Blogs and Stories

Scott  Horton

Busting the Torture Myths

Conversely, the report (and other documents emerging since its release) shows that interrogators in the field raised sharp objections to the use of the techniques and steadily questioned their efficacy. The team dealing with one prisoner, for instance, voiced the view that he had already furnished all the evidence he was likely to produce and that further waterboarding would be pointless. Nameless “higher ups” overrode their judgment. That group might well include Cheney, who is known to have maintained a sharp interest in this particular detainee and kept on his desk a file marked “detainees” in which he collected data related to the use of torture. The Senate report documents a series of military officers who raised objections against the use of torture and insisted that their opposition be recorded. And today a further report has emerged from July 2002 (just as the OLC memos were being commissioned), in which the military’s Joint Personnel Recovery Agency expressly referred to the techniques, which were being reverse engineered from the SERE program (that JPRA oversaw), as “torture” and insisted that, if used, they would not produce reliable intelligence.

3. Bush lawyers may have made “honest mistakes” in their legal analysis owing to the extreme pressure that existed in the immediate wake of 9/11, in which they were pressed quickly to give opinions before matters could be fully evaluated.

One of Bush’s OLC chiefs, Jack Goldsmith, makes the argument, now accepted as a mantra-like defense for the Bush-era torture lawyers, that tremendous pressure and short deadlines were to blame for their failure to properly assess the law. The torture memoranda gave seriously faulty analysis of the law, Goldsmith claims, because of this pressure-cooker environment. We should all be prepared to excuse their lapses for this reason. Goldsmith is not the most objective analyst of the question, and his adamant insistence that he was divorced from the process of giving a green light to torture appears less persuasive as time passes. But the writings of the torture memo writers, particularly of John Yoo, look suspiciously like their academic writing, in which they sought to expand presidential power and authority at the expense of the rights of the other branches. It seems more plausible to conclude just the opposite of Goldsmith’s claims—namely, that they seized upon the crisis that arose in the wake of 9/11 as an opportunity in which they could realize their ideas about limitless presidential powers in wartime.

The Emerging Reality

1. The impulse to torture had a clear motivation: Cheney and Rumsfeld were increasingly desperate to find evidence that would support their decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

The push for application of torture techniques occurred as the Bush administration scrambled to come up with evidence to support its claims that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein had links to al Qaeda or was pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction. Two major spikes in the use of the harshest techniques occurred in the weeks just before the Iraq invasion and the couple of months after the occupation of Iraq had begun. The first spike coincides with a period of difficulty with America’s principal ally, Britain, shortly following the famous Washington meeting between President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair in which the latter expressed concern about the lack of evidence supporting claims about a WMD program. Blair had been informed by his attorney general, Lord Peter Goldsmith, that the legal case for invading Iraq was exceedingly tenuous and badly needed to be bolstered with evidence showing an imminent threat coming out of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq. Also in this period, Vice President Cheney was doing his best to make this case by talking up evidence that proved specious—including reports of a meeting in Prague between an al Qaeda figure and an Iraqi diplomat.

The new documents make plain that interrogators using the new harsh techniques, including waterboarding, were pushing their subjects for information that would justify the Iraq war. For instance, Major Paul Burney, a medical professional attached to interrogation efforts at Guantánamo, told investigators that “we were there a large part of the time. We were focused on trying to establish a link between al Qaeda and Iraq and we were not being successful in establishing a link between al Qaeda and Iraq. The more frustrated people got in not being able to establish this link… there was more and more pressure to resort to measures that might produce more immediate results.” Numerous other sources involved in the interrogation effort recorded the same intense pressure to secure “results” that would justify a decision that had already been taken in Washington to invade Iraq.

In the end, Secretary of State Colin Powell was sent to the United Nations to make the case for an invasion of Iraq. The crown jewel of his evidentiary case turned on claims supplied by Ibn al-Shaykh Al-Libi that Saddam Hussein had trained al Qaeda operatives in the use of chemical weapons. Al-Libi had been tortured using the new techniques to secure this evidence. It was subsequently determined to be false—offered up by Al-Libi to escape the torments to which he was subjected with the full understanding that this was what his interrogators wanted to hear. By curious coincidence, as Powell delivered his speech to the U.N. Security Council, a Judiciary Committee hearing room emptied out, and the nominee then under consideration got a free pass to confirmation to a lifetime appointment on the federal bench. His name was Jay Bybee, and more than a year later, the public would learn that he had been a principal author of the torture memoranda.

The new reports make clear that torture was used to secure information to justify the invasion of Iraq, but—just as experts from the military and the FBI warned—the information proved false. America’s credibility on the international stage was seriously damaged as a result.

Back to Top
April 27, 2009 | 11:13am
Facebook
|
Twitter
|
Digg
|
|
Emails
|
print
Comments ()

MimiG1945

The reality is what was done was torture. The other reality is the Bush Administration (including George and Dick) are a bunch of criminals.

|
|
Reply
|
12:25 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Lovefreedom

MimiG1945...In Reality...unless your community or family is in the BULLS EYE...YOU will never understand the responsibility and tough decisions that need to be made IN THE BIG PICTURE.
You would have a complete different perception.

I won't worry about you and all those who would want me to do nothing to those ready to KILL you . Got it.

|
|
Reply
|
12:54 pm, Apr 27, 2009

muddog

lovefreedom?
Really? PROVE ONE terrorist attack that was thwarted because of torture......
What makes a country GREAT is how it reacts in its most serious time of crisis, we failed BIG. Torture is ILLEGAL, IMORAL and UN AMERICAN, do you understand this?
Save the romantic BULLS^&%T about how Bush had to make "Tough" decisions, like the one to invade Iraq?. When we took our eye off the country that ACTUALLY protected those who ACTUALLY attacked us?. Now the Taliban have regrouped in Pakistan and Afganistan, how safe does that make you feel?. How many more "Terrorists" have we created by pissing off MORE PEOPLE?.
Your party made a mess, now steps aside and let someone else try to clean it up:
How many inocent people have we turtured that now want to kill us? ( and rightfully so).

|
1:57 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Uberjeff

The tough decision is to take the moral high ground. By torturing these people and detaining them without charge, some of whom were innocent at least one of whom was a child who has grown into an adult, we have simply created more terrorists.

Not only has this been a requirement tool for our enemies, but now there are people in Gitmo who may have been ambivalent before they were captured and are now enraged at the US for the years they've lost and the horrors they've been put through.

The big picture fact is that by doing these things there are now more people in the world who want to kill us than there were before. If you have family in the service then that means there are more people with guns shooting at them.

|
2:33 pm, Apr 27, 2009

primercord

Love Freedom?
Ah yes, the freedom to lay waste to the constitution, the freedom to wage an illegal war. The freedom to question the patriotism of anyone who disagrees with out. The freedom to deny science, the freedom to open a terrorist school in Cuba. It's good to be an American.

|
2:59 pm, Apr 27, 2009

LeighBeast

Oh, Please!!!

|
9:31 am, Apr 28, 2009

theoPitt

muddog, can you prove that it did not prevent a terrorist attack. I mean, we have not had any here since 9/11, but please prove to us that none have been conceived, planned, or attempted since then.

My guess is you may also argue that the atomic bomb did not need to be dropped on Japan.. How can anyone prove something based on what they think would have happened in an alternative universe.

Apparently there were plenty of people that hated us to have 9/11 occur in the first place, and Bill Clinton had been our illustreous leader for the eight years prior.

So, muddog, how would you have made our country safer in your alternative universe? Please do tell. Oh, and make sure you can PROVE IT.

|
2:26 pm, Apr 28, 2009

PeterCottontail

I really don't feel bad for the guys that got tortured. If you are in the business of killing innocent people, getting tortured should be considered a cost of doing business. I'm sure some of these guys got caught up in this and were actually innocent, but hey, nobodies perfect, especially the Federal Government. GET EM!

|
4:13 pm, Apr 28, 2009

Stromko

theoPitt: It's very clear that the burden of proof is actually on you, as you are the one making up facts. There is no evidence that torture prevented any attacks or saved a single life. The past administration would leak information quite regularly when it served its interests (and sometimes not), so if there was any evidence of torture being useful, which according to this article they were trying very hard to find, it would be out in the open.

You would have proof, if proof existed. It's becoming more and more apparent that torture achieved nothing and hurt us gravely.

Abu Ghraib caused massive, sometimes violent protests in Iraq, and now it's clear that it wasn't the result of a few bad apples but rather the result of orders from Cheney's office. If people in Iraq were willing to go to the streets and risk being blown up by IED's to protest, imagine how pissed off they were in private, and how many of them went on to join clandestine organizations that killed our troops and other innocent people.

|
4:39 pm, Apr 28, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
1:46 pm, Apr 30, 2009

rsbsail

The reality is that YOU are the one living in a dream world. I can't wait for a "Truth Commission" so we can hear EVERYTHING about the interrogations, and not just selective bits and pieces; e.g., the fact that Democrats were on board for harsh methods, including Pelosi.

It is so easy to look back now after 9/11 and say, "Keep to the high moral ground." I'll guarantee you that if there is another attack that kills any of my loved ones, I won't just blame terrorists, I'll blame people like YOU. Pompous ass.

|
|
Reply
|
9:35 am, Apr 28, 2009

Llplo99

rsbsailm, you idiot! if we have another attack that kills your loved ones, you can blame our baseless invasion of Iraq and torture of detainees. Understand?

|
12:14 pm, Apr 28, 2009

roger37

---and you can also blame Benjamin Franklin (remember him?). He said that whoever gives up civil freedoms to gain a little security deserves neither.

The possibility of our nation being attacked again does NOT mean that the United States of America should abandon its moral platform. Yes, there are a number of morally expedient types out there, but they are not "real" Americans.

|
12:33 pm, Apr 28, 2009

koyaanisqatsi

rsbsail: I'm opposed to all torture. There is never a justification for it. And if there is another 9/11 attack and _all_ your loved ones are killed, you can go right ahead and blame me. In fact, you can blame _only_ me. And I too may be a pompous ass, but you're simply an ass.

|
3:20 am, Apr 29, 2009

practicalgov

I believe the major point that is not getting much attention is not whether or not torture was OK but was torture to produce false results to justify an unjust war OK. It is my guess that even the most extreme of cheney / bush supporters couldn't go along with this...

|
|
Reply
2:21 pm, Apr 29, 2009

nodrama

The Peggy Noonan approach (just walk on by and avert your eyes) has some appeal, but the enduring problem is that the oath of office of virtually every official in government is " ... to faithfully execute the law ..." It doesn't say obey and prosecute the laws that are convenient or the law du jour. The oath is to execute the law.

It may be politically inconvenient. One may disagree with the law. One may think that there is an asymmetry to our loyalty to the rule of law and the approach of other regimes, but until someone can tell me how we can square our claim that we are governed by "the rule of law" with the concept of ignoring what seems to be a clear and systematic violation of the law by our top officials, we have to suffer the consequences of prosecuting the Bush administration officials who brought about this approach.

This is a litmus test for Obama and for the country as a whole. It would have been convenient to ignore Watergate, and despite a valiant effort by the Washington establishment, including the press corps, to ignore the event during the '72 election, eventually we did determine what happened and prosecuted the guilty parties. How can we do any less now?

|
|
Reply
12:26 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Uberjeff

Prosecution is the only way to clear our name. We are a country defined law and morality. The law has been broken through a series of shady and conniving attempts to make the amoral appear just and our national soul has been tarnished in the process.

By stooping to these means we have turned the villains into martyrs and have taken the role of the oppressive and evil power they would have us appear to be. We have played into their hands. We must find the truth, we must set a precedent, we must prosecute.

|
|
Reply
|
12:31 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Lovefreedom

Uberjeff...I am Happy you or I were probably not around during WWII...As an avid reader of History...many things were done and had to be done that would upset your sensibilities.
Give me those that would have needed to make those gut wrenching decisions then. At that TIME we had a more visible enemy,easier to defeat in some ways. Today, they are covert guerrilla terrorists wether you want to deaL WITH IT OR NOT...ITS REALITY. And like they say Reality Bites.

I have MORE TRUST in those willing to do what it takes with these kind of people....but of course to you, they are as evil as the true EVIL ONES.

|
|
Reply
|
1:04 pm, Apr 27, 2009

connie47

One of the thingss that was done around WWII was the United States prosecuting and convciting Japanese for torture, namely waterboarding. If you believe we can prosecute others for doing the same things we do, you are a hypocrite.

|
1:34 pm, Apr 27, 2009

h2os64

Lovefreedom,

Are you honestly suggesting that morals in WWII are sufficient for today's standards? Society develops. Thank god. Otherwise, we would still have segregated schools (and if you're okay with that, then you really aren't worth anyone here's time anyway)

|
1:38 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Uberjeff

Here's some history for you. When the Japanese water-boarded Americans in WWII we had them executed.

When we held Japanese American citizen, US citizens by all rights, in detention centers without cause it tarnished our image and took us decades to formally apologize and remove the stain.

In Vietnam when a group of US soldiers were found to have water-boarded what could be called enemy combatants by todays ambiguous standards, those soldiers were court-marshaled.

The US, despite moments of short sighted weakness, has always set an official policy against torture and unlawful detention for a number of reasons. Chief among them is that it makes countries like North Korea and Iran feel they now have the moral authority to do the same. i.e. 3 US citizens, 1 in Iran and 2 in North Korea, being held on trumped up espionage charges. When probed, North Korea cited Gitmo as an excuse to hold them without charge.

The idea that this is more effective than alternative methods is also a joke, although any efficacy is outweighed by the corruption of our morality and image it causes. Piles of experts warned ahead of time and have come out now warning that these techniques can sometimes offer tidbits of knowledge up front but that prolonged use offers nothing but junk as they say whatever they think will make the torture stop. In the meantime, any rapport based interrogation methods have been completely broken off as any sense of trust is destroyed.

People like KSM have given up their human rights by way of the things they've done and deserve life imprisonment or execution. However, what Bush and Cheney have created wasn't justice and it wasn't an effective means of gathering intel. It was revenge, catharsis, cold hearted and illegal.

|
2:25 pm, Apr 27, 2009

muddog

lovefreedom.
I suggest you enlist, go abroad, torture, kill etc, if you are too old to enlist then head over to Black Water International, they torture, get paid big bucks ( thanks to US Tax payers) and you can see 1st hand how well your view holds up. They are under investigation for lots of REALLY bad things, so they sound like your type of organization.
I ask AGAIN, show me ONE TERRORIST attack that has been thwarted because of torture....

WW11 is why we have the Geneva Convention you fool... What history books are reading?. Undoubtedly revisionist history..

|
6:51 pm, Apr 27, 2009

LeighBeast

Oh, Please!!!

|
9:32 am, Apr 28, 2009

Dreamer4Ever

American Torture has been Al Queda's greatest recruitment gift. Who knows how many american servicemen and women have died because Chaney/Rumsfelt et all wanted to look tough.

|
|
Reply
|
1:24 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Rico182

Keep dreaming Dreamer, you must be insane. Comments like yours, with no back up whatsoever, adds to the idoit-crowd in the far left. I"ll let the 10,000 people saved by info taken from "torture" that busted the Brooklyen Bridge blow torch terrorist, given up by the infamous 911 conspirator. I wonder how many people would die in a world where your logic ruled?

|
|
Reply
|
1:42 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Uberjeff

If you actually read these memos and the reports on the so-called "attacks" that were prevented you would find two important things:

1: Most of the useful information from guys like KSM was gathered before the torture began and most of the information gathered after the torture was junk and resulted in wasted resources as they attempted to tracked them down.

2: These "plots" or "attacks" that were supposedly averted were so pathetically planned they couldn't have succeeded anyway.

|
2:41 pm, Apr 27, 2009

primercord

torure was so effective they did it 138 times, and still didn't get the whereabouts of Osam Bin Laden.
!Duhooo!
That must have been the one question they forgot to ask............
Why is it that republicans believe what ever they are told, even after they are told the information they were given was a lie?

|
3:02 pm, Apr 27, 2009

TavernWench

Rico192... you want back-up on Dreamer's comments? Here you go:

"It's unacceptable. It's unacceptable. One is too much. Waterboarding is torture, period. I can ensure you that once enough physical pain is inflicted on someone, they will tell that interrogator whatever they think they want to hear. And most importantly, it serves as a great propaganda tool for those who recruit people to fight against us... The image of the United States of America throughout the world is a recruiting tool for Islamic extremists."

- John McCain, April 20, 2009.

Now if you don't mind, I think I'll take Senator McCain's word for it over yours.

|
5:29 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Ritarita

And how about
This one-


"... there is no place for abuse in what must be considered the family of man. There is no place for torture and arbitrary detention. There is no place for forced confessions.

The roots of American rule of law go back more than 700 years, to the signing of the Magna Carta. The foundation of American values, therefore, is not a passing priority or a temporary trend."

Newt Gingrich OCTOBER 30, 1997

|
6:30 pm, Apr 27, 2009

MacRandall

Everyone is so tied up in using 'torture' as a political battering ram that they ignore the obvious nonsense in their assertions which essentially come down to this: "concern for human rights consumes radical Muslims' every thought and action, and is manifested by their willingness to join Al Quaeda".

Uhhh, what?

We certainly know that the following doesn't motivate them, right?:

1. equal rights for women
2. a belief that Jesus was the true prophet
3. BLTs
4. editorial cartoons
5. the existence of Israel

But it's no surprise that a bunch of self-centered narcissists conflate their esoteric and euphemistic drivel with what 'the world' thinks. 'New Age Colonialists' is probably the most apt description I can come up with.

|
|
Reply
10:43 am, Apr 29, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
|
Reply
1:25 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Dave1959

Lets hope Mr Norton's family is never caught in an OBL style attack that could have been prevented !!

|
|
Reply
|
1:56 pm, Apr 27, 2009

TavernWench

I seem to remember 3,000 innocents getting caught in an OBL attack that the Bush Administration failed to prevent, so I'm not really sure I'm getting whatever in the hell point you were trying to make.

|
|
Reply
|
7:11 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Dave1959

Not hard to understand, but you probably voted for obama !!

|
12:51 am, Apr 28, 2009

Stromko

Oh wow you sure got him Dave, he voted for one of the two viable candidates, and apparently made the wrong choice in your eyes. That invalidates everything he says... in the eyes of a die-hard minority within less than 49% of the country.

|
4:46 pm, Apr 28, 2009

eldamon

Rove and Cheney are clearly counting on some sort of attack to vindicate their poor decisions. The far right in general is hoping for an epic failure of some sort for the Obama administration to justify their continued existence. All seem to be depravedly indifferent to the fact any failure on this administrations part or attack on the country will undoubtedly cost American lives. The very lives they purport to cherish and claimed to have saved through their twisted actions. Rove, Cheney and their disciples are nothing more than self-serving supporters of an arcane cast society bent on maintaining "their" way of life.

|
|
Reply
2:02 pm, Apr 27, 2009

beastie13

Thanks for this article.

|
|
Reply
2:05 pm, Apr 27, 2009

cuppajo

If you want to have an honest debate about what torture is fine, but this BS.

|
|
Reply
2:19 pm, Apr 27, 2009

smallgal

the administration had intel that would have prevented 9-11, but chose to ignore that.

But they wanted to manufacture a link between 9-11 and Iraq, as they had long before decided they "needed" to go there.

|
|
Reply
4:47 pm, Apr 27, 2009

jerryf

Love freedom ---
Do you suggest anything goes in wartime? Would you approve of threats to a man's wife, parents, children to make him talk?
The Nazi Party used this tactic. In fact did more than threatened.
Torture is abhorent period. Only a 'sick' person would do it, or support it.

|
|
Reply
6:11 pm, Apr 27, 2009

SharksBreath

I agree with Michelle Bachman.


She wanted investigations of Congress to find out who was Anti-American.

Let's do it.

It seems as though some in the Congress and a former Vice President of America believe it is ok to torture prisoners.

That is one of the most Anti-American things I have ever heard of.

|
|
Reply
|
6:13 pm, Apr 27, 2009

bevgrey

I find this chilling. You must be too young to remember McCarthy and the House UnAmerican Activities Committee and the many hundreds of lives they ruined. Investigations of illegal activities is one thing; interrogating people to see if they fit someone's definition of American is about as anti-American as you can get.

|
|
Reply
|
12:35 pm, Apr 28, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
11:39 pm, Apr 28, 2009

This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.

|
|
Reply
6:16 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Lovefreedom

Primercord and all those Americans that have commented on this article and my opinions....might be interested to know...I am a PROUD American CITIZEN who was born in CUBA. My Father was a POLITICAL PRISONER, I can tell you, no one taught me better about what the- HIGH MORAL GROUND IS -and what sacrifices Freedom engenders.
Eisenhower said " I have one yardstick by which I test every major problem- and that yardstick is:Is it good for America"

|
|
Reply
|
6:35 pm, Apr 27, 2009

muddog

You sir are a hypocrite.... Your father was a political prisoner and you SUPPORT TOTURE?. Truly SICK....

|
|
Reply
|
6:54 pm, Apr 27, 2009

Lovefreedom

muddog...Why would you assume I am a Man...I am a Lady, a TRAUMA SURGEON for a HUSBAND who trained where they train the Medical UNITS that go to Iraq and Afghanistan and further more ,the Mother of two sons in College and with 2 Marines for Brothers in Law...who would call YOU SIR the HYPOCRITE.

I won't you sick but IGNORANT.

|
7:44 pm, Apr 27, 2009

LeighBeast

Oh, Please!!!

|
|
Reply
9:33 am, Apr 28, 2009

MacRandall

You see LoveFreedom, what we have is a bunch that measures everything by how it makes THEM feel, how it aligns with THEIR esoteric and lofty ideals, and how it reflects on THEM when they vacation in Tuscany, Majorca, etc., and have to endure the ubiquitous finger-wag and clucking tongue from one of our so-called 'allies'

They never ask the simple question that matters: What did we get from the 'world' when we were good little lapdogs?I've asked that question for years, here and abroad, and have yet to have anyone offer a SINGLE, TANGIBLE benefit that our so-called "good" behavior (assumedly including Clinton-era renditions) has brought us.

So they lecture and hector about how they are the true defenders of freedom, evidenced of course by the sheer number of posts they can generate on TDB.

|
|
Reply
10:54 am, Apr 29, 2009

AndreainNY

These myths are not claims I've seen made. They are embellished to make the author's point.

|
|
Reply
8:37 pm, Apr 27, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

Busting the Torture Myths

by Scott Horton

Info
RSS
Scott  Horton
Emails
|
print
Single Page
|
text
-
+
Facebook
 | 
Twitter
 | 
Digg
 |