The use of torture or "enhanced interrogation techniques" has dominated the news lately with Dick Cheney vigorously supporting such techniques (is anyone surprised by this?) claiming that thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of lives were saved with information obtained by waterboarding, walling and other harsh techniques (ok, let's just say torture). Cheney can make this claim because no one can refute it and any information that supports it is probably classified. However, an FBI interrogator who was involved with the questioning of Abu Zubaida has stated that Zubaida was providing valuable information through the use of traditional interrogation methods and, in fact, shut down once the torture started. So, who do you believe? I'll cast my lot with the guys who were there since Cheney is just covering his ass.
This past Sunday a Washington Post columnist who supports the use of waterboarding used an Israeli example how just how useful it can be. Several years ago an Israeli soldier was kidnapped and Mossad got their hands on the driver of the car that was used in the kidnapping. Using harsh techniques the Israelis were able to discover where the soldier was being held and mounted a rescue operation that was unsuccessful as the soldier died during the operation. This argument seemed counter intuitive to me; the ultimate goals of the torture was to determine the location of the soldier and to rescue him. The mission failed. The real question is whether the soldier's location could have been determined through traditional interrogation methods and whether the location would have been learned quickly enough to effect a rescue. Guess we'll never know. Also, although I tend to support Israel you have to remember that this is the country that destroyed Beruit and much of southern Lebanon after Hezbollah kidnapped/captured three Israeli soldiers. So, no one should attempt to explain this country's use of torture by using Israel as an example.
Recently Jesse Ventura (can't believe I'm using this guy to support my argument) was on Fox & Friends and pretty much emasculated one of the hosts during a debate about the use of torture. Ventura, a former Navy SEAL, stated that during SEER (Survival Escape Evasion & Resistance) training that he had been waterboarded and he believes it's torture. The now-gelded host asked if Ventura is OK now, implying that as long as there is no lasting evidence of the technique it can't be considered torture. So, I suppose that means beatings with rubber hoses (that leave no marks) can now be added to the list of approved interrogation techniques. The best point made by Ventura, however, was when he asked why police departments don't use waterboarding or walling on suspected gang members in order to obtain information on gang activity. Here in Raleigh and Durham we have escalating gang problems that have resulted in increased robberies, murders and drug activity (i.e. a threat to the good citizens of our cities). Ventura answered his own question when he said such techniques are illegal and any information obtained while using them would be inadmissable in court.
Lastly, what does the need for harsh interrogation techniques tell us? The same thing; that for the last 16 years this country has not spent the time and money necessary to develop human intelligence assets (HUMINT) in the Middle East. The bottom line is that if the Clinton and Bush administrations had placed the proper emphasis on Middle East HUMINT September 11, 2001 would have been just another day and we wouldn't be fighting wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. While Bill Clinton was spending his time responding to impeachment procedings or Ken Starr's fruitless investigations into Whitewater and Travelgate Osam bin Laden and his network were getting stronger.
Torture is not just wrong, it's illegal and it's a harsh reminder of this country's screw ups.
No comments:
Post a Comment