« Obama on the FISA bill | Main | Following up on Sully's "Disgrace" post »
newsrackblog.com » Interview with an interrogator
Thomas Nephew at newsrackblog attended a Human Rights First session the other day which he described as follows:
Human Rights First has brought together about twenty pros with significant interrogation experience this week to lobby Congress and the presidential campaigns, and to speak to the public about what works and what doesn't when it comes to gaining credible intelligence -- as opposed to unreliable information -- from interrogations.
Among them are Colonel Stuart A. Herrington, U.S. Army (Retired), with service in Vietnam, Panama , and Operation Desert Storm; Joe Navarro, who served for more than 25 years with the FBI as an interrogator, an agent and a supervisor working in the area of counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence; and Ken Robinson, who served a twenty-year career in a variety of tactical, operational, and strategic assignments including Ranger, Special Forces, and clandestine special operations units, the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the Central Intelligence Agency.
In other words, seasoned professionals who know what they're talking about, not a hippie among them. These three are speaking today at an "Effectively Interrogating Terrorism Suspects" panel hosted by HRF and the CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies) Human Rights and Security Initiative.
While I didn't speak with any of them, I did wind up talking for a while to another interrogator -- now retired from government service -- with a resume fitting in with those described above, including interrogations of the so-called "deck of cards" Baathist Iraqi officials and the like in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion. Since the reception was "off the record", I won't say who he was, but can report the gist of what we discussed.*
Thomas then goes on to talk about his discussion with this interrogator known by the pseudonym of Ray Bennett. The post is interesting as is the discussion in the comments on the post.
But what is of more interest is that Thomas followed up with Ray and did a formal interview with some very interesting Q&As.
Today I corresponded again with "Ray" -- a pseudonym -- about his positions on following orders to waterboard or otherwise torment a detainee, about what he thought his colleagues believe, about Abu Ghraib, and about what the future may hold.
1. If you had been ordered to waterboard someone or engage in other cruel/inhumane/degrading detainee mistreatment (e.g.., hypothermia, long time standing), what would you have done?
Refused the order. That would probably have resulted in my getting fired or re-assigned, but so be it. In addition, I would have documented the incident, and reported it to the Army's (assuming that's the environment I would have been working in) Criminal Investigation Division, or otherwise appropriate authorities.
2. [Excuse my ignorance here]: ... what if the order was not "up to snuff" -- not written, not verbally direct with witnesses, or whatever constitutes "an order that should be obeyed"?
Same answer. Refuse the order, immediately document the incident, and follow up with a report to the appropriate investigative authorities.3. Do you believe that such orders/wishes should not be obeyed by military personnel?
This is where it gets murky. Personally, of course, I feel that they should not be obeyed. The difficulty for my collegues, especially in the military, is that we are sworn to follow "the lawful orders of the officers appointed above us". So what's lawful? All of us were trained in the Law of Land Warfare and the Geneva Conventions, which these "enhanced interrogation techniques" are clearly a violation of.. But Private Snuffy is confused: "didn't the United States Attorney General, the top law enforcement official in the land, muddy the waters by saying that it was legal? And didn't the president say that these folks don't fall under the Geneva Conventions? So what about those rules they taught me?" We are doing our troops a great disservice by blurring the "lawful" line. So to answer your question again: me personally, I would hope that an order to carry out these techniques would be disobeyed. But I can't really hold it against someone who carried it out, thinking that it was legal, and felt compelled to carry out a lawful order.
There's more at the newsrack blog site and Ray, the interrogator, does respond in the comments.
And to contrast with Ray's comments, the Human Rights First blog End Torture 08 highlights this report from ThinkProgress about the Senate's 6-9-2008 hearing on torture and the use of coercive interrogation techniques and the Republicans' attempt to shut the hearing down.
Halfway through the hearing, the testimony of international lawyer Philippe Sands -- who chronicled the Bush administration's approval of torture in his book Torture Team -- was suddenly interrupted, when Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS) used an objection to force the Senate into recess and disrupt the hearing. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who were leading the hearing, were perplexed about the disruption:What can one say about a party that does not want a discussion in clear daylight about the standards by which our government and our military operates other than it and its supporters have lost their way. They do not deserve to have access to any of the reins of power.FEINSTEIN: I must interrupt you. Apparently the Republican leader has just objected to committee's proceeding. So for the moment, we will have to stop. And we will know as soon as it's acceptable to go ahead. ... Clearly, somebody doesn't want this to go ahead.
WHITEHOUSE: So it would seem.
FEINSTEIN: It would.
WHITEHOUSE: I'm new here. I've only been here a year and a half. I've never seen this happen before. I've never seen a hearing interrupted by minority leadership.
FEINSTEIN: Very, very unusual.
Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) took to the Senate floor to denounce the conservatives' obstructionist tactics. Watch it:
Reid blasted Senate conservatives for using the "very rare" objection, and called the tactics "part of a pattern of obstruction." In fact, just today, they blocked a measure taxing Big Oil's windfall profits and another that would have extended tax credits for renewable energy sources.
Announcing he would call the Senate into recess in order to continue the hearing, Reid said, "Republicans may not want these abuses to come to light, but I think the American people have the right to know."
H/T to Sully for the original link to the interview
Posted by Thomas Nephew | July 1, 2008 7:00 PM
A belated thanks for linking to the interview, and for your excellent discussion here.
I'm here mainly to comment on the discussion at your crosspost of this over at DailyKos. Over there, smintheus was understandably cautious about me and the interview, writing: I don't know how I feel about interviews with pseudanonymous former interrogators; I'd need to know more about Thomas Nephew's track record and credibility.
Of course, that's difficult to demonstrate, especially online, but thanks for providing the additional links to other things I've written. One I'd add is "Progress is just another word for nothing left to kill," which refers to a point made by ... smintheus, where he(/she) noted that Petraeus, in his Sept '07 testimony soft-pedaled the ethnic cleansing that may have accounted for the reduction in violence as the "surge" proceeded.
Re the interrogator, "Ray," I was introduced (IIRC) to him at the HRF function by one of the HRF staffers. While my memory may be playing tricks on me there, he also spoke for a while with another interrogator, who was in uniform, about some of what had transpired during the day they'd had. So while I couldn't check ID or something, he had credibility with me. He asked for my blog and said he'd be eager to read it; he then got in touch with me by e-mail, using the name he'd given me at the function. Together with his statements, which are both eloquent and credible, I don't sense any tricks on that score.
Re my own credibility, and your vouching for my 'left wing perspective,' I should say I've come a fair distance during my blogging years; go far enough back, and you'll find me waveringly supporting the Iraq war at the last minute -- something I now deeply regret. (I thought illegal WMD might justify the war, and thought it might be important for 'otherwise lefties' like me to say so.) So I'm mistake-prone, but I do try to correct the ones I recognize.
Posted by Thomas Nephew | July 1, 2008 7:04 PM
Sorry about the screwed up link, should have previewed it. Please feel free to correct that, if you like.
Posted by vbdietz | July 2, 2008 11:00 AM
You're welcome. As you can see it got limited activity at dkos though it did attract the attention of smintheus, a dkos front-pager, and Tikkun, a frequently rec-listed diarist.
As for the Iraq war / WMD issue, others were suckered in on that one as well. Colin Powell did the US a great disservice with his testimony to the UN.
Bush rushed to war. And I think, in part, he got away with it because most people did not believe that he would do so based on anything other than rock solid evidence which now, of course, we know there wasn't. It just wasn't conceivable that a president of the United States would commit our military forces to a major action against another country based on discredited unreliable rumor-mongers and scraps of information manipulated into some form of support for their action.
We now know better. At least we should. I am most concerned that it may be happening again with Iran.
As for Petreus, the soft-pedaling on the ethnic cleansing and the effect it has had, etc., I wrote about it last week. You might find the related articles of interest.
Posted by Mffdbdmb | July 15, 2009 7:43 PM
glgl4F
Posted by Mffdbdmb | July 15, 2009 7:43 PM
glgl4F