CIA Interrogations

It has been widely reported in global news media that the US Attorney General has hired a prosecutor to investigate alleged interrogation abuses by the CIA. I can accept that if a prisoner died, then there needs to be an investigation. I can also accept that the use of interrogation techniques such as water-boarding do lie in the grey area between right and wrong. Hence this grey area needs to be clarified. Unfortunately under the former Bush administration this was done in a way that appears suspect, and probably is suspect.

The system under which CIA techniques were formulated and enacted probably was suspect: with a person like Dick Cheney wielding influence behind the scene; with unclear communication channels between the Department of Justice and the Bush administration; and with a clear lack of communication between Congress and the White House. This lack of clarity in direction means that the CIA operatives that actually have to interrogate detainees have no clear framework to work under. They have been asked to operate in a foggy grey area, and that was what they did. By definition they are therefore in general not responsible. There may be, as previously mentioned, specific instances that are outside this foggy grey area. However this does not require a special prosecutor.

It has previously been reported that techniques used included loud heavy metal music, and slamming a persons back against a wall in a manner that sounds worse than it actually is. It is now reported that all sorts of fear tactics have been used: threatening to kill a persons children; threatening to sexually assault a person’s mother; and displaying a gun and a power drill in a session.

In most of the news reports it is implied that these threats a clearly reprehensible. However what is not made so clear is that these are only threats and there is absolutely no intention of carrying out such threats. I know that even reading or writing about these techniques can be itself a harsh experience. However the sort of individual that carries out a terrorist act has a mentality that would not only devise such techniques, but actually carry them out. Certainly if a suspected terrorist is a terrorist, then they would have a sufficiently thick skin that threats like above mentioned would not have the same effect that they would have on a normal person. Of course a detainee may be innocent. Hence the harshness of the interrogation technique needs to balances the seriousness of the possible crime against the possibility of innocence – and the imminence of a potential threat. The use of threats is to me not even in the grey area.

It was also reported that a mock execution was used, but was unsuccessful because it looked like it was staged. I suggest that the interrogators take up some acting lessons.

The opposition to harsh interrogation is strong because torture is so horrendous. Harsh interrogation therefore needs to be devised in such a way that it works subtly on a person’s body and emotions. This is what a lot of the techniques (that have been portrayed as obviously being in the grey area or even clearly torture) have been designed to do.

No-one likes the idea of harsh interrogation, but what is often left out is that innocent victims are also tortured at the hands of terrorists.

Islam and the West

This is in response to an article by the Iranian political scientist Nazanin Amirian published in the online at “Publico.es” on the 4th July 2009.

The author presents a viewpoint that is very similar to arguments presented by the Iranian foreign minister a couple of years ago in the Opinion section of (I think) the International Herald Tribune.

I do not recall the content of the foreign ministers letter. However what I do recall was that it was full of lies and omissions. It is for this reason that I feel obliged to the case recently put forward by Amirian.

The concept put forward is that the West (primarily the United States) is attempting to dominate the world (include Muslim countries) through military force.

I here only respond to the lies that are found in Amirian’s position.

Amirian argues that the concept of the Muslim or Islamic world is a Western concept that “we” do not recognize. Who is the “we” that Amirian is referring too. It is argued that unlike the geographically correct notion of the West, the concept of Islam is an erroneous concept used to further devious military domination. If the concept of ‘the West’ refers to the United States (and presumably also the United Kingdom), then what about South America and Africa?

Also, even though the Pakistani way of life may well more resemble the Hindu’s of India than the Muslims of Morocco, this in no way falsifies the fact that Pakistan and Morocco are both countries where Islam is the state religion. The concept of generalisation, or indeed its opposite, is used to foster understanding. A generalisation may become an over-simplification. However its use by rational human beings is to create understanding out of simplification.

Amirian argues that the so called war on terror does not refer to Islamic terror in Indonesia. In terms of casualties to ‘Westeners’ by ‘Islamic’ extremists, the two Indonesian Bali bombings rank very highly. I find it difficult to therefore accept Amirian’s argument here.

She talks about the millions of people forced to flee the fighting in the Swat valley. It is argued that this fighting is supposedly between the Pakistan army and the Pakistan Taliban; she states however that this is in fact a disguise: actually they are fleeing bombing by the Americans. Amirian needs a lesson in geography. Relatively speaking, the Swat valley is in the north, and the drone bombing attacks by the United States are on or near the Afghan border to the west.

Why is an Iranian political scientist, just like the Iranian foreign minister, using language that is full of errors, inconsistencies, and omissions? With Amirian I am of the view that she actually believes what she is talking about. With the foreign minister I am not no sure. In any case, the view presented is based on a deep running and blind assumption (a belief) that ‘the West’ is evil.

The hypocrisy is that Amirian argues that the essential intellectual problem is in the generalisation and therefore oversimplification of the concept of Islam. However the truth is that she has an erroneous view based on the generalisation and oversimplification of the concept of the West.

Just because a person can put words together to make a sentence does not make them sane. Amirian and the Iranian foreign minister both demonstrated seriously irrational mental thought processes. The more irrational a person becomes the more they approach being insane. Remember this that Hitler could string words together very nicely, and he was in fact either completely cuckoo or nefariously nuts.