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.