Bizarre, Criminal law, International, Politics

A Victory For Torture? Obama Officials Attempt To Justify Torture in Claiming False Credit For Bin Laden Killing

Current members of the Obama Administration (as well as former Bush officials) are claiming that all that torture under President Bush finally paid off in supplying the leads to eventually finding Osama bin Laden’s hideout. What is striking is not only the lack of any support for the claims, but the immediate effort of Obama officials to justify torture. No doubt these are the same officials supporting Obama’s decision to bar prosecution of individuals who carried out the torture — and later barring the investigation of those who ordered the torture.

Obama officials were claiming the positive proceeds from torture within hours of the killing. The officials are crediting the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi.

However, as pointed out by sites like Wired, the claim does not jive with the facts. At most, the officials are claiming that Mohammed and al-Libi revealed the courier’s nom de guerre, Abu Ahmed al-Kuwaiti. However, a senior administration official admitted that “for years, we were unable to identify his true name or his location” and that his real name was revealed four years ago. That was in 2007 after the end of the torture program. Indeed, the critical act appeared to be a phone call made by the courier to someone under American surveillance.

Of course, none of this should matter. Just as the Bush officials continually responded to war crime allegations by claiming that the torture produced good intelligence, international law does not have an exception for beneficial acts of torture. It is a prohibited act and a war crime. Yet, Obama officials are not only justifying torture but suggesting that the use of torture is somehow legitimated if anything usable is derived from it.

Notably, when asked in Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder said that he was unsure of the contribution of evidence from torture –stating that the operation was the result of a “mosiac” of sources. What is disturbing, however, is that once again Holder does not point out that gaining usable evidence from torture is no justification for the war crime under international law or basic principles of morality. Panetta also equivocated on whether torture helped without making the slightest acknowledgment that it is a prohibited war crime regardless of its value or success.

It is equally interesting to see CIA officials stoking such stories and (rightfully) questioning the culpability of Pakistani intelligence. However, what does Bin Laden living for years in a huge compound say for our current intelligence capabilities? We heard continual CIA reports of Bin Laden being in caves and other locations. If the story is true that he was in area for years, shouldn’t there also be some question of our own capabilities since we have long said that we could not trust Pakistani security officials? There is no question that the CIA and military performed brilliantly once they identified the site. However, there is little discussion about the failure on our part (putting aside Pakistan) to locate the site — particularly with claims of prior intelligence from foreign agents in Pakistan and India.

In the end, it is distressing to see Obama officials so quickly seek to legitimate torture. The President has admitted that waterboarding is torture. Torture is a war crime. Yet, here officials are seeking to immediately shape the story in terms of the value of torture.

Jonathan Turley

70 thoughts on “A Victory For Torture? Obama Officials Attempt To Justify Torture in Claiming False Credit For Bin Laden Killing”

  1. When logic and proportion. Have fallen sloppy dead. And the White Knight is talking backwards. And the Red Queen’s ‘off with her head!’ (White Rabbit, Jefferson Airplane)

  4. Just the fact that torture requires some balancing rational of benefit achieved from it indicates that it is clearly understood to be an unethical and wrong thing to do in the first place.

    There is an exciting, vengeful, cruel streak that runs through the American psyche and the use of torture as a plausible government action is a direct product of that cruelty. It’s clearly visible in lynch mobs and calls for the ridiculously harsh sentences meted out even to children found guilty of heinous crimes.

    Torture is the opposite of civilized behavior and the product of fearful, frustrated and undisciplined reasoning.

  5. 2manyusernames,

    Alexander did 300 interrogations in Iraq and oversaw another 1,000. I think he is more qualified to state his opinion on the matter of torture than you or I. Alexander didn’t say that torture is never effective. He said that there are better and more efficacious ways to elicit information from detainees.

    Did you watch Alexander’s interview with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now? Have you heard him speak before? He has also said he is against the use of torture on moral and Constitutional grounds.

    Torturing people is immoral. There is no justification for torturing human beings as far as I’m concerned.

  7. If you believe the truth to be the truth and someone proves that it is not their truth…..whose truth is the truth….

    Not a fan of Waterboarding….or Bushes or some of the programs of Obama….

  8. [quote]We speak with Matthew Alexander, a former senior military interrogator in Iraq. “I believe wholeheartedly [Bush-era] techniques slowed us down on the road toward Osama bin Laden and numerous other members of Al Qaeda,” Alexander says. “I am convinced we would have found him a lot earlier had we not resorted to torture and abuse.”[/quote]

    yeah. That holds as much weight as another party saying torture led to Osama’s capture. There is no way to prove it slowed down the capture. Gut feeling would say that while torture may or may not have helped, it certainly did not prolong killing Osama. It is silly and political to claim otherwise.

    That isn’t saying the torture was justified. In fact if it took 10 years of torture to get the information, I would say it wasn’t justified even if we assume that is where part of the info came from.

    Trying to claim that torture can never be effective or is actually counter-effective is a bit of a cop-out. It is too often something said by those who are anti-torture but can’t stand up to questions asking if it can ever be justified or not. If you claim it isn’t effective than you don’t have to face such questions.

  9. Alexander says. “I am convinced we would have found him a lot earlier had we not resorted to torture and abuse.” —from Elaine’s posting

    Thanks for posting the link and Alexander’s comment, Elaine M.

  10. Stamford Liberal,

    From Democracy Now’s program earlier today:

    Former Military Interrogator Matthew Alexander: Despite GOP Claims, “Immoral” Torture “Slowed Down” Effort to Find Osama bin Laden

    Summary: The death of Osama bin Laden has sparked a debate over whether torture of suspects held at places such as the U.S. military base at Guantánamo Bay helped track down and kill the Al Qaeda leader. Some claim the mission vindicated controversial Bush policies on harsh interrogation techniques. We speak with Matthew Alexander, a former senior military interrogator in Iraq. “I believe wholeheartedly [Bush-era] techniques slowed us down on the road toward Osama bin Laden and numerous other members of Al Qaeda,” Alexander says. “I am convinced we would have found him a lot earlier had we not resorted to torture and abuse.”

    http://www.democracynow.org/2011/5/4/former_military_interrogator_matthew_alexander_despite

  12. Lawrence O’Donnell discussed torture with a former GITMO interrogator last night:

    [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h8LBOjxeOeY&w=640&h=390]

    Think I’ll believe the people who actually do the interrogating …

  13. Professor Turley,

    “Obama officials were claiming the positive proceeds from torture within hours of the killing. The officials are crediting the torture of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi.”

    Here’s an excerpt from that AP article:

    “WASHINGTON — Officials say CIA interrogators in secret overseas prisons developed the first strands of information that ultimately led to the killing of Osama bin Laden.

    “Current and former U.S. officials say that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, provided the nom de guerre of one of bin Laden’s most trusted aides. The CIA got similar information from Mohammed’s successor, Abu Faraj al-Libi. Both were subjected to harsh interrogation tactics inside CIA prisons in Poland and Romania.”

    **********

    I think one can interpret the above in more than one way. It’s not made clear if the information was extracted from the two individuals because of torture. Another thing: Was it the author of the AP article who was noting that both people had been tortured? Or was it government officials who implied the information was gotten via torture?

    **********

    Lawrence O’Donnell interviewed Denis McDonough on The Last Word last night. McDonough, who is the Deputy National Security Asdvisor, provided a different perspective.

    Lawrence O’Donnell The Last Word
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42888784#42888784

  14. Current members of the Obama Administration (as well as former Bush officials) are claiming that all that torture under President Bush finally paid off in supplying the leads to eventually finding Osama bin Laden’s hideout.
    -Professor Turley

    And, when the truth comes to light, I suppose that this is how they will try justify what is currently taking place domestically. I wish them luck with that.

  15. One problem is the vague definition of “torture”. For some people, simply disrespecting a prisoner, keeping him away from his fellow prisoners, not honoring his religion, and more is all “torture”.

    For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.

    Severe pain or suffering? Anything could be construed as causing severe pain or suffering. Simply being held captive is severe suffering for many.

    When we speak out against torture, I think most of us picture the Spanish Inquisition or 24 type of torture. Those are definitely wrong. Waterboarding probably falls within that category although personally I’d rather be waterboarded than held captive for a long-period.

    As wrong as they are that doesn’t mean anything that causes suffering is torture.

    tl;dr torture IS wrong, however we need a more precise definition of “torture”.

  16. I’m no apologist for this administration but I’m wary of stories claiming statements from some vague “officials,” seeing as even some former Bush staffers are saying the opposite. That said, this administration’s failure to condemn/prosecute torture is an astounding human rights travesty.

  17. http://www.balloon-juice.com/2011/05/04/arguing-against-torture/

    (credit goes to Frank for posting this to another thread)

    excerpt:

    Arguing Against Torture

    by mistermix

    While I agree that torture almost never yields valuable information,… I’m willing to entertain the possibility that torturing someone will gather useful intelligence. The reason I’m willing to do so is because I’m not interested in arguing whether there might be a case somewhere in history where torture led to important intelligence. The argument I want to have is whether a policy of torture is one we ought to adopt, and that’s a far broader question than whether it might work on rare occasion.

    Let’s start with principle, then. Why don’t we torture? Because torture is diminishes our humanity—because in any and all instances we have a basic duty to ourselves, our allies and our enemies to treat all human beings in our custody with dignity. Not torturing, specifically the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment”, is as key a part of the Bill of Rights as freedom of speech. It’s codified in laws governing conduct of our citizens, and in military regulations governing our treatment of non-citizens. Not torturing is both a founding principle and the law of the land, and Guantanamo and Bagram and all other places where we tortured people exist because some actors in the Bush administration knew damn well that they needed to hide their horrible deeds from the law.

    After this first principle, and the laws that come from it, the next practical argument against torture is that it diminishes our standing in the world, which I don’t think requires a lot of argument, considering that we’re constantly inveighing against regimes that torture and have signed treaties prohibiting it.
    These first two arguments are absolute, and there’s no “ticking time bomb” scenario that can be used to argue against them. Our deeply held principles are true no matter what Jack Bauer did in some episode of his show, and our national standing is hurt by us torturing regardless of whether we gleaned some nugget from waterboarding KSM.

    The reason that we’re always hearing arguments about efficacy instead of principle or national standing is because that weak argument is the only place that torture proponents can put a stake in the ground. Once in a while, though rarely, and almost cetainly not in the case of Osama bin Laden’s killing, torture may work. So, they argue, we should make it our policy.

    The simple answer to that is that even if it works in some rare scenario, it’s not worth sacrificing a 250-year-old principle and our national standing for the tiny, fleeting benefit that may come from it. We’re America, and we’re better than that.

  18. I haven’t heard of any WH officials claiming that torture lead to the finding and killing of UBL. I’ve heard plenty of that crap on FOX News PAC, though.

  19. I missed this WH statement. However, MSNBC spent most of last night refuting any claims that waterboarding lead in any way to the successful location of OBL. They even got hold of a day old quote from Donald Rumsfeld to the effect that “enhanced interrogation techniques” did not lead to discovering OBL’s whereabouts. Maybe we will never know.

Comments are closed.