« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Veteran Interrogator: Torture Ties My Hands
Rep.Trent Franks (R-AZ) won't let it go. During today's House Judiciary Committee hearing on torture, he asked Colonel Steve Kleinman whether it would be irresponsible -- as Alan Dershowitz recently argued in an op-ed -- not to torture someone if all else fails in an interrogation. Kleinman replied that Dershowitz "clouds the issue" and his op-ed "reflects a lack of understanding of the intelligence process." But then he offered a brief explanation of that process that sheds light on why torture is counterproductive for a professional interrogator, leaving aside questions of morality and law.
It's not just what a subject says in an interrogation that an interrogator needs to watch for clues, Kleinman said. The way in which he expresses himself is significant: does the subject fidget? Does he shift in his seat? Does he gesture, or suddenly stop gesturing? All of these non-verbal clues -- "clusters, groupings of behaviors," Kleinman called them -- provide interrogators with valuable information to observe what a detainee is like when he's lying, when he's being uncooperative, and when he's being truthful, or a combination of the three.
But if a detainee has his hands tied, or if a detainee shivers because a room is chilled, then "I don't know whether he's shivering because the room is cold or because my questions are penetrating," Kleinman said. That degree of abuse "takes away a lot of my tools." It's one of the clearest explanations in the public record about what torture costs professional interrogators in terms of actionable intelligence, as the debate is so often set up as what a lack of torture ends up costing national security.
Franks didn't seem so satisfied, but told both Kleinman and Nance that he had the "deepest respect for your motivations, regardless of any disagreements with you." Looks like Nance's warnings yesterday were taken to heart. The hearing ended free of any swiftboating.
Comments (30)
EH wrote on November 8, 2007 1:46 PM:Dershowitz being cited as an authority in Congress. It is to laugh.
ArkPanda wrote on November 8, 2007 1:46 PM:Sounds a lot like tells when playing card games. Maybe our reps should watch more World Series of Poker and less 24.
TheraP wrote on November 8, 2007 1:47 PM:What he says makes total sense to me! We do not merely "understand" because we hear words. The whole demeanor of another person "speaks" to us. Also, let us not forget, the demeanor of the judicious interviewer versus the torturer "speaks" to the person you're hoping to get info from. That influences the dynamic as well.
JWL wrote on November 8, 2007 1:51 PM:"Looks like Nance's warnings yesterday were taken to heart. The hearing ended free of any swiftboating".
Damn straight his warnings did.
That's one thing congressional democrats lost sight of decades ago. They've nothing to fear from the GOP or their media lapdogs if they look the SOB's straight in the eye and talk turkey. Tim Russert, for example, is a fast talking, mealy mouthed, corporate shill who could be sliced and diced in literally any interview by someone willing to tangle with his blowhard behavior. Instead, chickenshit groveling democratic officials invariably accord him an undeserved respect. Come to think of it, they done the same with GW Bush for the past 7 years, too.
moondancer wrote on November 8, 2007 1:51 PM:Torture is a display of power by tyrants.
Beyond the insanity of torture being ineffective, good interrogators wouldn't use it if they could.
bucky mullet wrote on November 8, 2007 1:59 PM:It is an extension in the US case, of bush/cheney showing the world that they have a "big one". The greatest shame America has had to experience, is the leadership of these two sociopaths.
Anyone in the media ever pay attention to our president's "clusters, groupings of behaviors"? Maybe the WH press corps should take a lesson from these pros.
billjpa wrote on November 8, 2007 2:02 PM:they can hold all the hearings they want to- Torture in NOT valid as a interrorgation tool. It is simple. It is also acknowled as being antagonistic in the search for valid information.
gtash wrote on November 8, 2007 2:12 PM:Moondancer is right. Torture is domination for its own sake.
illlich wrote on November 8, 2007 2:29 PM:I suspect for the pro-torture crowd the benefit of torture is partly within their own minds: if they don't torture then they haven't tried everything at their disposal, they haven't been hard enough on the enemy (the same logic that makes neo-cons claim liberals "love Saddam Hussein" because they are against the Iraq war). Knee-jerk logic like that makes one kick himself in the face.
This is insanity: a serious debate about whether the US should torture or not. It is AGAINST the US Constitution. I can at least understand the legal arguments about whether such-and-such technique constitutes torture or not, but to outright PUSH for torture? Completely un-American.
RandyR wrote on November 8, 2007 2:31 PM:I can't help but think that the military intelligence people who are responsible for obtaining information from capturees have forgotten how to properly interview the enemy, without torture. When the administration said take the gloves off, thay weren't saying it to the intelligence personel, they were saying it to anyone who wished to hurt people because they were now allowed to. It is no coincidence that the Abugrab (sp) torture pictures seemed to have sexual context. Torture for some is very sexual.
I think that "We don't torture" will be George W.'s, "I am not a crook".
BillONC wrote on November 8, 2007 2:42 PM:illlich, you are dead on. I come from a family with deep military roots. (No, I didn't follow that path.) While we may have differed on some issues the idea that any of them would have conducted, sanctioned, or in any way condoned the use of torture is inconceivable.
Torture is wrong. There is no equivocating. If we as a nation have actually sunk to the point that this fact is debatable my only hope is that we have hit bottom.
glennpdx wrote on November 8, 2007 3:01 PM:This isn't about whether waterboarding is torture, or whether torture is allowable under some crazy circumstance. It's about keeping Bush and unknown others out of prison. (Every 'pro-torture' Republican knows this and can never say it out loud.) This ship already sailed. It's only a question of where it lands. Will Americans, up to and including the President, be prosecuted for acts already committed? Just keep asking that question over and over and over again...
Anonymous wrote on November 8, 2007 3:12 PM:I was a Dershowitz admirer for years until he came out with his support of torture.
unpoetaloco wrote on November 8, 2007 3:22 PM:My pereception of his intellect and sensibilities turned 180 degrees.
At some point, someone is going to talk about the elephant in the room. There is a reason why most of the neocons want to wage endless war on Islamic countries, why politicians like Joe Lieberman promote military action against Iran, while Senators Schumer and Feinstein voted with the White House for Mukasey rather than with their Democratic colleagues against torture, and why Dershowitz supports torture: Anti-Muslim bigotry and pro-Israel sycophancy. Why is it that when a Muslim hates a Jew, it's anti-Semitism, but when a Jew hates a Muslim, it's understandable.
At some point, we have to be able to discuss this issue without the specter of the Holocaust being raised and accusations of anti-Semitism being leveled against those who talk about.
Michael Moore wrote on November 8, 2007 3:25 PM:I did a lot of research on the use of torture by Latin American regimes a number of years back.
1. Torture was NEVER used to gain real information. It was only used to terrorize the potential dissent in the general populace.
2. There are recorded instances of "Torture Conventions" held in Brazil and Panama, attended by high military and police functionaries. At one such "convention" in Brazil, someone was taken off the street to be used as a subject for the techniques being discussed.
3. There is a well defined process to desensitize toture interrogators. It is a process of building an elite team, with perks, etc.
I watched Tucker Carlson discussing "Enhanced Interrogation" and waterboarding a couple of days. Maybe he should volunteer for a demonstration.
And Trent Franks is just a chickenhawk Repug who slimed his way up the Arizona poltical food chain. Not one ethical bone in his body. I lived in Phoenix most of my life and remember when he started in politics. Along with that mule butt weather-reader JD Hayward who got the boot last fall.
How low can we go?
DickTater wrote on November 8, 2007 3:33 PM:How about this....your being a torturer also alters you (handcuffs you)
because YOU are now a criminal. YOU have given up the moral highground. Much like a hostage negotiator or armed stand-off mediator....you want to say put down the gun, come to ME, come back to the light. Let's make a deal.
If you are a sadistic war criminal with a stack of crimes on your head....you cannot reason with the detainee. You cannot offer a better place for them to come over to. You cannot offer security, peace, protection, a better deal - when you are more evil than the detainee's "people".
Praedor Atrebates wrote on November 8, 2007 3:38 PM:We all now know that ALL Republicans are closeted, self-loathing homosexuals. Starting from that objective fact, it is easy to then conclude that their fascination with torture is psycho-sexual in nature. I daresay that all Republicans are not only self-loathing closeted homosexuals, they are this AND sadomasicists to boot.
What a totally f*cked up pile of rot is the GOP.
dari826 wrote on November 8, 2007 4:25 PM:I'm sure someone has asked this before- but I wonder if Bush would be so nonchalant about what is and what is not torture if it were Barbara and Jenna being 'questioned'
Mooser wrote on November 8, 2007 6:47 PM:The disadvantages of the poor quality of intelligence aquired by torture is offset by the very valuable intelligence about their own people the government gets: They learn which of its employees is willing to torture on command!! This is worth a tremendous amount in considering who to promote or give certain missions to.
Martial Law? wrote on November 8, 2007 7:13 PM:Our government is aquiring and refining a cadre of torturers, all of whom know in their heart of hearts one thing: they owe their greatest privilege in life, the right to torture, to George Bush, and anybody else would probably take it away.
Ok. Thought experiment. If martial law is in the offing, would it not be convenient to have this legalized waterboarding out there - as a little goad to prevent people from rising up - for fear of drowning?
trog69 wrote on November 8, 2007 9:21 PM:Michael Moore, you said a mouth full, Jomie(sp). If Kyl is the Religious Right/warmongering version of a planet, Hayward and Franks would be his Moons of hypocritical sycophancy. The Republicans here in AZ have admitted that voting is a nose-holding exercise.
TEL wrote on November 8, 2007 9:24 PM:Whether torture works is completely beside the real point. Since when do we let fear dictate who and what we are? Real strength is shown by our ability to carry on in the face of fear, and remain true to what we are.
I honestly think all of these fear-mongering/terrified politicians (and the voters that support them) have forgotten this basic point (if they ever knew it). Have they encountered so few difficulties in their lives that they now allow "terrorists" to define what Americans are after 9/11?
How Ironic wrote on November 8, 2007 9:45 PM:TEL: Excellent Points.
Isn't it ironic that the very people who stir up such fear in order to "protect" us by limiting liberties are the same people who ho hum when it comes to waterboarding?
You have to wonder!
DEEK wrote on November 9, 2007 12:30 AM:I live here in Scottsdale, Arizona, and on any given day, I find myself wondering which member of the state's congressional delegation is the biggest boil on the ass of humanity. Clearly, John McCain is the biggest boil, and although Jon Kyl is less of a festering boil, he is nevertheless a firmly established, deeply rooted boil. Trent Franks, however, is the kind of boil that brings shame even to other boils, in that he is not only festering and deeply planted, he is also precariously close to the actual anus of humanity, and may have been created by an incompletely removed projectile from said orifice. Somewhere in this tableau, Rick Renzi clings, zit-like, to a cheek. Insignificant yet oily. And there you have it-- the ass of humanity.
nrglaw wrote on November 9, 2007 12:43 AM:Concerning Nance's statements being taken to heart, I am less concerned about a room full of Congresspeople, and much more about the networks. There is a lot of loose language that continues to be used on the air to describe waterboarding. Worst of all that most of these terms are the Administration's--"enhanced interrogation techniques" and "simulated drowning" are the major examples.
The use of these terms directly contradicts Nance, whose major point I think is that waterboarding is not any sort of simulation. But the main stream press simply can't seem to stop absorbing all this press release language and then regurgitating it. The resulting stories are meant to be critical, but their impact is blunted by the use of terminology specifically meant to avoid the use of the word "torture" or to imply that a particular practice is something other than torture.
This is by no means a political correctness issue. "WMD" was another one of those words that the press learned from the administration.
pluky wrote on November 9, 2007 11:12 AM:Torture is not a means by which to elicit information; it is a tool for coercing confessions.
Mexican Jumping Bean wrote on November 9, 2007 12:16 PM:unpoetaloco above tells the truth... but many will view that truth as not P.C.
The truth will set you free. Think about it.
AZbill wrote on November 9, 2007 2:38 PM:Trenchmouth Frank has but one agenda - take women's right to chose away from them and let the government decide. HELLO, this is a reichwing, brownshirt, goose stepping, member of the RepubliCON party.
Trenchmouth needs to try to be waterboarded and then asked to tell the truth. He wouldn't know the truth if it hit him upside the head. This man is one of the dullest knives in the drawer, so dull, he could't cut hot butter.
KE wrote on November 9, 2007 2:42 PM:Sorry, I know the discussion is serious, and no doubt I'm immensely heartened to see that Nance will put (finally!) the beatdown to anyone who questions his credentials... But Lord above, Deek's boil breakdown made me laugh!
Mary wrote on November 9, 2007 6:26 PM:Nance for Congress! We need more like him who have the cajones to stand up for whats right.