The Coffeespy

Josh Marshall of the Talking Points Memo compares the Bush administration’s use of the term “enhanced interrogations” to the Nazi use of the term “sharpened interrogations.”  From Talking Points Memo:

Very uncomfortable. “Enhanced interrogation”, the Bush administration’s preferred newspeak for torture, appears to have been coined by the Nazi Party in 1937.

interrogation”, the Bush administration’s preferred newspeak for torture, appears to have been .There are way too many facile comparisons of whatever group or individual we dislike to Nazis. But when the shoe fits.

I’m a little more concerned that in order for the comparison to be valid, we also have to equate a victimized Jewish population or non-Nazi citizens to Islamo-fascist terrorists captured while trying to murder Americans.  I’m also concerned that the Left seems to think this is ok to do, as long as it helps cast aspersions on U.S. operations.

Commenting on the comparison is the Coffeespy’s Nazi Subject Matter Expert, Steve Rogers:

From an Early Birded op-ed in the Wall Street Journal:

CBS’s hit series “Criminal Minds” recently aired an episode entitled “Lessons Learned,” where FBI agents traveled to Guantanamo Bay and coaxed a confession from a known terrorist detainee that led to the prevention of an anthrax attack on a Northern Virginia shopping mall. The point of the story was that the regular interrogation tactics (pictured as brutal assaults on the prisoner) were not working, and that the military should adopt the enlightened methods of the crack interrogators from “Criminal Minds.”

Having served as an Army Judge Advocate General’s Corps officer in Gitmo, a legal adviser to criminal investigators pursuing leads in the war on terror, and a Military Commissions prosecutor, I have first-hand knowledge and experience about what happens there. And here is the ironic truth: The military has outlawed some of the “Criminal Minds” interrogators’ tactics — in response to pressure by the international community.

On TV, an analyst observed the detainee’s behavior from an adjoining room behind two-way glass for revealing body movements and language. Subtle movements and body language signaled which statements were true and which were false, leading to a breakthrough that saved lives. In reality, when such a tactic was used at Gitmo the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) called it “torture.” Gitmo authorities used to employ Behavior Science Consultation Teams (BSCTs, pronounced “biscuits”), trained psychologists/psychiatrists who did exactly what the TV analyst did: used psychology to help interrogators learn the truth. But the ICRC considered their role in planning and assisting with interrogations “a flagrant violation of medical ethics.” The military responded by curtailing the role of BSCTs.

On TV, CIA and FBI interrogators used the detainee’s religion to gain leverage. The CIA interrogators refused to allow the detainee to pray; then the FBI allowed the prayers but adjusted them to manipulate the detainee’s sense of time. Because of the manipulation, the detainee admitted responsibility for an attack that he incorrectly believed had already occurred, allowing the attack to be thwarted. In reality, the U.S. does not manipulate detainee’s religious practices. In Gitmo, everything stops, including interrogations, so detainees can pray. The Islamic call to prayer is broadcast, several times a day, over loudspeakers. Everyone in and around the detention camp is forced to listen.

On TV, the interrogators give the detainee a prayer mat and point out the direction to Mecca to win his gratitude. In reality, the U.S. gives religious items such as prayer mats, prayer caps, prayer oil, prayer beads and Qurans to all detainees. They don’t need anyone to point out the direction of Mecca because the U.S. paints black arrows on the ground pointing toward Mecca in every cell and around the camp.

In fact, at Camp Bucca, a U.S.-run detention camp in Iraq, the U.S. erected a tent as a makeshift mosque and designated it off-limits to prison guards so that detainees could pray in solitude. The detainees used their privacy to turn the “mosque” into a weapons cache, and then attacked the prison guards. This led to a battle for control of the camp that lasted four days.

Despite the debacle at Camp Bucca, the military still designates some items (such as the Quran) as “off-limits” to prison guards, even though detainees misuse the Quran to conceal illegal contraband, including prescription pills. U.S. forces in Gitmo go to these great lengths despite the fact that the Geneva Conventions provide for POWs to practice their religion only “on condition that they comply with the disciplinary routine prescribed by military authorities.”

On “Criminal Minds,” the detainee glanced toward bottles of water lining a table, and said, “They line it up to show what I cannot have.” In reality, detainees at Gitmo receive ample food and water, including Halal meals and imported seasonal fruits and nuts from their native countries for special occasions.

While the crime show’s creators must resort to fiction to depict interrogations, they don’t have to fictionalize the contempt that most detainees show for Americans. Hollywood gets that part right. On TV, the fictional detainee said of killing innocent Americans: “There is no such thing, they were infidels . . . they hurt me by existing! The infidels will fall at the hands of the righteous, and that is when the jihad will end.”

In reality, according to Gitmo’s Web site, one detainee said, “The people who died on 9/11/2001 were not innocent . . . my group will shake up the U.S. and the countries who follow the U.S.” Another told military police officers that he would “come to their homes and cut their throats like sheep.” Yet another detainee threatened, “I will arrange for the kidnapping and execution of U.S. citizens living in Saudi Arabia. Small groups of four of five U.S. citizens will be kidnapped, held and executed. They will have their heads cut off.” These real statements make one thing clear: life in Gitmo has not broken the detainees’ spirits.

Hollywood sets unrealistic expectations for many things. The “Criminal Minds” episode represents one instance where truth is tamer, and many would argue stranger, than fiction.

Kiko’s House covered a blog entry today concerning a Sunni woman who was allegedly raped by Iraqi security forces and then rescued by American soldiers.  The original entry is from the blog Baghdad Burning and can be found here.  Mr. Mullen focused on how this story puts the U.S. in the middle between the Sunni and Shiite sides of the tale.  I’d like to focus a little more on what this blogger has written:

I look at this woman and I can’t feel anything but rage. What did we gain? I know that looking at her, foreigners will never be able to relate. They’ll feel pity and maybe some anger, but she’s one of us. She’s not a girl in jeans and a t-shirt so there will only be a vague sort of sympathy. Poor third-world countries- that is what their womenfolk tolerate. Just know that we never had to tolerate this before. There was a time when Iraqis were safe in the streets. That time is long gone.

I’m not sure if you’ve guessed it yet, but the blogger in question is Sunni.  No Kurd or Shiite could have written those words because they lived in the daily fear that the Sunni now feel with their strongman executed.  I’m pretty sure I know what you’re thinking: Damn, Coffespy, that’s a pretty hard-nosed tack to take on this.  Well, that’s one side of it.  The other side is a straight criminal justice position: investigate the allegation and render justice.  You won’t see that anywhere in the Baghdad Burning entry.  What you will see is this:

Let me clear it up for any moron with lingering doubts: It’s worse. It’s over. You lost. You lost the day your tanks rolled into Baghdad to the cheers of your imported, American-trained monkeys. You lost every single family whose home your soldiers violated. You lost every sane, red-blooded Iraqi when the Abu Ghraib pictures came out and verified your atrocities behind prison walls as well as the ones we see in our streets. You lost when you brought murderers, looters, gangsters and militia heads to power and hailed them as Iraq’s first democratic government. You lost when a gruesome execution was dubbed your biggest accomplishment. You lost the respect and reputation you once had. You lost more than 3000 troops. That is what you lost America. I hope the oil, at least, made it worthwhile.

It’s not too effective to use a rape story for political motives, weaken your credibility by stating you were safer before the invasion (a decidedly Sunni stance), and then end with blatant propaganda.  Whether the woman was raped or not, coverage in this manner will have everyone but the Sunni population thinking it’s a ruse.  That’s not good for the Sunni or the woman in question.  The alleged crime needs to be approached without clouded thinking.  Preconceived notions lead to entries like the one in Baghdad Burning.  They have already decided the rape was real, linked it to the invasion, showed an absolute unawareness of the other ethnic groups inside Iraq, and leveraged it to stoke the coals.

Irresponsible, unbelievable, and now: marginalized.  The NY Times coverage of the story was actually degraded in effectiveness after reading the Baghdad Burning blog entry.

I’m not blind or stupid.  I worked Army intel for 7 years.  In that time I had occassion to witness interrogations performed by U.S. military, German and British military, and “unaffiliated” civilian interrogators.  I’ve seen stress positions, sleep deprivation, fear tactics, and verbal abuse.  Perhaps since I trained to overcome these things, something many U.S. service members train in, I don’t consider them torture.

So I’m not sure what to think when I read this BBC News story:

The European parliament has approved a damning report on secret CIA flights which condemns member states that turned a blind eye to the operations.

The UK, Germany and Italy were among 14 states which allowed the US to forcibly remove terror suspects, MEPs said.

The EU parliament voted to accept a resolution condemning member states who accepted or ignored the practice.

The EU report said the US had operated 1,200 flights, flying suspects on to states where they could face torture.

The report was adopted by a large majority, with 382 MEPs voting in favour, 256 against and 74 abstaining.

I am very skeptical for a few reasons.  First, torture?  What do they mean by torture?  The news media’s current version of torture seems to be anything that inconveniences or scares a prisoner.  Well, I was inconvenienced and afraid through quite a bit of basic training, was I tortured?  I might have missed it, but I’m not seeing reports of prisoners with scarring, broken bones, or electrical shocks.

My second question comes at the end of the story:

The report defines extraordinary renditions as instances where “an individual suspected of involvement in terrorism is illegally abducted, arrested and/or transferred into the custody of US officials and/or transported to another country for interrogation which, in the majority of cases involves incommunicado detention and torture”.

How was it discovered that the majority of cases involved torture?  Since any interrogation happens with a prisoner in detention, who is reporting this torture?  Are there any direct witnesses?

It’s my suspicion that torture is being defined by the news media and the European Union, rife with anti-Americanism at this point in time, is using it.  I don’t believe there is widespread torture.  I do believe there are probably some isolated incidents that are either 1) necessary or 2) unsanctioned.  In any case, I don’t believe it’s systemic because, well, I’ve been part of the system.

I’m VERY open to challenge on this issue.  The problem is that I cannot find evidence or reports of systemic torture.  No policies, scores of victims, nothing like that.  It’s empty rhetoric as far as I can tell.  If that’s right, then this EU resolution is just another consequence of a news media writing without conscience.