The New York Times’s Douglas Jehl has an important piece in today’s paper that establishes a direct link between the ongoing global furore over the Bush administration’s transnational transportation and rendition of detainees for the purpose of coercing “confessions” and the earlier, long-disproven accusations of Iraqi-Qaeda links that were used to help “justify” the launching of the disastrous US invasion of Iraq.
Jehl’s piece is about the treatment of Qaeda high-up Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, who was captured by the US forces in Afghanistan in November 2001. It is based on disclosures from “current and former [US] government officials” whom he does not name. (I would guess, leaks from disaffected CIA and DIA officials?)
He writes:
- The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
The new disclosure provides the first public evidence that bad intelligence on Iraq may have resulted partly from the administration’s heavy reliance on third countries to carry out interrogations of Qaeda members and others detained as part of American counterterrorism efforts. The Bush administration used Mr. Libi’s accounts as the basis for its prewar claims, now discredited, that ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda included training in explosives and chemical weapons.
The fact that Mr. Libi recanted after the American invasion of Iraq and that intelligence based on his remarks was withdrawn by the C.I.A. in March 2004 has been public for more than a year. But American officials had not previously acknowledged either that Mr. Libi made the false statements in foreign custody or that Mr. Libi contended that his statements had been coerced.
The whole of Jehl’s piece is worth reading (registration required, but no payment.) But what it principally underlines for me– yet again!– is the fact that, if what you’re after is solid, actionable information, then the use of torture and other forms of coercive interrogations is not only worthless but actually counter-productive.
In Egypt, “Libi” (and this is, of course, just the guy’s Qaeda-style nom-de-guerre, indicating that he comes from Libya) was coerced or tortured to the point that he told his interrogators what they wanted to hear. That was all that happened. He had apparently “disclosed” a few items about Iraq and al-Qaeda while he was still in US/CIA custody in Afghanistan. But not enough for what the masters of the “GWOT” back in Washington (i.e. Cheney and Rumsfeld) wanted to hear. So maybe there’d been some resistance from the CIA field officers to the idea of torturing the guy any further so they could get more of what they wanted from him?
It is not clear to me where in the US government the idea of “rendering” him to the Egyptians came from; but I would certainly guess, from the highest levels (i.e. Cheney and Rumsfeld).
So off he was sent. Human Rights watch has a disturbing little report about the kinds of things the Egyptian security services were doing to other uspects around that time. (And the subjects of that report even had some “official” Swedish interest in their cases, which probably meant the Egyptians were careful not to do their very worst to them… The kind of “interest” that the US government had in Libi’s case was almost the complete opposite of that, however.)
Altogether, you cannot argue that Cheney and Rumsfeld “didn’t know” what would happen to Libi in Egypt.
Jehl writes of the practice of rendition that,
- American officials including Ms. Rice have defended the practice, saying it draws on language and cultural expertise of American allies, particularly in the Middle East, and provides an important tool for interrogation. They have said that the United States carries out the renditions only after obtaining explicit assurances from the receiving countries that the prisoners will not be tortured.
(If you believe that latter claim, or if you would believe any such “assurances” as those mentioned therein, then I have a nice little piece of prime real estate in downtown New Orleans I’d like to sell to you… )
According to Jehl’s account, Libi was not returned to US custody till February 2003, when he was transferred to Gitmo. “His current location is not known.” Jehl also writes that “He withdrew his claims about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda in January 2004.” (Does anyone have a contemporary reference or link to news of that retraction, by the way? How was he able to communicate it, I wonder? And to whom? I’m assuming not to the general public, since none of the top Qaeda suspects in US custody has yet been able to speak to anyone but interrogators and US security officials.) Anyway, I guess Libi made his retraction to subsequent rounds of interrogators/handlers; and for some reason it seemed credible to them. But he was not able to transmit to the outside world at that time his further claim that his earlier accusations against Saddam had been made to interrogators in Egypt, not US interrogators.
The Americans who knew about Libi’s case back in early 2002 presumably knew full well that these accusations had been made only under the pressure Libi was getting from his Egyptian interrogators. So they at least knew the worthlessness of it.
Jehl writes:
- A classified Defense Intelligence Agency report issued in February 2002 that expressed skepticism about Mr. Libi’s credibility on questions related to Iraq and Al Qaeda was based in part on the knowledge that he was no longer in American custody when he made the detailed statements, and that he might have been subjected to harsh treatment, the officials said. They said the C.I.A.’s decision to withdraw the intelligence based on Mr. Libi’s claims had been made because of his later assertions, beginning in January 2004, that he had fabricated them to obtain better treatment from his captors.
You could read this as, in part, a story about differing analyses between these two bodies, the DIA (i.e. the professional military intel) and the CIA. So the DIA had started expressing skpeticism about Libi’s accusations (in intra-administration discussions, but still not to the tax-paying public!) as early as February 2002; though it took the CIA another two years– oh, and there was a war along the way there, did I mention that?– to join them.
In the interim, Libi’s accusations about a strong Qaeda-Iraq link were used as a major pillar in the Cheney administration’s arguments for launching the war, as Jehl notes:
- In statements before the war, and without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then the secretary of state, and other officials repeatedly cited the information provided by Mr. Libi as “credible” evidence that Iraq was training Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons. Among the first and most prominent assertions was one by Mr. Bush, who said in a major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002 that “we’ve learned that Iraq has trained Al Qaeda members in bomb making and poisons and gases.”
Jehl writes, too, that Sen. Carl Levin, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, has recently been trying to get some of the relevant internal reports made public. About three or four years too late there, I would say. But I suppose it’s better to see some faint glimmerings of the Dems acting a tiny little bit like an opposition party even very, very belatedly, as opposed to never?
Did I mention that there was a war in the interim?
This is all so tragic and depressing. Are these people (including the Democrats as well as the Republicans as well as all the people who run the US national-security behemoth) totally oblivious to the lessons of history? Torture doesn’t work!
In fact, it’s worse than that: Using torture can also lead you into major disasters.
These guys– all of ’em– should be kicked out of office. Maybe they could find jobs in some really seedy provincial comedy theaters doing endless reruns of Monty Python’s satirical sketch, “The Spanish Inquisition”. Especially this part, where the three cardinals first burst into the suburban living-room…
- Cardinal Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope…. Our *four*…no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise….
This part of the sketch seems more searingly apposite with every day that passes.
But the reality, as we know, is far from funny. We– the Americans, the Iraqis, and the whole world– were jerked into a quite unjustified war on the basis of allegations against the Saddam Hussein government that were known by many of those who voiced them to have been, effectively, fabricated from just about nothing. Along the way, the rights of thousands of detainees held by the US and allied governments have been violated in the most atrocious way. The UN and most of what it stands for has been shredded, and will take years to recover. The US has just about lost all of the “moral standing” it once had in the world (and it/we may never recover all of that.) With the US national-security behemoth occupied in managing the chaotic situation in Iraq, al-Qaeda has been able to re-group, to consolidate its control over some areas of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and to launch numerous further mass-terrorism attacks in different countries…
And worst of all, the whole proud nation of Iraq has been pulverized by war and the state machinery that used to assure the provision of basic services to most Iraqi citizens has all been dismantled.
Stop the torture! Stop it now. Stop covering up for it. Stop excusing it. Put into place a complete zero-tolerance policy from now on. Let’s rejoin the human race and solve our remaining problems using ways that actually work.
Helena, Thank you for a comprehensive overview of this story and the background to it. I’m reminded of Bernard Williams’ comment that torture had become in Europe outlawed during the 19th century; and yet in the 20th it has made a comeback.
Historically, Europeans were familiar with the spectacle of seeing victims tortured in public, as well as the fact that torture was a preliminary to most criminal proceedings. How soon they and we forget. In America, torturing (or “harsh interrogation methods”) were commonplace in police departments.
But how to account for the prevalent mind-set among 61 percent of Americans that–in ceratin situations–torture is appropriate? I call this the “24” MENTALITY, alluding to the semi-popular TV show where torture and extreme anti-terror methods are extolled and glorified. I suggest that the reason torture in America is not considered out of bounds is because the assumption at the popular level has become “guilty until proven innocent,” contrary to what the law says. In fact. I think most people believe that the latter is a polite nicety that can be dispensed with when the rubber hits the road, so to speak.
I also think that there is such a disconnect between reality and fantasy in our country–as exemplified by 24–that people simply do not understand what torture entails either ethically or morally. They only think in terms of “what if my wife or daughter were captive of a serial killer,” or some such other paranoid fantasy.
Of course, politicians ride such fantasies to victory, as GBush1 proved against M. Dukakis and the infamous debate question to Dukakis about whether he approved of the death penalty if his wife/daughter had been raped and mutilated/killed. Dukakis answered he would still oppose the death penalty–and he lost the election that very moment.
This still gets nowhere near answering the question about whether torure is ehtical or not–in all situations. I think as public policy it has to be. This relates to the liberalism of fear philosophy I told you about. The state must maintain control via its potential to use force and fear. A policy of torture tells the world that the US is willing to use that terrible responsibility in what many see as an illegitimate way, since torture–as history has shown–often includes the innocent as well as the guilty.
Not only do we have to stop the US government from torturing people, we have to stop them from kidnapping them, detaining them without charges or trials, and even murderering them in the secret and not so secret prisons.
Really, they are no different (in behavior) than the terrorists in Iraq who kidnapped the CPTers.
The only real difference is the Iraq terrorists go for nationality, whereas the American torturers go for Muslims from the Middle East… or a close similarity.
I called the White House, both Senators, and my representative today and told them I want every person detained by the US authorities in every part of the planet to be charged, given a trial with evidence, and then guilt or innocence determined. And then sentenced, if appropriate.
what have we become????
.
It is very clear to me that this torture, kidnapping, rape, murder, bombing and war are not producing any more happiness or security for the American people…. just like it was clear that Iraq had no nuclear WMDs or was ever a threat to the USA.
So, unless our elected leaders are really stupid, they have to know this too… so what is the point of doing this?
The only answer I can come up with is that there is money to be made. And, of course, since time began, greed is the main force behind nearly all incidences where violence is first used as a technique.
Surely these elected people are smart enough to realize that kidnapping, torturing, and killing innocent people is counter-productive…. and surely they must have noticed by now that our federal government is totally unable to seperate the guilty from the innocent.
Inquisition indeed! And good point about the distinction between what is done in public and what is done in the dark, Charles. Linked this in the roundup at Black Site, Black Night.
I provide the following edit of the ending of my badly garbled post above, with apologies for any misunderstanding that posting may have caused:
This still gets nowhere near answering the question about whether torture is ethical or not. I think as public policy it cannot be. This relates to the liberalism of fear philosophy I told you about. The state maintains control via its implied threat to use force and fear. As such, a policy of torture tells the world that the US is willing to use that terrible responsibility in an illegitimate way since torture–as history has shown–often includes the innocent as well as the guilty.
A policy of torture tells the world that the US believes that it has this ultimate power of death and will use it to get what it wants. Instead of a country that comes across as ehtical and law-abiding, it projects the image of the US as a mortally dangerous force that will stop at nothing to get its way. And it will justify such fear and force in terms of pure self-interest. Instead of relying on the rational procedures of identifying malefactors and using legalmeans to prosecute and condemn them, the US will use its lethal force to be judge, jury, and executioner.
Naomi Klein wrote an article for The Nation back in May, called “Torture’s Dirty Secret: It Works”
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20050530/klein
I think she nailed it. The powerful do not use torture to gain information. Usually, they are convinced that they already have the information they need. “As an interrogation tool, torture is a bust. But when it comes to social control, nothing works quite like torture.”
If you havene’t read this year’s Nobel Laureate Harold Pinter’s acceptance speech, I provide a copy of the made-up speech that he wrote for Pres. Bush and which Pinter read to the digitaries at the ceremony:
‘God is good. God is great. God is good. My God is good. Bin Laden’s God is bad. His is a bad God. Saddam’s God was bad, except he didn’t have one. He was a barbarian. We are not barbarians. We don’t chop people’s heads off. We believe in freedom. So does God. I am not a barbarian. I am the democratically elected leader of a freedom-loving democracy. We are a compassionate society. We give compassionate electrocution and compassionate lethal injection. We are a great nation. I am not a dictator. He is. I am not a barbarian. He is. And he is. They all are. I possess moral authority. You see this fist? This is my moral authority. And don’t you forget it.’
Rice in Europe: America doesn’t torture, Europe benefits from U.S. intelligence
Any one can tell me what we can say?
“The captured terrorists of the 21st century do not fit easily into traditional systems of criminal or military justice,” she said. “We need to adapt.”
Helen, US had along history of miss treatments of humans from Philippines, Vietnam to South America and Afghanistan lately Iraq. Before that as we all know the miss treatments of blacks in US.
The problem started to surfaced when it’s practised in Iraq and its comes very clear that US using this systematic act for the native citizens who opposed the US occupation/Interference and other.
Stop the torture! Stop it now. Stop covering up for it. Stop excusing it. Put into place a complete zero-tolerance policy from now on. Let’s rejoin the human race and solve our remaining problems using ways that actually work.
“Human rights organizations and legal groups, both in the U.S. and abroad, have also accused the United States of allowing a practice known as “rendition to torture,” in which suspects are taken to countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia where harsh interrogation methods are used.”
Do you think your call can change any think? I doubt it Helena
Hmmm… I’m surprised we haven’t gotten a diatribe or two yet from our usual suspects explaining why what the U.S. does isn’t torture, and why the [insert appropriate euphemism here] is actually necessary.
Come on, fellas, I know you’re out there…! I’m fascinated by the mentality that explains just exactly how Hitler’s Germany could have happened.
Helena,
Here we go, you got Helena, people like VV who never listen and see no longer than their nose, how you could change then….?
This is just Connie saying that, as in being unable to imagine something like 911 happening (I mean, does anyone at the CIA or State Dept. or DIA have a life? A 911-type event occurred in one of the Die Hard movies. Didn’t someone in govt. like say to themselves: “hey, if Hollywood can think about it, maybe one of our enemies can…?” Now that’s lack of imagination) her own lack of imagination makes her incapable of seeing terrorists being as human as anyone else…
Does Anyone Believe Condoleezza Rice?
Yah “that explains just exactly how Hitler’s Germany could have happened.”
like Saddam, Pinochet, Joseph Stalin, all of them they thought thats they are working for the good of thier nation.
Sorry,
Dr. Rice, postwar Germany was nothing like Iraq.
I really don’t understand the history and purpose of “Extraordinary rendition”. I don’t know of anyone who approves of it or who thinks that it makes sense, or who believes it produces reliable information.
I think the apathy you see on the issue is the result of lack of certainty about what is going on. The “Public” doesn’t trust the Democrats or the Left any more than the Right or the President.
I write as someone who believes that a tough interrogation is sometimes justified. I don’t see how it can be okay to send somebody to Syria or Egypt to be interrogated. Unless perhaps one of these nations had a legal warrant for their arrest. In which case I would expect a trial and or sentencing in Syria or Egypt. If the US needs to rely on the results of an interrogation it should perform that interrogation itself, in a professional manner. Especially if it is a tough interrogation or one that walks near the line.
Note also there are many officers of the US Military who are opposed to torture of prisoners.
There is something missing from the story. Why would the US rely upon information from Syria or Egypt? And how does an administration that asks “What would Jesus do?” get itself into a situation like this?
We have to ask the question, is the work being “Contracted out” to Arab nations simply because they have the language skills? If so, I would expect that US witnesses to the interrogations would be part of the requirement. And I would also expect that US standards would be required. One of the problems is that there is little objective evidence that torture occurred.
I don’t believe that torture occurred just because Helena Cobban says so. But I am sure that if photographic or video evidence of torture were to be made public the practice would be forced out by American public opinion. Look at the difference between the Abu Ghraib scandal and the situation with rendition: the difference in the public response is that there is visual evidence in the AG case.
Those who are raising the issue are absolutely right to do so. There is something rotten here but I’m not at all sure we know exactly what it is.
On “24”:
If you study the plots carefully you’ll see they are quite foolish. I watched a whole seasonful of the “24” at one time off of the DVD’s and when you do that the plots fall apart. If you study the show for moral reasoning or to find realistic scenarios you’re wasting your time. That said, it is an entertaining “Cliff-hanger” kind of show.
“The United States has not transported anyone and will not transport anyone to a country where we believe he will be tortured. Where appropriate, the United States seeks assurances that transferred persons will not be tortured.” – Condoleezza Rice
“I wonder then what could have been happening then when a German citizen was kidnapped in Macedonia about two years ago, drugged, flown to Afghanistan, kept for five months, tortured, and finally left abandoned in some bleak place in Bosnia when his American Gestapo captors apparently learned they had made a mistake?”
http://www.asiantribune.com/show_news.php?id=16388
“I don’t see how it can be okay to send somebody to Syria or Egypt to be interrogated”
Can you explain to us all why US sent the victims to Guantánamo Bay? And who interrogated / tortured them?
If you believe they are not the AMARICANS THEN WHO ARE THEY AND WHY?
Hint for the answer “it’s out of the American’s soil”
We have to ask the question, is the work being “Contracted out” to Arab nations simply because they have the language skills?
Yah the Arabic its so hard no one can seepk it Just the Arabs…. whats a afuny….
“Four military intelligence people are identified in the Taguba report as having been “directly or indirectly responsible for the abuses” — Col. Pappas and Lt. Col. Jordan, along with two civilian contractors, Steve Stefanowicz, an interrogator, and John B. Israel, a translator. As I believe you know, here in Santa Clarita, John Israel is a local resident.”
http://www.scvhistory.com/scvhistory/signal/iraq/sg070404.htm
WarrenW wrote: “I don’t believe that torture occurred just because Helena Cobban says so. But I am sure that if photographic or video evidence of torture were to be made public the practice would be forced out by American public opinion.”
As reporteed, this just may happen around Dec. 15, when a judge will rule on whether those Abu Ghraib photos and videos that have been held back by the Def. dept. might be released. According to some reports, the videos and photos show rapes of a young boy and women, as well as other acts of torture. See “ACLU says next deadline in Abu Ghraib photo case is Dec. 15”
Salah, my previous comment was ironic and sarcastic. I think you are misreading my intention. In fact, I was wondering why WarrenW and vadim and others hadn’t yet posted at that point with exactly that sort of opinion. True to form, WarrenW came on and did pretty much what I expected.
Charles:
If indeed the US government was raping people in Abu Ghraib, and there is visual evidence of this, then I think George W Bush will be impeached. Compare this to the sexual escapades of the previous President.
If this is just another propaganda ploy by the Fascist-Left alliance they’ll rot in hell. I don’t know who “The Raw Story” website represents and I certainly don’t know them enough to trust them.
None of the above scenarios would give the minority movement of violent totalitarians the right to take over the democratically elected constitutional government of Iraq. It would be wrong to punish the Iraqis with Saddamites, or Taliban wannabees for the sins of others.
vv:
You expected that I would support torture or claim that what’s happening isn’t torture. I did neither.
We are operating in an area of partial information, and more than one interpretation fits the known facts. The solution is to have more facts, not to make the most extreme charges you can think up.
Dr. Rice and President Bush are probably acting on partial information as well. We can’t imagine they knew what Lyndie England was doing (including the photos) and I wonder if they are being lied to now.
Not knowing what’s going on still leaves them legally and morally responsible. The degree of responsibility depends on what they’ve done since they learned of the problems at Abu Ghraib. If they’ve acted to clean up the situation and can show that, they’ll survive. If they’ve swept stuff under the rug and it comes out, they will not survive (politically).
In particular, the actions they are taking right now, as the stories of a US chain of prison camps are being spread, may be the determining factor. At some point last week or next week they’ll have be asking “Okay — what the hell are we actually doing?.” And their reaction to the answers they get will eventually come out.
If the Left’s nightmare scenarios of torture turn out to be true then Bush and Rice are toast.
To a certain extent, the legal definition of torture and the content of treaties that the US has signed will make a difference. But that can all be trumped by lurid videos, new or old.
Folks who read here probably know this, but 25 Catholic Workers are currently marching in Cuba, attempting to visit the prisoners in Guantanamo. Their website functions a little sporadically; I’ve heard they were outside the prison yesterday. We’ll see what happens; important to attend to this I think.
Vigils in support of this march and the U.N. Human Rights Day were held around the U.S. yesterday. Pictures from one here.
The ticking bomb of translation
Abarinov’s justification of torture and “rendition “/1/ is written in Russian. This changes quite a lot – in English, this rant would be indistinguishable from the general stream of neoconservative PR stories. For example, Mr.Abarinov uses the infamous “ticking bomb argument”. According to this logic, torture is justified to investigate and prevent imminent large scale terrorist attack – the “ticking bomb”. In English, this argumentation is well known, but in Russian, it looks almost original. However, readers of this article are not supposed to compare it with English language news!
As for Abarinov’s argumentation itself, legal, moral and historical considerations aside, it fails to account for escalation effect. Rebels do not hesitate to use and experience torture, so using it against them only escalates the conflict. From the other side, intelligence extracted under torture is notoriously unreliable.
In fact, its main usage is likely to be black PR rather than operational. This is exactly what happened to infamous Iraq-Al-Queda link. Now it appears to be based on testimony under torture /2/. In fact, main purpose of this PR operation was to create general confusion and justify the invasion of Iraq.
Finally, we can remember the recent scandal with propaganda planted in the Iraqi media. In both cases, translation manipulations work pretty much the same way. Like Russians, Iraqi consumers of these “news” are not supposed to compare texts they have in their hands with news in English – and connect the dots.
1. Grani. V.Abarinov. For whom the bomb ticks: http://grani.ru/opinion/abarinov/m.99391.html
2. NYT. DOUGLAS JEHL. Qaeda-Iraq Link U.S. Cited Is Tied to Coercion Claim: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/09/politics/09intel.html
The Bush administration based a crucial prewar assertion about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda on detailed statements made by a prisoner while in Egyptian custody who later said he had fabricated them to escape harsh treatment, according to current and former government officials.
The officials said the captive, Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi, provided his most specific and elaborate accounts about ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda only after he was secretly handed over to Egypt by the United States in January 2002, in a process known as rendition.
3. Rick Jervis, Zaid Sabah. Probe into Iraq coverage widens: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2005-12-08-media-probe_x.htm
A U.S. investigation into allegations that the American military is buying positive coverage in the Iraqi media has expanded to examine a press club founded and financed by the U.S. Army.
The Baghdad Press Club was created last year by the U.S. military as a way to promote progress amid the violence and chaos of Iraq, said Lt. Col. Barry Johnson, a military spokesman.