"This Informed Interrogation Approach is in sharp contrast with the harsh interrogation approach introduced by outside contractors and forced upon CIA officials to use."These outside contractors provide us with a horrifying picture of what happened:
The case of the terrorist Abu Zubaydah is a good example of where the success of the Informed Interrogation Approach can be contrasted with the failure of the harsh technique approach. I have to restrict my remarks to what has been unclassified. (I will note that there is documented evidence supporting everything I will tell you today.)Let's set aside for a moment the issue of torture. For in his testimony, FBI Agent Soufan has raised the issue of experimentation on a prisoner.
.....
A few days after we started questioning Abu Zubaydah, the CTC interrogation team finally arrived from DC with a contractor who was instructing them on how they should conduct the interrogations, and we were removed. Immediately, on the instructions of the contractor, harsh techniques were introduced, starting with nudity. (The harsher techniques mentioned in the memos were not introduced or even discussed at this point.)
.....
After a few days, the contractor attempted to once again try his untested theory and he started to re-implementing the harsh techniques. He moved this time further along the force continuum, introducing loud noise and then temperature manipulation.
.......
Once again the contractor insisted on stepping up the notches of his experiment, and this time he requested the authorization to place Abu Zubaydah in a confinement box, as the next stage in the force continuum. While everything I saw to this point were nowhere near the severity later listed in the memos, the evolution of the contractor's theory, along with what I had seen till then, struck me as "borderline torture."
Now let's look at a list of requirements for experimentation on prisoners, taken from:
Thus, whether or not they intended to torture, whether or not they intended to do harm, the consultant (psychologist) embarked on experimentation with the full knowledge and assent of the US goverment at the highest levels.THE NUREMBERG CODE [from Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10. Nuremberg, October 1946-April 1949. Washington, D.C.: U.S. G.P.O, 1949-1953.]
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.
2. The experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society, unprocurable by other methods or means of study, and not random and unnecessary in nature.
3. The experiment should be so designed and based on the results of animal experimentation and a knowledge of the natural history of the disease or other problem under study that the anticipated results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should be so conducted as to avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. No experiment should be conducted where there is an a priori reason to believe that death or disabling injury will occur; except, perhaps, in those experiments where the experimental physicians also serve as subjects.
6. The degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.
7. Proper preparations should be made and adequate facilities provided to protect the experimental subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability, or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified persons. The highest degree of skill and care should be required through all stages of the experiment of those who conduct or engage in the experiment.
9. During the course of the experiment the human subject should be at liberty to bring the experiment to an end if he has reached the physical or mental state where continuation of the experiment seems to him to be impossible.
10. During the course of the experiment the scientist in charge must be prepared to terminate the experiment at any stage, if he has probably cause to believe, in the exercise of the good faith, superior skill and careful judgment required of him that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability, or death to the experimental subject.
Let's look at a Nuremberg indictment, specifically for experimentation, considered a War Crime, coming under Crimes against Humanity:
11. Between September 1939 and April 1945 all of the defendants herein unlawfully, willfully, and knowingly committed crimes against humanity, as defined by Article II of Control Council Law No. 10, in that they were principals in, accessories to, ordered, abetted, took a consenting part in, and were connected with plans and enterprises involving medical experiments, without the subjects' consent, upon German civilians and nationals of other countries, in the course of which experiments the defendants committed murders, brutalities, cruelties, tortures, atrocities, and other inhuman acts. The particulars concerning such experiments are set forth in paragraph 6 of count two of this indictment and are incorporated herein by reference.I think we have a new category of War Crime here, commited by the US, as reported today by FBI Agent Soufan, who, as already stated above says:
I will note that there is documented evidence supporting everything I will tell you today.There is documented evidence of Medical Experimentation without consent on a prisoner. Regardless of all the other egregious lapses and torture involved in this "experiment," it was not done with consent and the prisoner was not free to end the experiment at any point. (Mind you, SERE training provides safe words and the trainee can terminate the "training" by using the safe word.)
To quote myself in a comment at emptywheel earlier:
To test a theory = EXPERIMENTATIONExperimenting on a prisoner is a War Crime. Experimentation occurred. It is documented. It did not involve consent and clearly did not involve many other safeguards listed above as required elements of any experiments on prisoners.
Experimenting - using punishment - on a prisoner. A wounded one at that.
The "Mengelization" of US policy.
Once again the contractor insisted on stepping up the notches of his experiment,The ABAB Research Design. Whereby you prove that condition A is one way, B changes that, A back to the first results, B changing again.
Classic ABAB design, that proves torture does not work!
Besides, all of it breaks the law!
I rest my case.
_________________________________________
[For full coverage of today's hearings, please see emptywheel, an award-winning investigative blogger. To assist her work, go here. Comments related to this blog, first posted here. Also here, here, here, and here.]
PERMALINK
What can be next?
May 13, 2009 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, yes, AZ had terrorist connections, but was cooperating and responding to normal interrogation. But the CIA wanted to try out new things and so destroyed AZ as a source of information, broke terrorism laws, and, it seems, experimented on a war prisoner.
May 13, 2009 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's a specific experimental design called the ABAB Design. It goes back and forth between one condition and another. That's exactly what occurred in this case. And the experiment proves that torture does not work!
(I need to put that in the post above. It's in the comments as emptywheel.)
May 13, 2009 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for informing us, TheraP.
May 13, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was only able to watch a scant few moments of his testimony and it was chilling - and the fact that we was 'protected' by the walls around him for fear of publishing his appearance due to terrorist's death threats was all the more impacting.
I found his testimony to be immensely credible and enlightening. This is something that needs to be replayed as well as referenced and quoted over and over again.
Cheney's response should be, at the least, 'interesting'. Bet those who are in his camp are hyperventilating. Quick, throw water on 'em! Preferably waste water.
Thanks for excellent and needed post.
May 13, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Graham was like a badgering interrogator himself! He acquitted himself very poorly!
May 13, 2009 6:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What can a person expect?
That is, what could you expect from a Senator such as Graham who attempted, along with Senator Kyle back in 2006 to place an amicus brief with the Supreme Court during the Hamdan hearings that contained concocted information that they had inserted into the Congressional Record after the fact?
The man isn't worth the salt that's holds the water in his worthless body.
Also see:
It's amazing what one kind find when shown the light . . .
~OGD~
May 14, 2009 12:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's the Senator who made sure that the DoJ Inspector General would be unable to prosecute DoJ lawyers if they were found to have committed malfeasance!
Thanks for that info OGD.
May 14, 2009 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
AND apparently it will take public pressure to influence the people who are responsible for accountability to 'do their jobs' because they are under so much pressure not to.
'WE' have to put the pressure on. Keep our voices heard and ringing in their ears until we see them doing what is right.
Thanks for keeping the outrageous stuff in our faces... we can't afford to go to sleep or get complacent on this.
May 13, 2009 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 6:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seems as if every generation of torturers adds a newly discovered "instrument" to the list. From the Iron Maiden to the waterboard, it took some very gruesome experimentation to figure out what worked best at squeezing confessions, real or fake, from some poor victim.
Now that we have the benefit of much more scientific and psychological instruments that do not require bloodletting, bonebreaking, or near-drowning, the use of anything akin to those methods is nothing short of socio/psychopathic.
No doubt, Cheney is the posterchild of that chimera psychosis.
May 13, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/13/soufans-narrative/#comment-157110
He corroborates what I've reported here. And adds further and more extensive information, including the names of psychologists (the one who left in disgust) and the likely Experimenter).
May 13, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was only fulfilling my independent contractual obligations.
OUTSOURCING. Ha
Great job Lady Thera, finding The Nuremberg Code. I mean really fine!!!
May 13, 2009 6:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Also, did you notice how Linsey Graham boxed himself in today:
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/13/if-youre-trying-to-commit-a-crime-you-wouldnt-brief-democrats/
He has aided and abetted the case for the prosecution! Take a look!
May 13, 2009 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
More proof that the 21st century in America started off with the brainpower of a 12th century regime. Every passing day seems to usher in more of the consequences of what happens when man governs by his id alone.
May 13, 2009 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
What do you think of this McChrystal thing?
May 13, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, if you have time, read emptywheel. There's so much there.
May 13, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 8:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The most in-depth (and one of very few) place for info on Nama seems to be this report: http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0706web.pdf
Pages 6-24 are pretty stark about what happened at Nama. They apparently employed some degree of "harsh interrogation" at least through July 2006 when the report was written. I didn't follow too closely back in 2006, so these are fresh details for me. I'm not happy with his selection at all.
May 14, 2009 2:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll look into this. Hmmmmm....
May 14, 2009 8:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Did Nama use civilian contractors? I don't recall that being so and it seems unlikely.
May 14, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 13, 2009 11:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
You also refuse to draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation techniques when subjects are not cooperative. It's fine and dandy to say that AZ was cooperating, but it's only stupidity to interrupt an effective process to start an ineffective one -- not a criminal offense.
You don't seem to be at all interested in the details of who directed the "contractor" staff (the higher-ups), nor why the invisible witness didn't complain loudly at having his oh-so effective methods usurped. Or did he?
"A few days after we started questioning Abu Zubaydah, the CTC interrogation team finally arrived ... "
I will also note that if AZ was giving up good info in the first hour, what the heck was going on for the next "few days"?
May 14, 2009 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 2:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
It doesn't address the question of reading too much into that word, the nominal point of the OP.
And it doesn't answer the question of to whom the witness protested, nor how "loudly", nor who overruled him, nor why the failing techniques were used again when it was manifest that his light-touch methods were productive and the harsh ones totally counter-productive. It does say that the witness stuck around even after another participant quit on moral/legal grounds.
"After a few days, the contractor attempted to once again try his untested theory and he started to re-implementing [sic] the harsh techniques."
If the witness was in control, as he claims he was at that point, why did that happen... unless AZ was no longer cooperating or at least not coming up with more info?
May 14, 2009 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It would not be a stretch to equate "untested theory" and "experiment", would it?
Definition of 'experiment':
The CIA (and the military) were in control of the detainees, not the FBI, although it was the FBI that had the trained interrogators. (Which is why the CIA had to use the outside contractor, I think.) The CIA at that time was dancing to Cheney's and Rumsfeld's tune. The reason why they kept going back to the EIT's - Cheney and Rummy didn't like the answers they were getting. Specifically, AZ was not giving them the link they were looking for between Iraq, 9/11 and al Qaeda. Not even after 83 'dunkings'.
May 14, 2009 5:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Not only that, there is extensive information from Abu Zoubaydah, himself, that he felt they were conducting experiments on him. That information has been known for a while. What was not known, however, was Soufan's own view of the events.
Anyone with research background could connect the dots. Anyone with a knowledge of Crimes Against Humanity could connect the dots.
We need a Special Prosecutor. Much of the information is classified. Tapes of the interrogation may yet surface, even though they were ordered destroyed. All of this needs to be thoroughly investigated.
May 14, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
From a comment by Jeff at emptywheel (which I gave above as well):
http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/2009/05/13/soufans-narrative/#comment-157110
May 14, 2009 8:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm with ya.
May 14, 2009 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
To me this is clear as a bell.
I thought Soufan's testimony was riveting. And his statement makes total sense. His description of the type of interrogation they normally use makes complete sense to me as a psychologist. It is in line with how we know relationships can be utilized to gain trust and elicit information.
On the other hand, inducing helplessness, hopelessness, physical pain, mental anguish, a personality breakdown is wrong for so many reasons. Ethically. Morally. Psychologically. Legally. And from a strategic, international viewpoint - since it only fosters more enemies.
For some reason, the link that previously provided his testimony no longer works! I'll look into seeing how we can access that again. It worked yesterday!
Hm.....
May 14, 2009 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
How does one get a license to offer torture for hire?
May 14, 2009 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was a remark by Cheney that went overlooked but really irritated me during the debate. Halliburton was selling arms to a nation we had an embargo against. He made the comment that laws preventing his trade simply penalized business interests. He mad no compunction at all that he was providing arms to his nations enemeies. But, I would suggest he has no nation. His loyalty is to his wallet whether is hold money from the US or Dubai, it's all about increasing his wealth and whether anyone gets hurt or killed would only be a factor if he had expenses related to those casualties. If he made profits, well, then it is all good!
May 14, 2009 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=7471217&page=1
Here's more on their company and tactics:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?currentPage=2
May 14, 2009 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's the link where it starts:
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2007/07/torture200707?currentPage=2
May 14, 2009 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
How detached from humanity does one have to be to find torture an attractive way to make a living?
May 14, 2009 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 4:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you being obtuse on purpose, as an excuse to get typing practice?
"It would not be a stretch to equate "untested theory" and "experiment", would it?"
Not only would that be a huuuuuuuuge stretch, but it's irrelevant except to partisans who hate the truth (however passionately).
It's not that I'm ignorant here. Over the years I've occasionally discussed human experimentation with a relative who has been subject to such restrictions and has sat on committees to review proposed experimental procedures.
While I don't seriously equate SERE with field interrogations of real subjects (it was interesting to see how many people jumped on that and apparently totally missed the point in a blog of mine) the techniques were not all that experimental, having been vetted under laboratory conditions by SERE and reviewed by professionals (legal, medical, ...). That the "contractor" was inept or unqualified doesn't apply here.
I do understand part of what TheraP is aiming for, besides a strawman point, btw. But you reading a dictionary only shows a lack of understanding on your part here, while you miss the point about "control" in my comment.
"If the witness was in control, as he claims he was at that point, why did that happen... unless AZ was no longer cooperating or at least not coming up with more info?"
Either he's skipping something relevant or he went along with the contractor taking over again after a bit.
Actually, my understanding is that he was involved for months. The time frame from his testimony is not at all clearly representative.
May 14, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
It truly isn't that people won't draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation techniques. It's that many don't accept the level of cooperation has any bearing what-so-ever on making the determination. It also seems a lot of people, including many professional interrogators, have drawn the line at a less permissive place than you. (but hey, I'm in favor of targeted elimination of AQ leadership targets ... so I'm not criticizing, everyone has different standards. Personally, I hope the more strict opinion wins out on torture! :-).
May 14, 2009 3:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It truly isn't that people won't draw a line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation techniques.
No, that is the point and the failure to do so is a problem.
"It's that many don't accept the level of cooperation has any bearing what-so-ever on making the determination."
Looks like a typo, maybe two, and a fallacy or two or three (many? cooperation? determination?). That's just too much in one sentence for me to take seriously.
May 14, 2009 3:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 8:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was just posting on DD's late night post and had been thinking about Dick Cheney (I know...but it was from a WTF? perspective).
Last night a retired general reiterated a description of Dick Cheney as a 'very fearful man'. He had stated it publicly in the past.
Dick had written a bit about Cheny being very, very angry that he could not get a confession of evidence that tied Iraq to Al Queada(sp.?). I realized that his very, very angry was more than likely masking his very, very big fear.
It would seem that Cheney's fear may have been pathological and I found this interesting writing on fear, leaders, and conflict:
http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/fear/
And today on another blog about Cheney I believe we were referring to him as a sociopath:
http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html
(if you scroll down on this one you'll see that it used to be referred to as 'moral insanity').
Reading this was helpful to me for some reason, which may mean something is wrong with me, I feel calmer understanding these things about Cheney... I suppose because his behaviors make a little more sense to me now and I have released all expectations of him behaving rationally.
On the other hand, I feel we would all be safer if this man is held fully accountable for his actions, and if they are as awful and serious as they seem, he should be behind bars.
May 14, 2009 6:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 7:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt that feeling you "understand" someone or something is helpful. The web is such a resource for doing that, isn't it?
May 14, 2009 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go here: http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/special/prisoners/
I'm willing to bet those conditions are not what we are talking about here.
May 14, 2009 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think the 10 requirements for an experimentation, listed in the post above, pretty much cover the ballpark for any human experimentation and could easily be copied and used by any university, institution, or organization that conducts research. All research must meet rigorous ethical requirements. Consent, via a signature on a form explaining the research is basic to all human experiments, together with information that the subject can terminate their consent at any point.
May 14, 2009 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 9:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have indeed hit upon the exact reason I put up this blog and have focused on this issue. Because it opens up a whole new line of inquiry and criminality. And, one wonders, if we have found the reason the tapes of interrogations were destroyed.
I will be very interested to see how this develops. Whether the MSM picks it up. What kind of PR campaign can be mustered to try and counter this. Because I think it can blow the whole debate wide open.
Right now the document of his prepared statement from yesterday is not showing up on their website. I linked it in the post above, but now all you get is a generic window that leads nowhere. You can even scroll down it and find the subcommittee hearing from yesterday, clickable. But when you click on it, you're back to the generic window. When you try to search, you end up back at the generic window. Not sure why that is....
Even if you search google, you end up at the same dead end, when you click on the "supposed" document. Something is going on here....
Any ideas?
May 14, 2009 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 9:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 10:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
May 14, 2009 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
And I agree, we must keep banging the drum. Good to see you here, astral!
May 14, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink