An interrogation professional vs. Cheney

Wed, 09/23/2009 - 10:12am

We've been hearing from the League of Concerned Former CIA Directors recently, so I was interested to see in the new issue of Parameters, one of the Army's professional magazines, an empassioned article by John Wahlquist supporting the Obama administration's recent moves to curtail the American government's use of torture.

Wahlquist, a veteran interrogator who now teaches at the National Defense Intelligence College, writes that:

President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda for intelligence interviewing that increases the capability to collect accurate information from enemy detainees effectively and humanely. Seizing this opportunity is essential to increasing the chances of success for counterterrorism operations worldwide and reducing risks to the lives of American service members and civilians, as well as detainees. Doing so enhances the broader national security agenda without sacrificing American values.

In other words, treating detainees decently improves our intelligence, makes us safer, and protects our system. 'Nuff said.

Thomas E. Ricks | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

Interesting article; a great

by blue13326 on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 1:34pm

Interesting article; a great example of a paper that refutes its own conclusion. For example, with these quotes from the work:

'Without the same access, it is impossible to confirm or refute their [Cheney/Hayden] argument.'

He's forced to leave open the possibility that he may be entirely wrong if he had access to a full accounting.

Further,

'As highlighted in the Intelligence Science Board’s 2006 landmark study, Educing Information: Interrogation: Science and Art, Foundations for the Future, the US government has funded no significant research programs on interrogation-related topics in the past 40 years. There is no objective scientific basis for the techniques commonly used by US interrogators.'

He's forced to admit there is no objective basis for the findings he relies on; therefore, it's all subjective and dependent on personal bias. Where you end up, therefore, depends almost entirely on where you start. So, we really have no idea what is or is not useful in interrogation.

Since he's forced to refute any objective basis for his findings, he's forced to rely on the old leftist canard that enhanced interrogation weakens our civilization values (this is especially ironic considering the left's own favorite regimes, such as the French, generally utilize quite brutal torture methods themselves). Again, there is no evidence for this view; and, in fact, if one looks at history, we have utilized what we would now consider torture in every war we've been engaged in, yet our morality has become more progressive and egalitarian, just as an example. As he points out about interrogation techniques, there has been no study to support this conclusion, and so we are in the area of sociological opinion.

So why did they do it?

by Schmedlap on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 4:20pm

If these interrogations never work, then why did highly trained interrogators resort to these techniques? Were they incompetent?

Looking For the Sensational

by Tyrtaios on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 6:38pm

I'm not sure anyone was "highly trained" Schmedlap. Among other things, they didn't know when to quit, probably having the mentality that anyone in custody "must know something."

I guess this is what happens when you have a colossal national intelligence failure - you'll go to the extreme to fill in the gaps in a hurry.

My sense of it was the vice-president at the time was beating the drum to get something sensational - he was late, it happened on 11Sep01.

I like "listening" to your comments at SWJ. : - )

At the time I understand that

by Grant on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 9:16pm

At the time I understand that we actually had a vast ignorance of modern techniques, a well known and still problematic lack of efficient translators (especially among the interrogators who were forced to rely on others for translation), an influx of prisoners, and very few restraints. That doesn't make for a good outcome.

To me it isn't even so much

by Grant on Wed, 09/23/2009 - 9:19pm

To me it isn't even so much treating people humanely as much as using human egos. Very few of the people taken prisoner are devout fanatics, and as Saddam showed working with arrogance and fear provides results. I admit that there are differences between possibly crazed dictators and grunt soldiers, but I don't see a reason why it couldn't work with at least the same success as beating them.

Obama's EO isn't much of a departure from Bush's EO

by wordsmith from ... on Fri, 09/25/2009 - 12:03pm

President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda

President Obama's smoke and mirrors EO says much the same thing as the 2007 Bush EO that it revoked:

http://www.floppingaces.net/2009/01/24/about-that-presidential-executive-order-on-interrogations/

Seriously, they're virtually interchangeable.