Thursday, November 15, 2007

A Navy SEAL on interrogation techniques

I realize that some folks may be tired of reading about “torture”—whether real or imagined. If the subject bores you, no one is forcing you to read this post.

However, we are in a war with a fanatical foe, and there are forces in our own country determined to disarm the various departments and agencies that would protect us from this mortal threat, so while may not make for fun reading, what it lacks in entertainment value is make up for in survival value. I’ve excerpted some comments by a Navy SEAL on interrogation techniques from the following blog:

http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/015994.php

"Giving the intimate details of any interrogation techniques that we simulate on our own people, or use on an enemy combatant that has knowledge of other terrorists or plots to kill innocent people, is sedition, in my opinion."

Having debates over the finer points of interrogation techniques in open settings "only benefits those we may need to interrogate."

Mike's secondary specialty in the SEAL force is as an advanced combat medic. Without getting into specifics on his experiences, Mike strongly disputes Nance's exaggerations of waterboarding. There is a word for people who have "pint after pint of water" filling their lungs: dead. "In fact," according to Mike, "they would be very, very dead. By definition, anyone who has drowned is in fact dead. A large percentage of true drownings do not involve ANY water entering the lungs because the epiglottis closes off the air passages as water enters the throat. People who die immediately from being immersed in water actually die of suffocation, not water entering their lungs. Not only that, many people who survive a near-drowning who do have even small amounts of water that slip by the epiglottis and enter their lungs can die later of fluid shifts and pneumonia. I can assure you that we do not use any technique that involves true suffocation or aspiration of water into the lungs. One cannot get questions to answers from people who suffocate or have water fill their lungs in any interrogation technique, which would render that technique more than a little self-defeating. Dead men tell no tales -- and also make rather poor soldiers."

Mike emphasized that modern military interrogators receive excellent training and know that coercive techniques do not usually work as well as "positive incentives" and they will generally work through "echelons" of interrogation to obtain critical information. Mike would not go into any detail on "positive incentives" anymore than he would about coercive interrogation techniques generally used as a last resort. He continued to emphasize operational security (OPSEC). However, there are many different scenarios for interrogations, including time-critical emergencies, such as hostage rescue or impending attacks. "Effective interrogators need every range of options in these cases, including methods that use coercion to elicit information, for the different situations that our forces not only might face, but have faced. He used the examples of rescuing captured American soldiers from terrorists when we know they will be brutally tortured and murdered if not found immediately and rescued. "I'm guessing that the vast majority of Americans who vote would not have a problem with us using coercive tactics to get that kind of information from a terrorist."

However, Mike has serious concerns about this nation's perspective in this war, and whether it indicates an inability to defeat our enemies. "It's just blows me away that we're talking about the frickin' waterboard over here, when they're cutting off people's heads over there." Even the Abu Ghraib scandal, which was "unnecessary, unprofessional, and without purpose," has been overplayed into some kind of systemic and universal blight on the American military. Those responsible "got prosecuted … as they should be," but it pales into insignificance in comparison to what Saddam and his forces did at Abu Ghraib - "the most sadistic forms of torture." Those tortures continue with al-Qaeda to this day, but we seem uninterested in discussing that, instead spending years talking about a few isolated incidents and fret over how we treat the enemy in this war.

Mike continued with a rather chilling set of thoughts. "Many terrorists we capture already exploit what they perceive to be our weaknesses because of the media. They frequently ask for an attorney as soon as they are captured, medical care for the most trivial things and claim all sorts of abuses. The message has obviously been grossly distorted. OK, this my own opinion here but you want the enemy to believe the reality of this war as follows: Yes we will kill them swiftly if they resist capture. No, we will not kill them if they give up and do not resist capture. Yes we will start off by being humane, accommodating of their religion and culture and even give them positive incentives if they cooperate during interrogation. But they absolutely must believe that we are fully authorized by our country to use any measure necessary to extract time-critical information from them if there is a need to do so.

“Anyone suggesting that we should enact some kind of strict rules against what they perceive to be torture in time-critical wartime interrogations is not only naive but also dangerous. Interrogators in war zones who are up against any kind of time frame to recover captured American or coalition forces are likely to go right up the echelon of interrogation techniques including different types of coercion no matter what anyone says back in this fantasyland in the States. And if the interrogators think they could be charged with some kind of crime because the subject could file a case against them for carrying out their duties on a known terrorist who is withholding vital information, there is one likely fate for that individual at the end of his interrogation…death…sort of the reverse of what these left wing whackos claim to be seeking."

Mike also repeated his belief that anyone including politicians who disclose classified information during a time of war should be charged with treason. "I realize that the words sedition and treason are probably no longer found in the PC dictionary, but that is what this all amounts to. Why is it that the only legislators willing to make a stand are standing up for the non-existent civil rights of terrorists who are considered spies, saboteurs or guerillas and therefore not even covered under any Geneva Convention? Where are the patriotic attorneys who will put their party plans aside to prosecute those who give away classified information during a time of war? I strongly believe that it is high time that people in our country who give solace to the enemy and the secrets of our country to the press are charged with treason and given the strictest of penalties under the law."

14 comments:

  1. These techniques offer reliable results at least.

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's erased now, but a non-Christian tried to mock us by saying "KILL KILL KILL. WAR WAR WAR. Calvin's God needs his blood" Or something to that effect.

    What's the atheistic account of Jim Ryan, then:

    http://philosoblog.blogspot.com/

    He argues that it is permissible to target innocent non-combatants in the context of war, and also that some cases of torture are acceptable.

    https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3727130&postID=282199882953812149&isPopup=true

    Ryan is an atheist.

    It appears that the critic is arbitrary and just seeking for an avenue to vent his anti-Christian bias.

    ReplyDelete
  3. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    ReplyDelete
  4. "...we are in a war with a fanatical foe, and there are forces in our own country determined to disarm the various departments and agencies that would protect us from this mortal threat."

    Which "war"? Afghanistan? Iraq? The last I checked, Congress still hasn't declared war. They merely ceded their constitutional war-making authority on to the president. That's what dictatorships do.

    Which "fanatical foe" are we talking about? Al Qaeda? The Taliban? Saddam's followers? The Iraqi "insurgents" who no longer want us occupying their homeland?

    "...but it pales into insignificance in comparison to what Saddam and his forces did at Abu Ghraib."

    I just don't understand why so many Christians continue to justify our actions by comparing them to those of our enemies. If we're going to do that, then we have to at least acknowledge that our own government is just as culpable because we once supported Saddam and Osama, providing them with the money and the means to carry out the very cruelties we now condemn. And we're supposed to trust this same government to "protect us from this mortal threat"?

    "Mike also repeated his belief that anyone including politicians who disclose classified information during a time of war should be charged with treason."

    Translation: we should get rid of anyone who dares to disagree with us. The real traitors are those who ignore their duty to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" by prosecuting undeclared wars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. lee shelton iv said...

    “Which ‘war’? Afghanistan? Iraq? The last I checked, Congress still hasn't declared war.”

    You’re claiming that nothing is a war unless Congress declares war? So the Revolutionary War wasn’t a real war since Congress didn’t declare the Revolutionary War. Likewise, the Napoleonic Wars or Peloponnesian Wars weren’t real wars since Napoleon and the Greeks never had a Congressional declaration of war. Okay.

    “They merely ceded their constitutional war-making authority on to the president.”

    So, if the legislative branch doesn’t do its job, the executive branch shouldn’t do its job, either. If Pakistan were to launch a first strike against the US, and Congress refused to declare war, then we should unilaterally disarm and allow ourselves to be invaded rather than allowing the President to strike back?

    BTW, does the Constitution specify the wording for a declaration of war?

    “That's what dictatorships do.”

    For someone who thinks we’re living under a dictatorship, you feel pretty free to publicize your dissent.

    “Which ‘fanatical foe’ are we talking about?”

    The global jihadis.

    “I just don't understand why so many Christians continue to justify our actions by comparing them to those of our enemies.”

    Mike was *contrasting* our actions with the actions of the enemy. Pay attention instead of misrepresenting what was actually said.

    “If we're going to do that, then we have to at least acknowledge that our own government is just as culpable because we once supported Saddam and Osama, providing them with the money and the means to carry out the very cruelties we now condemn.”

    Are you saying that you would have supported unilateral disarmament during the Cold War?

    “And we're supposed to trust this same government to ‘protect us from this mortal threat’?”

    You’ve personified the gov’t, as if it’s a living, sentient being. There’s a continuous turnover from one administration to the next, from one Congressional election cycle to the next. It isn’t the “same” gov’t from one generation to the next.

    And you don’t think the jihadis pose a mortal threat?

    “Translation: we should get rid of anyone who dares to disagree with us.”

    Once again, you go out of your way to misrepresent what was actually said. Mike was specifically referring to the unauthorized disclosure of classified, national security secrets during wartime.

    You support that, do you? You support espionage against the US?

    ReplyDelete
  6. lee shelton iv said...

    “If we're going to do that, then we have to at least acknowledge that our own government is just as culpable because we once supported Saddam and Osama, providing them with the money and the means to carry out the very cruelties we now condemn.”

    Sure about that?

    “You really don't know your history do you? The US had zero involvement in any chemical weapons produced by Saddam. His arms purchases from the US during 1973-1990 constituted .5% of total arms sales to Iraq. Arms from the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact totaled 68.9%, France 12.7% and mainland China 11.8%. Source: Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.”

    Guest Editorial Outlining the Importance of Geopolitical Sanity and Knowledge of History Amidst a Sea of Rationally-Challenged Illiterates and the ...

    rerum-novarum.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  7. "If we're going to do that, then we have to at least acknowledge that our own government is just as culpable because we once supported Saddam and Osama, providing them with the money and the means to carry out the very cruelties we now condemn."

    Are you alleging that the US gov't supplied the Mujahidin with WMD? Specify which nuclear and biochem weapons our gov't supplied to the Mujahidin.

    If you can't, then what historical parallel are you attempting to draw? That the US taught them how to "torture" Russian POWs? Do you think the Mujahidin need to be tutored in the art of torture?

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's one thing for Congress to present the president with a formal declaration that a state of war exists between the U.S. and a specific nation and get him to act on his constitutional duty as commander-in-chief. It's quite another to grant him the sole power to determine whether or not the use of force is necessary and then provide little or no oversight after the fact. Besides, the "authorization" Congress gave him charged him with enforcing the extra-constitutional resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council. So, we have the wishes of a global organization backed up by the world's strongest military. Seems almost like a form of world government to me.

    As for me publicizing my dissent, I would be compelled to stand up for what I believe is right whether I felt free to do so or not. And no, I don't support treason. That's why I want those who lied us into this war held accountable for their actions.

    If we accept the premise that getting a fresh face behind the desk in the Oval Office constitutes a real change in government, then couldn't the same be said of the "global jihadis"? Their leadership changes all the time, especially considering all the high-level leaders we have allegedly captured or killed. If that's the case, then we aren't fighting the same enemy we were immediately following the 9/11 attacks.

    Government may not be a living, sentient being, but it is made up of living, sentient beings. And the fact that new people are rotated in and out of power every few years hasn't changed the nature of said non-living, non-sentient being. If you think about it, we have had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1980. If, God forbid, Hillary gets elected, we're looking at over 30 years with the same two families in position as "leader of the free world." That's not the kind of thing we should expect in a constitutional republic.

    Do a little more digging into our involvement in the Middle East. Up until the first Gulf War, there was a definite link between Saddam and the CIA. During the Reagan years, Iraq received dual-use technology from the U.S., including biomaterial that could be used in the development of weapons. One can argue that we may have only provided him with .5% of his weapons, but we also gave him the technology to develop his own. Why else do you think the current administration thought they could get away with exploiting the WMD threat?

    And, of course, there's Iran, our next apparent target. We've been poking a stick in that hornet's nest ever since we toppled Mossadaq back in 1953.

    My main concern is that Americans, along with a great many Christians, have embraced the concept of preemptive war (and torture, apparently) as a legitimate option. I can't think of a better way to foment even more anti-American resentment and increase the threat of terrorism.

    ReplyDelete
  9. LEE SHELTON IV SAID:

    “Besides, the ‘authorization’ Congress gave him charged him with enforcing the extra-constitutional resolutions passed by the U.N. Security Council. So, we have the wishes of a global organization backed up by the world's strongest military. Seems almost like a form of world government to me.”

    That was simply a legal pretext to wage war on other grounds. Bush wasn’t doing the bidding of the UN. Rather, he was using the UN for political cover as well as to forge a military coalition. You can criticize that, but it’s quite different from the way you’ve framed the issue.

    “That's why I want those who lied us into this war held accountable for their actions.”

    Of course, you’re assuming that they “lied” us into war. In the ramp up to the Iraq war, many security experts outside of gov’t make the very same WMD argument. Do you think everyone is on the take?

    “Do a little more digging into our involvement in the Middle East. Up until the first Gulf War, there was a definite link between Saddam and the CIA. During the Reagan years, Iraq received dual-use technology from the U.S., including biomaterial that could be used in the development of weapons. One can argue that we may have only provided him with .5% of his weapons, but we also gave him the technology to develop his own. Why else do you think the current administration thought they could get away with exploiting the WMD threat?”

    Now you’re shifting ground from your original allegation. You originally included Al-Qaida along with Saddam in your allegation. Are you now tacitly admitting that you can’t back up your original allegation with reference to Al-Qaida, but only Saddam?

    And why do you simultaneously say our gov’t supplied Saddam with WMD or WMD technology while also insisting that our gov’t lied about Saddam’s WMD program? Was he, or was he not in possession of WMD and/or the technological wherewithal?

    “And, of course, there's Iran, our next apparent target.”

    Which is fine with me.

    “We've been poking a stick in that hornet's nest ever since we toppled Mossadaq back in 1953.”

    Yes. Cold War. Containment policy. Do you think we should have allowed the spread of communism to go unchecked?

    “My main concern is that Americans, along with a great many Christians, have embraced the concept of preemptive war (and torture, apparently) as a legitimate option.”

    You offer no counterargument for either.

    “I can't think of a better way to foment even more anti-American resentment and increase the threat of terrorism.”

    American passivity and appeasement will embolden the enemy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. You say that "passivity and appeasement will embolden the enemy" as if the current foreign policy has had just the opposite effect. Now, I'm not advocating passivity and appeasement. But look at our relationship with China. We have diplomatic relations and have avoided harsh sanctions. Both countries benefit from economic trade. More than 25% of children adopted internationally in the U.S. come from China (our future daughter among them).

    What I find interesting is that each threat that comes along seems to be greater than the one before. We thought WWI was the "war to end all wars." The resulting social, political, and economic turmoil led directly to WWII. We allied ourselves with Stalin, and the "Red Menace" quickly became the biggest threat our nation ever faced. We soon found ourselves fighting communism in Korea and Vietnam to stop the dreaded "domino effect" (which never happened, despite our pull-out from Vietnam). We later backed the Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets because we still thought communism was the biggest threat. Now, our former allies, the "global jihadis," are supposed to be the biggest threat this nation has ever faced.

    So, here we are, fighting a fourth generation war with a second generation military, being asked to justify torture in the name of national security. I just don't see how that's supposed to help us sleep better at night.

    ReplyDelete
  11. lee shelton iv said...

    “You say that ‘passivity and appeasement will embolden the enemy’ as if the current foreign policy has had just the opposite effect.”

    Well, we haven’t had another 9/11 since 9/11. So I rather like that effect of our current policy.

    “Now, I'm not advocating passivity and appeasement. But look at our relationship with China. We have diplomatic relations and have avoided harsh sanctions.”

    I hardly regard détente as a success story.

    “Both countries benefit from economic trade.”

    The fact that our economy is increasingly dependent on trade with Red China is a national security risk. It leaves us very vulnerable.

    “We allied ourselves with Stalin, and the ‘Red Menace’ quickly became the biggest threat our nation ever faced. We soon found ourselves fighting communism in Korea.”

    Of course, Patton thought we should attack Russia before they got the bomb, while MacArthur wanted to win the Korean War by attacking China before they got the bomb.

    “To stop the dreaded "domino effect" (which never happened, despite our pull-out from Vietnam).”

    There was a domino effect. S. Vietnam went communist along with Cambodia.

    “We later backed the Mujahideen in their fight against the Soviets because we still thought communism was the biggest threat. Now, our former allies, the "global jihadis," are supposed to be the biggest threat this nation has ever faced.”

    Who says the jihadis are a “bigger” threat than Russia used to be?

    “So, here we are, fighting a fourth generation war with a second generation military, being asked to justify torture in the name of national security. I just don't see how that's supposed to help us sleep better at night.”

    You might sleep better at night if you were to actually think through the issue of coercive interrogation rather than retreating behind prejudicial buzzwords like “torture.”

    ReplyDelete
  12. “You say that ‘passivity and appeasement will embolden the enemy’ as if the current foreign policy has had just the opposite effect.”

    Steve said, "Well, we haven’t had another 9/11 since 9/11. So I rather like that effect of our current policy."

    Hmmm... I wonder what's wrong with this?

    Steve said, "The fact that our economy is increasingly dependent on trade with Red China is a national security risk. It leaves us very vulnerable."

    I always hear politicians condemning China of unfair trade practices and making similar assertions such as these.

    However, I think it's quite hypocritical. If China did not heavily invest in U.S. Treasuries, then we'd be in much worse shape due to the dollar being worth even less, thanks to our fiat currency. China's purchases of Treasuries keeps the value of the dollar high compared to the value of the yuan, thus helping their exports (we have the benefit of having a higher value for the dollar).

    Economists refer to the financial nuclear bomb that China holds over the U.S. should they sell off their dollars or diversify their currencies. Interesting how politicians and their apologists look to blame everyone else for their terrible policies.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous said:

    "I always hear politicians condemning China of unfair trade practices and making similar assertions such as these. However, I think it's quite hypocritical."

    "Hypocrisy" is a moralistic, ad hominem objection. That might be relevant to who you want your daughter to marry, but it's altogether irrelevant to whether our trade practices promote or subvert our national security interests.

    Given a choice, I'd rather have a hypocritical politician who keeps us safe to a sincere politician who puts us at risk.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Hypocrisy" was the term I used to characterize our politicians who
    create bad situations from bad policies, and then blame others for those very situations they've created - rather than looking at themselves or their policies. Definitely not irrelevant.

    I think it's quite evident that the hypocritical politician is not keeping us safe, whether monetarily or through foreign policy. It's just a matter of time.

    One of the stated goals of Al-Qaeda is to take us off our 'center of gravity'. That center of gravity is our economy.

    ReplyDelete