09 Jun Lederman’s Critique of Bellinger’s Speech and an Interview with an Interrogator
Over at Balkinization, Marty Lederman has posted a thorough critique of John Bellinger’s recent speech. Lederman takes a nuanced view of what it is the Administration has said, versus what was forced upon the Administration by the Supreme Court and finds that Bellinger’s speech sometimes reads more like an alternate -reality of what might have been had the State Department won more inter-agency debates earlier on. Another great piece by Lederman.
And, while you’re at it, you may want to listen to this interview from the Leonard Lopate show from WNYC. (Scroll down to the specific segnment.) Lopate interviewed Tony Lagouranis, a former Abu Ghraib interrogator and author of the memoir Fear Up Harsh. Besides debunking the ubiquitous “ticking timb bomb” scenario, towards the end of the interview (ironically at about minute 24) he said:
“We were trained according to Geneva and now we were being asked to be creative and torture people. So we turned to the only source we had for that which was television programs” like 24.
Chilling.
The rest of the interview from that point takes apart one argument after another supporting torture and physical abuse of detainees with a particulalry interesting comparison to US interrogation techniques in World War II.
Admitting your wrongdoing and setting the record straight. Now that is bravery.
But he didn’t say “24” did he. Make sure that’s your addendum. Assuming he’s telling the truth and not grinding an ax — if he’s watching TV that is the very definition of “not creative”. Besides — humans for millennia were doing this sort of thing — and have never seen a TV.
While I wouldn’t condone the Abu Ghraib scenario much less institutionalze it, I’m not much crying either — especially when comparing it to Egyptian tactics, Pakistani ISI, Khmer Rouge, NVA, Viet Cong, Japanese Imperial Army, al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc., etc. Actually read and study what real torture is — that way, when you rail against “torture” (rightly I might add) your voice will carry weight and not sound like a tizzy. Not all rough interrogation is analogous and you do a disservice to real victims by pretending any and all rough interrogation is in fact, “torture”. Maybe “legally” it is (and our folks should comply — which is why the law should be changed or clarified) but legal definitions often do not comport with reality.
Actually, he did say “24.” And forgive me if I find little comfort in the knowledge that we’re better than the Khmer Rouge, the NVA, and al-Qaeda — little more than a difference in degree at this point, as recent revelations that American borrowed techniques from the Nazis makes clear.
Troy: As you may notice I closed the quotes before 24 but I did include the reference because the quote was embedded in a discussion in which he specifically mentioned that show. As for other people torturing more when we do, I take no comfort in that. The issue is not whether someone is worse than you, the issue is whether what we were doing was illegal. Once you cross the line of legality, then it is “real” torture. Whether or not someone else acted illegally is irrelevant. And, as Lagouranis (and others) explain it is not only illegal but ineffective. Also, please note that I do not equate all “rough interrogation” with torture. I did say that he explained why torture and physical abuse do not work. That is an accurate description of the interview. You can take issue with that as a conclusion about the efficacy of torture (and if you do, I would ask on what do you base this) but that is an accurate description of what was said. You draw a sharp distinction between legality and “reality.” But behavior often changes to comport with rules, either because of fear of enforcement or because the rules… Read more »
Ah, well, um yes. But trying to make a bundle of money by writing a book full of unfounded accusations of serious crimes isn’t exactly “admitting your wrongdoings.” And “setting the record straight” generally involves giving names and dates to a prosecutor, not to a radio host while promoting your book.
Am I cynical to suggest that, if Mr. Lagouranis were traducing movie stars or civil rights leaders instead of American soldiers, then the press (and this blog) might be slightly more critical?
Even if the ticking time-bomb scenario is unrealistic, it still is a useful thought exercise as to why we either do or do not condone torture. I don’t think you can dismiss the important implications of the hypo.
NSD:
Agreed. I just don’t want to overstate the implications, either.
Nice to see a full-throated response for a change. I think it’s important that Bellinger plays the role he does, but I think Marty makes a good point also. Far too often we see well-intentioned academic courtesy extended to losers in the administration’s internal debates which just provides cover for the Cheney-Bolton faction, whose pugnacious views are far more inimical to IL than Bellinger.
There are reasonable parts to Bellinger’s speech which deserve proper consideration, but other parts are just the better angels of the OLC and State putting a good face on the incoherent and implacable views of the administration. Whilst you can’t sustain the charge that, holistically, this administration is never using or upholding IL, it’s also dangerous to downplay or avert our eyes away from the significant hostility to IL that exists in the upper echelons of the administration. In this regard, the treatment of the Court’s approach to CA3 as an administration position, is particularly damning.
Bellinger does not represent the administration, people like Yoo and Addington do, and pretending otherwise just repeats the intellectual distance which allowed the Iraq war to happen in the first place.