Torture? A Practical Exercise.
Posted: Wednesday, July 01, 2009
by Donald Marikovics
MyInHouseTravel.com, Inc.
Intelligence gathering in wartime is an art, not a science. The best Humint (information gathered from real people as opposed to electronic or satellite) sources can still provide mistaken information sometimes intentionally, sometimes by passing on faulty information that was presented to them. How and when to act upon data thus gathered in times of crisis, and the "after the fact" analysis of the eventual outcome of events often combine to define one's place in history.
In the mid eighteenth century America was founded and has grown to its present world stature on a unique set of guiding principles. To most other, then existing, forms of government these principles were both naive and doomed to failure. When our founders codified "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" into our charter as a nation, little room was left for the concept of institionalized torture common to other nations.
Torture was a commonly accepted practice in almost every culture at the time and it was likely an expected consequence of any interrogation of a prisoner whether to extract information regarding accomplices or even just obtaining a "confession". And while there have no doubt been isolated instances of this practice in our own history, they have never been boasted of or made a part of any accepted interrogation manual because as Americans we inherently know that torture is beneath us and all we stand for.
So we all acknowledge that torture is a very bad, evil thing and that anyone who does it should be held legally accountable for their actions. Not just the person who actually commits the act, but anyone who has sanctioned its use or even looked the other way while knowing that it was happening or going to happen. Even in a perfect world this is where things start to get messy. Who knew what, when and so forth, not to mention the most important overriding factor: who can best utilize the issue for (re)election? Politics has a way of making the most hideous things seem minor and the most insignificant issues appear obscene and dangerous depending on the timing and presentation of (admittedly selective) facts.
The Slant
There are things we all "know" and agree upon (e.g. torture is evil and must not be committed by us or anyone) and there are things we all accept as "fact" (e.g. our security is owed to the actions of our elected officials and the military). We take much for granted sitting in the comfort of our living rooms and offer freely our opinions (and judgments) of those who act on our behalf. This is our right as Americans. It is our duty to take an interest and be involved in local and national affairs. It is only when citizens are aware of what is happening that our government is kept from exceeding the limits imposed upon it by the Constitution.
Unfortunately, the political polarization of our country is leading more of us to judge a situation based on "facts" presented by one political party or another which are offered up for our consumption with an agenda in mind that sometimes is not, at first reading, obvious to us.
This feed of "slanted facts" is foisted upon us daily from both political extremes. It requires more independent investigation and objective thinking than most of us possess to sort through all the garbage intended to garner our political support in the next election in order to arrive at a well informed decision. Of course, politicians have little desire to foster well-informed decisions in their constituents, party biased decisions being so much more preferable to their personal agendas.
Put aside your individual party bias for a minute and consider the following exercise to judge for yourself the appropriateness of intelligence gathering techniques and the consequences they have.
The Exercise
The decision is yours now. You no longer have the luxury of sitting home waiting to make Monday morning quarterback calls on world events. When faced with making a choice you may decide to do nothing at all or take appropriate (or inappropriate) actions, but there is no passing the buck to someone else whom you can later point a finger at. Consider the "facts" before you and the consequences of your actions. Decisions need to be made and they become increasingly difficult (or not, depending upon your disposition to terror suspects).
Three (of the hundreds of unaccounted for) "suitcase" nuclear devices have been reported by Comint (legal or illegal wire taps) sources to be in possession of Muslim extremists in the Jalalabad, Afghanistan area near the border with Pakistan. There is the suggestion that they are to be transported to the USA for use in an upcoming terrorist attack.
Decision: Do you act on this information or not. Does the fact that the "wire taps" may not have been authorized, and therefore not admissible in court, persuade you to wait for better substantiated information before proceeding with any action?
If you do nothing and the intelligence proves wrong, you can feel righteous about taking the proper and legal path. If the intelligence was true and the devices proceeded to their destinations unhindered, killing hundreds of thousands of Americans how would you judge your decision?
Assume you take action and interview several local area informants and discover that recent activity in the Jalalabad area is consistent with the alleged threat. In fact, one of the informants, a very reliable, confidential source of information in the past, provides you with the name of a local "trader" who is said to have recently brokered a large and secretive deal between a Russian businessman and an unknown group.
Decision: Do you act on this information or not. Do you feel that the information from your secret informant (who cannot be called to testify in court) is sufficient evidence to warrant the arrest and questioning of the local trader? How far would you go in interrogating this trader to determine whether there is any truth to the nature of the suspected plot?
Assume you take action and bring the "trader" in for questioning. He denies any knowledge of the suspected transaction and refuses to cooperate with you. You have no substantiated facts beyond what you think you already know. He is your last chance to find out where the devices have gone (if there are any devices at all) and he is not responding to polite questioning.
Decision: How do you proceed? If you use stronger interrogation techniques and this proves to be a false lead, you could be held personally accountable for torturing someone. If you persist with the polite questioning and get nothing and the terrorist plot is carried out you will have the moral high ground but someday will have to explain why more aggressive actions were not utilized in an attempt to gather the information needed to thwart the plot.
Assume you get lucky and while questioning the "trader" your Tech team advises you that a search of his warehouse has revealed traces of radioactivity consistent with that of the suspected missing nuclear devices. When you present him with this evidence he negotiates with you a deal: his freedom for the information you are seeking.
He tells you that each of the three devices has been given to a different cell leader with instructions to transport it to an undisclosed location in the USA for detonation at an unknown time. Each device is to be taken at different times, via different routes to insure that at least one of them reaches their objective. He provides you with the name of their control agent who will assign the cell leaders who are to carry the devices. He says that he believes that each cell leader has the ability to detonate his device if he feels that the mission is being threatened. Unless the cell leader activates the device first, it cannot be detonated even if shot or otherwise demolished.
Decision: Do you arrest the control agent based upon the information provided by the "trader"? How extensively would you interrogate him to get the names and locations of the nuclear devices (if any really do exist?) If you attempt to arrest him and fail and he detonates the device allegedly under his control and all of Jalalabad is destroyed, what are the moral and legal implications? What if you do not act out of fear of destroying a town in Afghanistan and the other two devices find their way to America in the meantime?
Assume you locate the control agent and are able to take him by surprise while he is alone and away from his home and office. Polite questioning is revealing nothing. You know that if the allegations are true that he will likely detonate his device as soon as he is released and allowed to return home.
Decision: Do you resort to "enhanced interrogation techniques" to try and obtain additional information or continue to rely upon approved UCMJ questioning techniques. You and he both know that the longer it takes, the further along the other devices are to their targets. If a search of his quarters reveals a suitcase device and he still will not talk, what do you do? Since the basis for the search of his quarters is an unsubstantiated informer who cannot testify in court, do you risk prosecuting him in a trial where he might be released? Would you consider classifying him as an "enemy combatant" and placing him in custody on a Caribbean Island away from any possibility of doing further harm? Is that legal?
In order to avoid the issue of possible torture you release him to the custody of the Afghan Government who transfers him to the Egyptians whose idea of polite questioning differs somewhat from your own. The legality of this move is questionable but since no one has been convicted of doing it in the past, you feel safe doing it now and relieved that you do not have to resort to enhanced interrogation techniques yourself. They assure you that their questioning did not involve torture and that he freely elected to reveal the names of the other cell leaders and their movements.
Of the two remaining devices, one has left the country en route to the USA but one remains in Kabul under the control of a cell leader who is scheduled to move it within the next six to ten hours. He has quietly sequestered himself in the basement of a mosque and has "recruited" 50 women and children to act as shields against an attack by armed force. Although the chance that he can now secretly move the device has been reduced, the probability that he will explode it if threatened seems very likely. He is not venturing far from the location of the device so you cannot capture him.
Decision: What do you do? A concentrated aerial strike has a 90% probability of killing the cell leader before he can detonate the device. Of course that would certainly kill all of the civilians, destroy the mosque and possibly some neighboring buildings as well and could possibly brand you a war criminal if the device is not found at that location in the clean up. You could attempt to initiate negotiations with the cell leader and try to convince him that it is better to live in jail than die as a martyr. If the device is within his reach, the consequences could be a half million dead and injured. You could do nothing and hope for the best when he attempts to move the device.
Regardless of your actions in Kabul, the remaining device has been en route long enough that it is already positioned in the USA and has been scheduled to detonate at a predetermined time in a major city.
The third cell leader is arrested at JFK as he attempts to board a flight to Syria.
Decision: You have a suspect under arrest on US soil and he is requesting a lawyer before speaking with anyone. In light of all of the preceding events what do you do?
Summary
Those who read this exercise and consistently elected to do nothing outside the letter of the law can be counted upon never to stand up for anything but their moral superiority in the face of imminent destruction.
Leadership decisions are not for the faint of heart. Those chosen to serve and protect us from harm are called upon to make decisions, which when viewed under future, different conditions can be judged faulty or even criminal. Those who elect not to make a decision when one is needed will never fear being accused of "legal misconduct" by others and will even rationalize their inaction, cloaking it under a veil of moral righteousness.
When we allow elected officials (whose admitted number one priority is their own re-election) or those seeking office to present us with unchallenged, slanted, politicized views of the actions taken by past or present leaders (or our military) which were undertaken with the intent of protecting us from imminent danger, we fall prey to their games and weaken the resolve of future leaders to act courageously on our behalf.
The strength of a Democracy is also its weakness. We have at our disposal more sources of information and knowledge than any generation that has gone before us. We can communicate openly and freely with our fellow citizens as never before. If we fail to utilize these resources and blindly follow political prophets seeking personal aggrandizement we will too late learn that there are others in the world who have goals which rise above any moral or ethical considerations and for whom genuine torture techniques are seen as an end to a means rather than something evil.
This is not intended to be an exercise in the vein of "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Rather, it is an attempt to make you think about what is really going on in the world, beyond the comfort of your living room couch where men and women are dying and doing what needs to be done to protect your right to judge them after each decision they make to protect you.
This Article has been viewed 188 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (6 total)Donald, I have mixed emotions about so much of this. I am thankful that I am not in control of our country's behind the scenes day-to-day situations. This was an interesting read. Welcome to SearchWarp.Thank you Lorrie. It is meant to be thought provoking precisely because too many people have an uninformed, simplistic attitude about issues that do not lend themselves to black or white solutions.
Wow! I love it! This is exactly how I feel. I will post this so my friends will see it too. =)
I feel enriched after reading this article. It is very informative. Thank you so much for sharing.
Donald-very thought provoking article. I do agree that democracy is also our weakness. Thanks for sharing!
Hi Donald, well done. Very thought-provoking. I think what you pointed out here can be applied to all areas of our lives. Too many people sit around and wait for others to decide and than complain about the decision. You really help me to remember how important it is to respond and act, responding accordingly with the best information I have in front of me. You also remind me of how difficult the unseen day to day events are in our country. God help our leaders!Thanks, I appreciate this article. Blessings to you! Teresa
Very informative and nice article. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.