The Dark Art of Interrogation theatlantic.com
I really shouldn't do this but. . .
Bowden had this article in the Atlantic a month or so ago. It's sort of a cop-out, as most of the text is devoted to "skilled practitioneers" who can get information with threats and tricks without actually resorting to muscle. Buried in the text, though, is this tidbit.
This is the crux of the problem. It may be clear that coercion is sometimes the right choice, but how does one allow it yet still control it? Sadism is deeply rooted in the human psyche. Every army has its share of soldiers who delight in kicking and beating bound captives. Men in authority tend to abuse it—not all men, but many. As a mass, they should be assumed to lean toward abuse. How does a country best regulate behavior in its dark and distant corners, in prisons, on battlefields, and in interrogation rooms, particularly when its forces number in the millions and are spread all over the globe? In considering a change in national policy, one is obliged to anticipate the practical consequences. So if we formally lift the ban on torture, even if only partially and in rare, specific cases (the attorney and author Alan Dershowitz has proposed issuing "torture warrants"), the question will be, How can we ensure that the practice does not become commonplace—not just a tool for extracting vital, life-saving information in rare cases but a routine tool of oppression?
As it happens, a pertinent case study exists. Israel has been a target of terror attacks for many years, and has wrestled openly with the dilemmas they pose for a democracy. In 1987 a commission led by the retired Israeli Supreme Court justice Moshe Landau wrote a series of recommendations for Michael Koubi and his agents, allowing them to use "moderate physical pressure" and "nonviolent psychological pressure" in interrogating prisoners who had information that could prevent impending terror attacks. The commission sought to allow such coercion only in "ticking-bomb scenarios"—that is, in cases like the kidnapping of Jakob von Metzler, when the information withheld by the suspect could save lives.
Twelve years later the Israeli Supreme Court effectively revoked this permission, banning the use of any and all forms of torture. In the years following the Landau Commission recommendations, the use of coercive methods had become widespread in the Occupied Territories. It was estimated that more than two thirds of the Palestinians taken into custody were subjected to them. Koubi says that only in rare instances, and with court permission, did he slap, pinch, or shake a prisoner—but he happens to be an especially gifted interrogator. What about the hundreds of men who worked for him? Koubi could not be present for all those interrogations. Every effort to regulate coercion failed. In the abstract it was easy to imagine a ticking-bomb situation, and a suspect who clearly warranted rough treatment. But in real life where was the line to be drawn? Should coercive methods be applied only to someone who knows of an immediately pending attack? What about one who might know of attacks planned for months or years in the future?
I went looking for some old figures on what the above 2/3s applied to, and came up with this alternative assesment:
*During the first Intifada "the rate of incarceration in the territories [OT] was by far the highest known anywhere in the world: close to 1,000 prisoners per 100,000 population, or one prisoner for every 100 persons" (Middle East Watch, 1991.). One would be hard-pressed to find a Palestinian from the West Bank and Gaza who has not had a friend or relative in an Israeli prison at some point. By 1987, almost 20% of Palestinians in the Israeli occupied territories had been subjected to detention. (Lisa Hajjar, Authority, Resistance and the Law: A Study of the Israeli Military Court System in the Occupied Territories, Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, The American University, 1995, p. 612.). The Israeli human rights organization, B'Tselem, estimates that 85% of all Palestinian prisoners and detainees were tortured during their incarceration. (B'Tselem, Routine Torture: Interrogation Methods of the General Security Service, B'Tselem, Jerusalem, 1998, p.8.). Interviews conducted between 1988 and May 1992 with more than 700 Palestinians indicate that at least 94% of those interrogated by the GSS were tortured. (Melissa Phillips, Torture for Security: The Systematic Torture and Ill-treatment of Palestinians in Israel. Al Haq Ramallah, West Bank,: 1995. ) (from dci-pal.org )
I don't know, I can understand alright that Israelis hate Palesintians, but if you crank the numbers, it seems pretty likely that most Palestinians have about one degree of separation at most from somebody who's enjoyed "moderate physical pressure" at the hands of the occupation force. Hatred in the "moral clarity" sense only cuts one way, though. |
