my desk will allow this vital program to continue."

Republican senators opposed to the president's plan, led by former prisoner of war John McCain, have been joined by former Secretary of State Colin Powell who this past week wrote that the president's actions would encourage the world to doubt the moral basis of America's fight against terrorism.