Vice presidential chief of staff David Addington and former Justice department lawyer John Yoo, waiting to testify on Capitol Hill in June. (AP)

The flawed thinking of the administration's torture advocates
ASK THIS | August 07, 2008

An expert military interrogator wants to know why the president's legal advisers were so intent on rationalizing the violation of longstanding law in order to adopt an approach –- coercion -- that experienced interrogation practitioners agree is not just ineffective, but counterproductive.

By Steven Kleinman
compass2100@mac.com

Q. Why was such an effort invested in formulating legal justifications (and protections) for the use of coercive interrogations in the absence of objective evidence that such measures were operationally effective?

The Administration's policies governing the treatment of detainees and the conduct of interrogations were the work of executive branch legal advisors who conducted an extensive and far-reaching effort to reinterpret longstanding domestic and international law.

The manner in which existing law was reinterpreted arguably reflected an overriding intention to facilitate harsher interrogation methods than previously allowed. This is illustrated by questionable conclusions regarding the definition of torture. The infamous Bybee Memo, for instance, expressed the view that physical torture "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death" – a conclusion that reached not into case law for its foundation, but rather into statutes defining an emergency medical condition for the purpose of providing health benefits. (See page 5 of the memo.)

Setting aside the moral arguments against torture, the considerable time and energy spent in establishing a legal justification for harsher methods, such as the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques," would have seemed a more reasonable course of action if substantial evidence existed that these methods were objectively of superior operational effectiveness than more traditional approaches and/or had proven necessary in the context of a new dimension of conflict.

The CIA, the agency exclusively authorized to operate under this separate set of standards, did not -- and could not -- offer objective arguments that would justify such a conclusion. Prior to 9/11, the CIA had no interrogation capability of its own nor had it conducted research into effective means of conducting interrogations since its ill-fated venture into the application of drugs and psychological stress in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead, they were new to the game. And there was no scientific underpinning for the agency’s decision to embrace tactics that would ultimately coalesce into a checklist-driven process supervised by behavioral scientists. Even the anecdotal evidence offered as proof of the efficacy of enhanced interrogation techniques was never subjected to independent, objective assessment. In sum, it was effective only because they said it was effective.

In contrast, considerable evidence -- along with the many years of operational experience by the nation's most accomplished interrogators -- strongly suggested that coercive methods not only failed to consistently obtain reliable intelligence, but that such tactics are largely counterproductive in that they stiffen the resolve of detainees under questioning and undermine the stature of the U.S. on the world stage. (See, for example, the Intelligence Science Board's study on Educing Information, December 2006.)

Q. How have revelations of detainee abuse, torture, and extraordinary renditions impacted the strategic information campaign that is waged in parallel with the war on terror fought on the ground?

Q. How might we weigh the value of any information obtained through "enhanced interrogation techniques" against the geo-strategic costs of the U.S. policy to employ them? What was the value of that information? Were any terrorist attacks actually averted? Was the information worth the increased threats against U.S. national interests from those who seek revenge, the diminished quality of U.S. relations with longstanding allies, the effective use of images from Abu Ghraib in Jihadist recruitment efforts, etc.?

Strategy dating back over 2,500 years exhorts heads of state and military commanders to seek first to win the war of minds before engaging the enemy on the battlefield. This principle is especially true in today's conflicts -- the Global War on Terror and the counterinsurgency in Iraq -- that are characterized as fourth generation warfare. In this form of conflict, ideas and perceptions have greater influence than weapons and occupying troops. In essence, potential energy in the form of thoughts and opinions will more directly affect the outcome of conflict than kinetic energy expressed as bombs and bullets.

Given such a scenario, the manner in which information is collected from human sources is just as important as the nature of the information collected. How valuable, for example, would the information obtained from 9/11 planner Kahlid Sheik Mohammed have to be in terms of protecting U.S. national security interests for it to offset the damage to those interests resulting from revelations that America used methods that many around the world would describe as torture (e.g., the waterboard)?

By contrast, consider how traditional interrogation works. It may surprise some to learn that running human intelligence operations has much in common with sales. One objective in every contact a salesman makes with a potential client is to obtain a lead on another prospect. Similarly, an objective of every contact an intelligence officer makes with a source of intelligence is to solicit a lead on another potential source of intelligence. It doesn't require operational experience to recognize the probability of gathering information on other sources of intelligence is far greater when sought in an atmosphere of trust, humanity, and professionalism.

I feel strongly that in the vast majority of the interrogations I've conducted, I was able to consistently realize two important and synergistic outcomes. First, not only was I able to elicit reliable information that responded to the established intelligence needs of policy-makers and military commanders, but also, through a strategic, relationship-building approach, the prisoner-of-war or detainee frequently offered information that pertained to areas of his knowledgeability that I couldn't have anticipated going into the interrogation. In a very real sense, intelligence information was delivered to me not because the prisoner had to, but rather because he wanted to!

Second, upon their release, detainees who were treated with respect or, at the minimum, in a manner consistent with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, were far more likely to carry positive messages about Americans and America that could only promote our national interests abroad. Humane treatment at the hands of American officials provides a stark and memorable contrast to what many individuals around the world have experienced while detained by members of a hardline internal security apparatus. Scenarios such as this, when repeated with sufficient consistency and frequency, enable us to achieve Sun Tzu's highest standard in the art of war: to win without fighting.

Q. While interrogation has played a surprisingly critical role in support of the war on terror and the insurgency in Iraq, why is it that the first gathering of experienced interrogators to capture a collective view on what strategies are effective (and what are not) did not take place until June 2008? And why was this forum convened not by the U.S. Intelligence Community but by a private human rights organization?

In June 2008, Human Rights First brought together approximately 15 experienced human intelligence and law enforcement professionals possessing 350 years of collective operational experience. We had interrogated, debriefed, and interviewed criminals, terrorists, prisoners-of-war, defectors, foreign intelligence operatives, and refugees. While our paths were exceptionally diverse -- counted among us were CIA case officers, FBI special agents, and military intelligence officers -- a single, common goal informed our individual pursuits: Discover and employ the most effective strategies and tactics to obtain accurate, reliable, timely, and comprehensive information from these sources.

I cannot describe the personal and professional satisfaction I derived from learning that the approach ultimately adopted without exception by each of these incredibly accomplished operators – the approach found to be the most effective means of eliciting critical information from sources that ranged from responsive to resistant -- proved to be relationship-building. This paradigm requires extraordinary patience, intense study, interpersonal intelligence, a mastery of strategic and critical thinking, and an ego-less commitment to remaining outcome-oriented regardless of the individual sitting before us.

The wealth of knowledge and experience available in that room was unprecedented. And it would seem logical that such a gathering would have been facilitated -- even directed -- by senior officials in the intelligence, military, and/or law enforcement communities, in an effort to resolve the many pressing challenges involving interrogation in support of the Global War on Terror. Instead, however, our thanks must be directed exclusively to the cadre of thoughtful and visionary people at Human Rights First.

Is it possible that the failure by any agency of the U.S. Government to produce an event such as this, and to systematically mine the extraordinarily valuable experiences and insights of these participants, might be traced to the issue raised in my first question? I cannot be sure. I can, however, be certain of this: Had we gathered the expertise and extensive operational experience presented by the panel of experts in June 2002 rather than June 2008, and done so under the auspices of the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency, and/or the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the legal contortions that led to justifying -- and even protecting -- the type of harsh interrogation methods that unfolded at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Bagram, and elsewhere would have been particularly difficult to defend or implement.

Steven Kleinman is a military intelligence officer with twenty-five years of operational and leadership experience in human intelligence and special operations. He served as an interrogator in three major military campaigns in addition to teaching advanced interrogation and resistance to interrogation courses. E-mail: compass2100@mac.com

Comments

Submit a comment - Jump to bottom of list

We need more Steven Kleinmans Posted by Bill 08/07/2008, 02:27 PM Thank you, sir, for standing up for what is right.

Thanks for standing up for decency and democracy Posted by A.Political 08/07/2008, 02:54 PM Your efforts then and now are truly appreciated, the real heroes are people like you.

This should be obvious, but to so many, it is not. Posted by EMM 08/07/2008, 04:17 PM Let me add my thanks to Mr. Kleinman and all those who bring clear eyes and sharp minds to the job of gathering intelligence.

Can you explain why? Posted by National_Insecurity 08/07/2008, 09:10 PM Mr Kleinman, you expressed what I've heard from friends of mine who included an interrogator and a cold war spook said 7 years ago - that the best interrogators use rapport to get solid info, and resorting to physical acts literally destroys the trust that results in actionable intelligence. What I still can't grasp is who in the chain of command refused to listen to the professionals? Why has it taken so long for interrogators to get their voices heard? Why is your experience, as well as other interrogators, dismissed out of hand by higher ups? As part of my personal curiosity I read several books about interrogation during WWII when we were fighting Japan, a far more formidable foe with a national religion and unified culture, where people literally believed the Emperor was a deity. Yet rapport techniques rapidly worked to interrogate the Japanese. I read about US captives in Vietnam, including McCain and Bud Day, who were tortured, broke, yet NEVER DISCLOSED VITAL INTELLIGENCE, instead inventing disinformation to stop the torture just as captives in Guantanamo are said to have done. And for some inexplicable reason, Bud Day, who I think is a pretty smart guy, thinks we should torture captives. I checked into methods used by Israel and learned that they also use rapport as well as mirroring to elicit actionable intelligence against a wide range of terrorist and nationalist groups. Why, if the Israelis know this stuff, are the Americans so, excuse the phrase, pig-headed? I can only conclude there is a fundamental problem with the chain of command that has eliminated experience for ideology. If I'm wrong let me know. Again, thanks for speaking up. I'd feel a lot safer if our young intelligence and military people could learn from people like you instead of "24."

Another Thanks Posted by Suzie Kidder 08/08/2008, 10:46 AM And I'd like to add this to what's been said above: Clear Eyes and Sharp Minds are very important - but as Steve Kleinman makes abundantly clear, a moral compass that points due North is equally important. The power of a human connection based on decency and integrity is perhaps the only thing that can cut through brainwashing and produce real, useful, accurate information.

Why Bush/Cheney tortured Posted by Glenn Becker 08/08/2008, 11:55 PM Having failed to act on ample information to prevent the 9/11 attacks, Bush/Cheney decided to show how tough they were. What they've proven is that they are inept bullies. What else could fairly be expected of two men who did everything they could to avoid fighting for their country in the Vietnam War, which they supported so long as others and not they had to fight it? Bush/Cheney were not concerned with the efficacy of torture. They had a psychological compulsion to act tough. No person with a conscience would delude himself to believe that ordering others to torture prisoners or launching a war shows character strength. Bush/Cheney are chickenhawks and contemptible bullies. They are also war criminals who have stained and disgraced our country.

Posted by Cynthia 08/11/2008, 02:49 PM Has anyone investigated whether Addington and Cheney are investors in CACI or any other war contractor? Richard Armitage was on the board of CACI in the run up to the Bush II election; he resigned upon being appointed to State Dept. Cheney's son-in-law was a lobbyist/lawyer for CCA, the largest detainment and "interrogation" contractor within U.S. borders, before being appointed to OMB, then Homeland Security. To quote that old Watergate hand, "follow the money" and there your answer for all Addington's insanity probably lies.

reporter Posted by MikeF. 08/18/2008, 06:33 PM Of all the theories that I've heard advanced over the years for Bush/Cheney's enthusiasm for torture --- despite the vast evidence that it's counterproductive ---I think Glenn Becker's explanation makes the most sense and hews closest to the known facts. Let's face it: Bush and Cheney are, at their cores, mean-spirited men who enjoy inflicting pain. The fact that they drew their inspiration from bone-headed TV shows like "24" shows how much of a fantasy world they both inhabit -- a fantasy world in which they view themselves as all-powerful tough guys. Still, we have not yet gotten to the bottom of this miserable chapter in U.S. chapter. That's why I hope the next President establishes a truth commission to determine: the scope of torture at the hands of U.S. interrogators; the number of innocent people who were abducted and tortured as part of Bush/Cheneys' extraordinary rendition program; and the torture program's consequences, including the amount of misinformation generated and the number of lives ruined.

Posted by Jim Smyers 09/25/2008, 04:30 PM Absolutely no political bias here, eh, Mr. Kleinman? http://www.campaignmoney.com/political/contributio ... America Coming Together? Charles Schumer? Nothing to see here. Move along.

Victim of "Just Cause" 1989 Posted by Ismael E. Champsaur Westerlin 09/25/2008, 10:49 PM For almost 19 long and very painful years I have been strugling and searching for Justice, after the infamous missery caused by us forces against me and my family during Just Casue here in Panamá. Without warning, much less provocation, US soldiers attacked us with much violence and brutality. What to tell you about the destruction and brutality. Oh, there was pain, plenty of it, destruction and abuses. To this day, nothing, none whatsoever of justice, more less the return of all the properties taken by force. The destruction, almost mortal but thank God and not their aiming, we are alive but in a painful track. Please help. There is plenty of evidence to back all my claims. Name the place and time. All the evidence has being given to them but still, full silence. All of this is the truth, so help me God. Pardon my english, not my native language but still reflects my sorrow and thisrs for justice. Thank you sir. Ismael E. Champsaur W. pillos123@gmail.com Phone 236-4380 cel:6616-2327 Panamá Rep. of Panamá. Today sep-25-2008 6,854 days and counting.

Please check your facts before making untrue allegations. Posted by Steve Kleinman 10/26/2008, 03:04 PM In Mr. Smyers' comment, he erroneously--and unfairly--tries to portray a connection between me and two politically-oriented groups, America Coming Together (which I hadn't heard of previously) and Friends of Schumer, with a link that identifies two individuals with whom I share a first and last name, but not political inclinations. (Mr. Smyers, please note that I live in California and, unlike the gentlemen listed in your link, my middle name does not begin with either "W" or "C"). Disagreement on substance offers the best chance for enhancing our collective knowledge; attacking the messenger (especially when you get the facts wrong) does little to promote understanding.

Spelunker Posted by Sparky 08/31/2009, 08:22 PM Torture is immoral and unethical. It should be left at that, unfortunately we can’t because if there are five people in a room attempting to define torture you will end up with 10 definitions. Let’s not even discuss coercion lest we all end up in cuffs for how we courted our spouses. I don’t have a problem with Kleinman discussing what is clearly wrong, morally and ethically we should stand firm in the universal truths regarding conduct, how we treat others. However, his paradigm building, Sun Tzu quoting diatribe smacks of hubris and an experience gained debriefing Iraqi officers during the first gulf war. Nowhere does he suggest an intimate knowledge of interrogating Radical Islamists in an asymmetrical warfare environment at the tactical level. I know some of the folks who participated in Human Rights First and those few who had experience interrogating Al Qaeda and the Taliban worked in general population facilities that primarily gathered “strategic intelligence”. Tactical interrogations with extremists are about finding other extremists, their weapons, explosives and locations, i.e., saving lives. This is accomplished by informing the terrorists of the ramifications of their activities, by ruses and other methods unfriendly though still not torturous and then providing them a way out of their predicament. Psychological pressure is applied. You will call this torture unless your son or daughter wears a uniform. At this level information that will save the lives of soldiers, civilians and often children quickly loses significance with each explosion that could have been prevented by an interrogator willing to exploit the baser side of human nature, i.e., their greed, fear, ego, etc. A good interrogator will also manipulate an individual’s noble side, e.g., love of their family. These are the interrogations that save lives and time is not a friend to the process. And yes torture is also counter to this paradigm. In this environment “relationship-building” is oft construed as western weakness and a terrorist will smugly hold on to information that will kill many of his own country men while developing a friendship with his interrogator over Chai and an Otis Spunkmeyer muffin. Mr Kleinman and those he relies upon to add credence to his “paradigm” rely heavily on antiquated experience of the wrong kind, not with the religious radical who killed five children with a car bomb three hours ago. So, let’s decry torture without sending terrorists to the Kleinman Spa for wayward Jihadists.

Victim of "Just Cause" 1989 Posted by Pillo 2 09/26/2009, 08:36 PM Victim of "Just Cause" 1989 Posted by Ismael E. Champsaur Westerlin 09/25/2008, 10:49 PM Sir, its absolutely preposterous, that you have the nerve to critize the US forces or to that effect the United Stares of America. Your VISA should be cancelled, firstly becuase you are a bitter, sick and disgusting individual that in my opinion , your presence in US land is absolutely unwarranted. You must be banned from ever entering the USA. Who the hell do you think you are threatening, your momma, our the US Governmet IDIOT Submit a comment - Jump to top of list