As the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies argue that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable. (And I might add immoral and beneath us.)
The US military services have opposed these techniques, which were supported by AG Gonzales, who call the Geneva Conventions "quaint" from the start.
As an old Army intelligence officer, an article in today’s NYT caught my attention. It reports that as the Bush administration completes secret new rules governing interrogations, a group of experts advising the intelligence agencies is arguing that the harsh techniques used since the 2001 terrorist attacks are outmoded, amateurish and unreliable. (And I might add immoral.) They argue that more than five years after September 11, the Bush administration still hasn’t created an elite corps of interrogators.
The experts state that they believe that prisoner interrogation, which they consider possibly the most important source of information on groups like Al Qaeda, currently consists of a hodgepodge of techniques dating from the 1950s, or is modeled on old Soviet practices. (I first learned interrogation techniques and how to counter them as a career intelligence officer over 40 years ago.)
The article goes on to state that their critique comes as ethical concerns about harsh interrogations are being voiced by officials such as General Petraeus, who sent a letter to troops this month warning that "expedient methods" using force violate American values, while Philip D. Zelikow, a former adviser to Secretary of State Rice recently called some interrogation tactics used by the CIA and DOD "immoral" and that it was a grave mistake to delegate to attorneys decisions on the moral question of how prisoners should be treated.
The NYT article relates that in an initial report completed in December, the experts also criticized the harsh methods because they do not produce the best intelligence.
It reports that while the Bush administration executive order now nearing completion will set new rules for CIA interrogations which are expected to ban the harshest techniques used in the past, it will still authorize some methods that go beyond those allowed in the military by the Army Field Manual.
There are many supporters of secret "enhanced" techniques starting with President Bush, who believe that turning up pressure and pain on a prisoner will produce valuable intelligence.
The article states something that has been apparent to me since I first learned of interrogation techniques in use in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo Bay - that many are based on old US military Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) training which US military personnel underwent to expose them to treatment they could anticipate if captured by the Soviets or their allies.
The article adds that a DOD inspector general report on detainee abuse released May 18, gives new details of how the earlier military training was "reverse engineered" for use by American interrogators. It says that as early as 2002, some SERE trainers and military intelligence officers vehemently objected to the use of the techniques, but their protests were ignored.
I am proud to be able to say that that from the beginning the military has opposed the immoral, illegal and ineffective interrogation techniques promulgated by Commander-in-Chief, supported by chief of staff Cheney, and justified by consigliere, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, an ignorant little man who called the Geneva Conventions "quaint." They were initially opposed by the Judge Advocates Generals of all military services. Then last year they were repudiated in the new US Army Manual on interrogations, and the chief of Army intelligence and now General Petraeus has reiterated that they violate American values. If only Bush, who never hesitates to remind us that he listens to our military leaders, would heed their advice on how to interrogate prisoners.