Myths about torture revealed

The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) hosted a discussion on 'Torture, Justice and Democracy: Myths and Misconceptions.' Alice Verghese, a Reagan-Fascell Democracy Fellow and program coordinator for Asia and the Pacific at the International Rehabilitation Council for Victims of Torture, was invited to share her findings on torture particularly in Sri Lanka and the Philippines.

Verghese defined the paradigms of torture as pain and suffering, physical or mental, which is intentionally inflicted by public officials for purposes such as coercion or obtaining information. She attributed the difficulties in obtaining reliable reports on torture to the lack of consistent data collection methods, fragmented responses from those in the field and the secretive nature of torture itself.

Victor Madrigal-Borloz, a human rights specialist at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, said that international justice systems are not international criminal bodies and that strengthening democracy at the local level was vital. Madrigal-Boloz also said that making the public aware of torture was 'an element of healing' to victims of torture. Dr. Allen Keller, associate professor of medicine at New York University, pointed out that the psychological impact of torture should not be underestimated and that it had much longer lasting effects compared to physical torture.

Treating terrorists with respect

Effective anti-torture interrogation techniques were discussed at the
Center for Strategic and International Studies in conjunction with
Human Rights First. Colonel Stuart Herrington, a retired US Army
intelligence officer, stated that Americans should not have to
question which interrogation methods are appropriate and, having
witnessed a woman being waterboarded in Vietnam by contracted
Vietnamese interrogators, said he has no doubt that waterboarding is
torture.

Herrington said that a stigma exists which places interrogation as a
low priority, causing highly qualified individuals to seek other jobs.
Joe Navarro, a former FBI interrogator, said that an interrogator
must speak the language of the informant while being aware of their
culture and political history. Navarro added that being a criminal
interrogator is less complex than an interrogator of terrorists and
that detailed training is essential for federal interrogators.

Navarro stated that a successful interview is subtle, saying a relaxed
brain is best able to remember detailed information. Herrington
expressed his surprise that high officials approved of using
interrogation methods that cross moral bounds, saying that officials
must have been misinformed of each procedures' details. Navarro added
that an interrogator is supposed to convince an informant to release
information, not threaten, and that acts of kindness help to build
informants' confidence in the interrogator. He concluded by saying
that the United States will not be successful if it employs "Gestapo"
techniques and added that even Nazi interrogators knew to treat their
informants with respect.

Military training misconstrued at Guantanamo

The origins of aggressive interrogation methods were discussed by the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his opening statement, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said methods used in US military programs that intend to help captured American forces resist violent interrogation through simulation have been twisted by military forces and used to interrogate. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) added that the Bush administration used “bizarre legal theories” to justify interrogation strategies and asserts that its decisions will be considered shortsighted in the future. Graham expressed concern with the Supreme Court’s decision that prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have the right to habeas corpus, saying that Americans will be disturbed to realize that they have the same constitutional rights as terrorists.

Dr. Jerald Ogrisseg, a former Air Force psychologist, said that the Air Force’s (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) SERE program is not intended to teach interrogation but rather to help captured Americans resist forms of interrogation used by states and parties that are not in compliance with the Geneva Convention. Retired Air Force Lt. Col. Daniel Baumgartner Jr. said a memo outlining physical pressures put on American prisoners-of-war sent to him by Ogrisseg was requested by the office of the Secretary of Defense. Both Baumgartner and Ogrisseg said they were under the impression that the Department of Defense wanted to determine appropriate interrogation procedures and had that they had no reason to assume the memo would be used to promote improper methods.

Ogrisseg said Navy SEALS subjected to brief waterboarding in training repeatedly stated they would divulge information to captors if faced with the waterboard again. Navy procedures allowed for trainees to be waterboarded for no more than 20 seconds with no more than two pints of water. Baumgartner said what the committee referred to as “SERE techiniques” are used often and have worked against American troops. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) stated that it would have been more logical for the Department of Defense to seek interrogation advice from the FBI instead of using a program not meant to teach interrogation. Senator Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii) questioned the effectiveness of aggressive interrogation, pointing out the likelihood that captured terrorists have undergone training similar to that of United States Armed Forces.

Report sheds light on the “most serious issues of our time.”

Members of the American Civil Liberties Union as well as Representatives Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) and Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), chairman of the Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, met today to discuss the Department of Justice Inspector General’s report on the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s role in harsh interrogations conducted on detainees abroad. The report is expected to be released sometime today or tomorrow, according to the ACLU.

The DOJ Inspector General’s report has been in the works for about four years and its release has been long anticipated. The ACLU hopes the report will disclose the nature of the FBI’s involvement in the interrogations and what steps FBI officials took to try and stop the torture and abuse, and any new informations regarding the approval of torture for use during investigations. Congress requested the report after documents were released during litigation to enforce and Oct. 2003 ACLU Freedom of Information Act request for records concerning the treatment of prisoners in U.S. custody abroad.

Nadler hopes the report will investigate the administrations harsh use of interrogation like torture. “We now know that the instigation of torture were made at the highest level of government” and those who made the decision need to be held accountable. Nalder also offered criticism towards the FBI for the slow manner in which they acted on the complaints.

Rep. Wexler spoke about the lack of an open dialogue in Congress on the torture policy and believes that the report will “shed light on one of the most serious issues of our time.” Wexler believes that there needs to be a thorough investigation into the actions of the Bush Administration and the abuse of power and their lack of intention to engage in a meaningful dialogue with Congress about torture or any other substantive issue.

House Judiciary Committee Subcommittee hearing on the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel

Acting Assistant Attorney General Steven Bradbury of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, said there is a specific definition as to what is torture. Torture, he said, is when severe mental or physical suffering causes prolonged mental harm. He said the physiological sensation of the "gag" or "drowning" reaction is what makes the technique acute, even though you know you're not going to drown.

There are new statutes in the War Crimes Act, Bradbury said, that took the definition of torture and changed it. The new statutes became effective Fall 2006, and the department has not analyzed the practice of waterboarding under that new statute. He also said he is not aware of any deaths resulting from being waterboarded.

During questioning about the destroyed CIA tapes, Bradbury said he was not involved in the discussion nor did he have personal knowledge about it, and when asked who may have destroyed them he said, "I don't know." Although he was repeatedly asked the same question in various different ways, he kept saying "I don't know."

Representative Melvin Watt (D-NC) asked if the president had the authority to "disregard" the legality of waterboarding, and under Article II of the Constitution, would he be able to order waterboarding to be done. Bradbury would not directly answer the question, instead saying that the president would not do that even with the power to do so. Watt repeated the question six times, and emphasized that he did not want to know if the president "would" do it, the question was if the president "could" step over the law under Article II. Bradbury never answered that question.