Tortured Logic

How the CIA stumbled into torture after 9-11.

By Richard Warnica, 10 Aug 2007, TheTyee.ca

Big Story

Anyone with the slightest interest in how torture became a systematized, regulated and endemic part of the CIA's response to 9-11 needs to read Jane Mayer's devastating report in this week's New Yorker.

At over 8,000 words, it's no short read. But trust me, you won't regret it. So if it's too long to get through on the screen, print it out. Or if you're a high roller, you can even buy the actual magazine.

What emerges from Mayer's report is a portrait of an agency in a panicked scramble after the attacks six years ago. With little expertise in interrogation and less in detention, the CIA was unprepared for the new responsibilities thrown at it in the rush to take down terrorists.

Lacking in-house specialists ... the agency hired a group of outside contractors, who implemented a regime of techniques that one well-informed former adviser to the American intelligence community described as "a 'Clockwork Orange' kind of approach." The experts were retired military psychologists, and their backgrounds were in training Special Forces soldiers how to survive torture, should they ever be captured by enemy states. The program, known as SERE -- an acronym for Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape -- was created at the end of the Korean War. It subjected trainees to simulated torture, including waterboarding (simulated drowning), sleep deprivation, isolation, exposure to temperature extremes, enclosure in tiny spaces, bombardment with agonizing sounds, and religious and sexual humiliation. The SERE program was designed strictly for defense against torture regimes, but the C.I.A.'s new team used its expertise to help interrogators inflict abuse. "They were very arrogant, and pro-torture," a European official knowledgeable about the program said. "They sought to render the detainees vulnerable -- to break down all of their senses. It takes a psychologist trained in this to understand these rupturing experiences."

The explicit purpose of the program was to utterly shatter the psyches of those being interrogated, to reduce them to what one architect of the program calls "learned helplessness." And unlike the abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, which Bush officials claim were unauthorized, the CIA methods were "directly and repeatedly approved by [the] president."

The program is monitored closely by C.I.A. lawyers, and supervised by the agency's director and his subordinates at the Counterterrorism Center. ...according to a former agency official, "Every single plan is drawn up by interrogators, and then submitted for approval to the highest possible level -- meaning the director of the C.I.A. Any change in the plan -- even if an extra day of a certain treatment was added -- was signed off by the C.I.A. director."

Once you've finished Mayer's story, go buy Lawrence Weschler's A Miracle, A Universe: Settling Accounts with Torturers. Weschler, himself a New Yorker writer for 20 years, chronicled the torturous legacies of the military governments in Uruguay and Brazil in the 1970s and '80s in his book, originally published in 1990.

The parallels, especially with the Uruguayan story, to the system described in Mayer's article are plenty and plenty painful. What Weschler establishes beyond any reasonable doubt is that so called "soft" interrogation methods, those designed to mentally if not physically break the prisoner, are themselves indisputably forms of torture.

The regime at Libertad and Punta de Rieles [home to political prisoners under the Uruguayan junta] was more subtle. Major A. Maciel, who was a director of Libertad, observed at one point, regarding the prisoners under his charge, "We didn't get rid of them when we had the chance, and one day we'll have to let them go, so we'll have to take advantage of the time we have left to drive them mad."

The system was designed and monitored by behavioral psychologists to inflict maximum lasting psychic damage. Prisoners were utterly dehumanized. Long stints in solitary cells were handed out for violations of ever shifting regulations. Everything, from meal times, to cell mates and "entertainment" was calibrated to disrupt and banish any sense of control of self, a goal shared by the CIA program described in Mayer's article.

The most common justification for torture is the ticking time-bomb scenario. But Weschler and Mayer make clear that once justified for national security, torture is never restricted to those uses. Once the decision is made to abandon standards of humane treatment -- officially and explicitly -- torture always spreads, even as those who torture scramble to spread and deny blame, to redefine torturous practices as "coercive but legal" and, when that fails, to claim that even if it was torture you can't judge.  [Tyee]

7  Comments:

Login or register to post comments

  • murdock

    4 years ago

    Dubious Information = useless information

    This is always the failure of the use of torture to 'extract' information.

    The longer it is applied to an indiviual the less useful the information retrieved is, more than likely the 'information' that is obtained was 'inserted' during the interrogation.

    Quote:
    Ultimately, however, Mohammed claimed responsibility for so many crimes that his testimony became to seem inherently dubious.

    From page 8 of the article, this admission regarding the information from one particular target of the torture only re-enforces the past experience with all forms of torture.

    More importantly, use of this technique reflects upon the user, generally causing more complications and problems than were solved by the use of the torture.

  • Birch

    4 years ago

    Cost/Benefit

    The adoption of torture as standard practice by American authorities since 9-11 stands out as only one of the more egregious and ignoble actions of the Bush regime. There are so many reasons why they should NOT have proceeded this way, and so few that recommend it, it's astonishing that it nonetheless became accepted policy.

    What are the benefits? Potentially they include learning some key piece of information that will save lives, protect property, and so on, the usual sort of justifications for any wartime action. Secondarily, they may include the satisfactions of revenge, however irrational and ill-targetted the acts may be (consider Maher Arar and others like him). Aside from that? Not much.

    However, information derived from torture is incredibly unreliable. Most humans will say anything they imagine their torturer wants to hear, just to make the terror and pain stop. The likelihood of gaining some "key piece of information" is small, at best.

    Indulging the will to avenge is primitive, savage, and morally reprehensible.

    The costs are enormous! In the little more than half a century since WWII Americans have had their global image decline from that of "saviors of civilization, democracy, and promoters of liberal, humane values" to that of arrogant fascists. "My reputation, Iago!" Americans might exclaim. The last six years of Bush's madness have made the Nazis seem, well, not so bad.

    The adoption and rationalization of the use of torture has been one of the uglier and stupider atavistic acts of Bush's administration, one that nearly makes one ashamed to admire anything American, one that should make us very wary of the proximal beast below the border.

  • ME2

    4 years ago

    Well said, Birch

    Quote:
    The last six years of Bush's madness have made the Nazis seem, well, not so bad.

  • murdock

    4 years ago

    Bush's waterloo

    I post this because it is:
    a) just so funny
    b) relevant to this article as the principal players get ridiculed, and it is my belief that only when the high and mighty are truly laughed at - like the village idiot - that their decisions will be better questioned.
    c) not unlike Gullivers Travels, in the way the 'nuance' is portrayed.

    WATERLOO

  • Chris H

    4 years ago

    Post 9/11

    Why did the CIA and Bush adminstration get so emboldened in torturing their prisoners? Because in a post 9/11 US, they rightly believed they could get away with it. With so few journalists willing to "go there" and challenge the Bush administration because of the threat of being labelled a "traitor" or "unpatriotic" they were basically left unchallenged in going ahead with such unwholesome policies. The CSIS documents released this week show how even our government was silent in making no fuss when Canadian citizens were shipped to foriegn governments to allow torture when they had intelligence that this was the Bush administration's plan.

    The scary thing is that they got away with it and will continue to do so. People are just consumed with their daily lives to care. Sad.

  • G West

    4 years ago

    Thanks murdock

    Best use I've ever encountered Abba put to. Fine attention to detail too - ref Tony Blair's teeth.

  • Frank

    4 years ago

    Torture

    Torture is passe. Its the 21st century and the times are a changing. We need to retrain all our torturers to become hostage-takers. We must get with it and not allow a hostage-taking gap!

    • The discussion for this story is closed. No more comments can be added.