The CIA: torture and the US
The US senate committee report was attacked by most Republicans as
being politically motivated in the dying days of the Democrat
controlled Senate. An honourable exception was John McCain (again),
almost unreported, but I happened to catch him speaking (live on Al
Jazeera English, 9.12, 17:30).
Leaving aside the debate over whether the methods used constituted torture or could be described as "extended interrogation techniques", or EITs (they were torture - Geoff Dyer in the FT provides a useful summary (limited access)), the key question is whether the techniques were efficacious. This matters because polls show that a majority in the US would support the use of these techniques, provided they help prevent terrorist attacks.
John Brennan, CIA director, says it is "unknown and unknowable" whether the techniques can be shown to have provided useful and valuable information. On the BBC WS, (Weekend, 13.12.2014, 08:06 +2:30) Philippe Sands says Brennan "confirms that he is unable to state categorically that the techniques produced information useful in the [..] war against terrorism", which Sands says supports the conclusion of the report (that the techniques were ineffective). But it doesn't: Brennan says that we cannot know whether the useful information given by detainees was as a result of the techniques being used on them. Which is not the same thing.
Sands goes on to call for what amounts to a witch-hunt on any lawyer who gave advice that would have justified the techniques.
However, the point that even if the techniques could be shown to work in the short term, in preventing attacks, this is outweighed by the immense damage to the US's reputation in the long term.
Also unanswerable is the point, made by both Moazzam Begg and Clive Stafford Smith (*), that the torture techniques provided incorrect information linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq with al Qaeda.
* AJE, 9.12 13:06; C4 News, 15.12 19:18.
Posted 29.12.2014
Update 29.12.2014.
Needless to say, some of the reaction around the world has been of breathtaking hypocrisy.
Leaving aside the debate over whether the methods used constituted torture or could be described as "extended interrogation techniques", or EITs (they were torture - Geoff Dyer in the FT provides a useful summary (limited access)), the key question is whether the techniques were efficacious. This matters because polls show that a majority in the US would support the use of these techniques, provided they help prevent terrorist attacks.
John Brennan, CIA director, says it is "unknown and unknowable" whether the techniques can be shown to have provided useful and valuable information. On the BBC WS, (Weekend, 13.12.2014, 08:06 +2:30) Philippe Sands says Brennan "confirms that he is unable to state categorically that the techniques produced information useful in the [..] war against terrorism", which Sands says supports the conclusion of the report (that the techniques were ineffective). But it doesn't: Brennan says that we cannot know whether the useful information given by detainees was as a result of the techniques being used on them. Which is not the same thing.
Sands goes on to call for what amounts to a witch-hunt on any lawyer who gave advice that would have justified the techniques.
However, the point that even if the techniques could be shown to work in the short term, in preventing attacks, this is outweighed by the immense damage to the US's reputation in the long term.
Also unanswerable is the point, made by both Moazzam Begg and Clive Stafford Smith (*), that the torture techniques provided incorrect information linking Saddam Hussein's Iraq with al Qaeda.
* AJE, 9.12 13:06; C4 News, 15.12 19:18.
Posted 29.12.2014
Update 29.12.2014.
Needless to say, some of the reaction around the world has been of breathtaking hypocrisy.
posted by DavidP at 18:31
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home