HOME



Digby's Hullabaloo
2801 Ocean Park Blvd.
Box 157
Santa Monica, Ca 90405



Facebook: Digby Parton

Twitter:
@digby56
@Gaius_Publius
@BloggersRUs (Tom Sullivan)
@spockosbrain



emails:
Digby:
thedigbyblog at gmail
Dennis:
satniteflix at gmail
Gaius:
publius.gaius at gmail
Tom:
tpostsully at gmail
Spocko:
Spockosbrain at gmail
tristero:
Richardein at me.com








Infomania

Salon
Buzzflash
Mother Jones
Raw Story
Huffington Post
Slate
Crooks and Liars
American Prospect
New Republic


Denofcinema.com: Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley review archive

January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 March 2005 April 2005 May 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 September 2009 October 2009 November 2009 December 2009 January 2010 February 2010 March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 August 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019


 

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Hullabaloo


Friday, March 28, 2014

 
 Huckleberry Graham and the torture fantasy

by digby

So, it turns out that the US can conduct a dignified, high profile Islamic terrorist trial in New York without any kind of drama in the courtroom or outside in the streets:

[E]ven as the debate continues over how and where international terrorists should be prosecuted, the United States attorneys in Manhattan and Brooklyn have since successfully prosecuted a series of terrorism trials without subjecting New Yorkers to the type of draconian security measures once contemplated for Mr. Mohammed’s trial.

The conviction on Wednesday of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith, a son-in-law of Osama bin Laden, was the latest such example; Mr. Abu Ghaith, 48, was convicted of all three counts against him in Federal District Court in Manhattan, and he could face life imprisonment.
[...]
Critics of prosecuting terrorism cases in civilian court have long feared that defendants like Mr. Mohammed, the self-proclaimed architect of the Sept. 11 attacks, would, if given criminal trials, turn them into soapboxes and try to incite their followers.

But in the trial of Mr. Abu Ghaith, a Kuwaiti-born imam who was known for his oratory, that concern did not come to fruition. At one point, Mr. Abu Ghaith, who unexpectedly took the witness stand in his own defense, was asked about his nationality. He responded with an answer about how Muslims were “one nation, one blood, one race” and had no differentiation “based on color, language or features.”

He tried to continue, but Judge Lewis A. Kaplan interrupted, telling him to answer the question that was put to him, and then to stop. “Save the speeches for some other time,” the judge said.
Some of those who waged a full-blown hissy fit over the prospect of civilian trials for the Guantanamo prisoners had to admit that it went well. Some, but not all. One lonely little patriot from South Carolina still fights the good fight:
Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said after the verdict that the defendant should have been held as an enemy combatant and interrogated for intelligence gathering purposes.

On Thursday, Mr. Graham said in a telephone interview, “I applaud the judge and the jury; they did their job,” but added, “We’re not fighting a crime here; we’re fighting a war.”

“This guy is so connected to the organization,” he said. “He was a treasure trove of potential information, and we blew it.”

Testimony at the trial showed that Mr. Abu Ghaith was interrogated after being turned over to United States authorities in Jordan early last year, as he was flown to New York to face charges. Even before he was advised of his Miranda rights, he was asked by an F.B.I. agent and a deputy United States marshal if he knew of any threats of operations aimed at the United States or other countries. He said no.

After being advised of his rights and waiving them, he answered questions for hours. An F.B.I. summary of the interrogation runs 21 pages. Mr. Abu Ghaith described his time in Afghanistan, his interactions with Bin Laden, his imprisonment in Iran and other topics.

But Mr. Graham said, “It should have been a 200-page statement, taken over weeks or months.” He added, “We lost an opportunity here with this guy.”

Let's be honest here, shall we? Senator Graham believes that those many hours of interrogation by the FBI were inadequate and the suspect should have been tortured in order to get more information. The reason he and others are so against trying terrorists in civilian trials is because information gleaned from torture would not be admissible. And he wants to torture terrorism suspects.There's just no other way to read what he's saying.

I'll refrain from addressing the obvious moral depravity of "enhanced interrogation." I've written plenty about it over the years. But it's worthwhile to look at what Graham's saying about the way the interrogation was handled in this case. I'm not familiar enough with the details to know if this defendant even could have had access to what they call "actionable intelligence" (meaning something that could stop an impending attack) but I do know that Osama bin Laden has been dead for three years so if this person's status as son-in-law gave him some special access to the man himself I'm going to guess it's not particularly relevant today. But be that as it may, (and despite the CIA's junk-science that says than "enhanced interrogation" can release buried memories) the idea that torture can produce more useful intelligence than standard interrogation techniques has been debunked over and over again.

In fact, neuroscience has shown that the FBI's approach of gaining trust and calming the suspect is far more likely to produce truthful responses than torture. Common sense tells us that a prisoner will quickly deduct that as long as he keeps talking --- no matter what he's saying --- that he won't be hurt. So it's unsurprising that these tortured prisoners would provide false information. But the "enhanced interrogation" program takes that into account and continues the torture anyway under their junk scientific theory that prolonged pain will induce the long term memory to give up details it couldn't otherwise access. In fact, the opposite is true. Torture, unsurprisingly, releases stress hormones that fog the brain and make it difficult for subjects to be able to tell the truth from fiction. So even if the torturers get beyond that first threshold where a prisoner consciously lies to stop the torture, their brains are so flooded with pain and stress that nothing they say, even if they themselves believe it to be truthful, is reliable:
Scientists do not pretend to know, in any individual case, whether torture might extract useful information. But as neurobiologist Shane O'Mara of the Trinity College Institute of Neuroscience in Dublin explains in a paper in the journal Trends in Cognitive Science called "Torturing the Brain," "the use of such techniques appears motivated by a folk psychology that is demonstrably incorrect. Solid scientific evidence on how repeated and extreme stress and pain affect memory and executive functions (such as planning or forming intentions) suggests these techniques are unlikely to do anything other than the opposite of that intended by coercive or 'enhanced' interrogation."
This article goes into some of the details if you're interested. But suffice to say that the decades the FBI has studied interrogation techniques showed the same results. They are most successful at getting useful information if the suspect is calm and cooperative and torture is hardly something that produces such a state.

But I doubt very seriously that Lindsay Graham is concerned about actionable intelligence. He's running for re-election in South Carolina which is one of the most conservative states in the union and one where the primary is getting ugly. He's never had to prove his macho bonafides more. But Graham isn't really an outlier in this. Republicans in general believe in torture:


Well, perhaps we should be a little bit more precise: most Republican men believe in torture. And half of Independent men as well. But that would be the group that Graham needs to convince that he's macho enough to continue to protect the nation from the dusky hordes.

Unfortunately, that poll, which was done in 2009 actually understates the current support for torture. It seems more Americans are coming around to Graham's way of thinking. (This article in Foreign Policy examines why that might be so. Let's just say that it may be some combination of distance from the horror of Abu Ghraib which has the public reverting to its longstanding fundamental love of torture and Hollywood spy/torture porn. Yikes ...)

In any case, this is all more relevant today with this ongoing turf war between the Senate Intelligence Committee and the CIA over the torture report. I think people expect that there must be something truly alarming in it for the CIA to be so adamant about keeping it under wraps. And it's certainly possible that's so, although if I had to bet, what that report will show is what we already know: the Bush administration engaged in torture and it produced nothing but bad results from wrong intelligence to a catastrophic loss of (what was left of) America's moral authority in the world. If there's anything new to be learned it's that they engaged in an elaborate cover up (although it's hard to imagine what could be more damning than the conscious decision to destroy the torture tapes ...)

Indeed, we already have a ton of evidence including this report by the bipartisan Task Force on Detainee Treatment that was largely ignored by the press because it was released on the day of the Boston bombings. This interview with one of the principles spells out the findings most succinctly:
We made a number of findings as a result of our two-year effort. All of these but one were unanimous. I just want to share with you a few of the most significant unanimous findings that this task force reached.

We found unanimously that U.S. forces in many instances used interrogation techniques which constitute—I underscore—torture. We conducted an even larger number of interrogations that involved cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Both categories of actions violate U.S. laws and international treaties. The conduct that I'm going to share with you in a few moments is directly contrary to the values of the Constitution and the nation.

A second finding unanimously made: The nation's most senior officials, through some of their actions and failures in the months and years immediately following the September 11 attacks, bear ultimate responsibility for allowing and contributing to the spread of illegal and improper interrogation techniques used by some personnel in several theaters. Responsibility also falls on other government leaders and military leaders.

Third—this is really critical—there is no firm or persuasive evidence that the widespread use of harsh interrogation techniques by U.S. forces produced significant information of value. There is substantial evidence that much of the information adduced from the use of such techniques was not useful or reliable.
This just concluded trial and conviction of Sulaiman Abu Ghaith in New York City shows that the American justice system is more than adequate to deal with accused terrorists. It might not fulfill the sadistic needs of the likes of Huckleberry Graham and his followers, but that's what video games are for. Justice and security should be assigned to people who don't need to act out their depraved fantasies on the world stage.


.