Tuesday, February 23, 2010

On Interrogation and Middle Ground

Marc Thiessen, author of Courting Disaster, makes a good argument in his piece in the Washington Post yesterday for finding some middle ground in the interrogation debate. Coming on the heels of reports that new al Qaeda capture Mullah Baradar may not be cooperating under interrogation by the Pakistanis as much as we had hoped, Thiessen reports that the CIA has requested Barader be transferred to US custody.

At one time that suggestion may have put substantial fear into Barader, but no more. Once Obama revealed our interrogation secrets to the enemy, there is no fear of the unknown with which to bargain.

Thiessen points out:
To be clear, Obama did not end waterboarding; it was no longer part of the formal CIA interrogation program he inherited from the Bush administration. Indeed, former CIA Director Mike Hayden says he told Obama's national security transition team, "All those things you think you need to do [on interrogation]? We already did them."
Yet Obama issued his executive order eliminating "effective interrogation techniques that no one could argue were torture: the facial hold, attention grasp, tummy slap, facial slap, a diet of liquid Ensure and mild sleep deprivation (a maximum of four consecutive days)."

His executive order demands strict adherence to The Army Field Manual thereby guaranteeing that any trained terrorist knows exactly the limits and tactics of his interrogators.

Why in the world would Barader cooperate? What's in it for him? He knows he has nothing to fear. All he has to do is sit back and wait for his attorney to come. And should Barader be transferred to US custody the attorneys will be lining up at the doors.

There is even some speculation that Barader is being treated with kid gloves by the Pakistanis. Dana Perino and Bill Burck speculated on this yesterday:
Further, the interrogation of Baradar may not be working. According to the LA Times, which based its account on sources in the Obama administration, the “joint” interrogation of Baradar by Pakistan intelligence and the CIA has not provided information that could lead to the capture of other Taliban leaders or “inform the planning of U.S. military operations.” Maybe this is because, as some have suggested, instead of breaking out the medieval torture devices, the Pakistanis are treating Baradar with kid gloves. Perhaps the Pakistanis have no real interest in gathering intelligence from Baradar. They want to use him as a bargaining chip to enhance their advantage in any post-war settlement, as we have discussed.
So what to do? Theissen suggests returning to some middle ground with regard to interrogation, a move possibly as simple as inserting "unless otherwise authorized by the president" in the original executive order which would at least serve to leave some mystery as to what detainees might expect under interrogation.

This is unlikely to happen, nor is any attempt by this administration to toughen our interrogation tactics. This administration has already proven itself more interested in seeking good will than in seeking good intelligence. It is much more important to Obama that we appear favorably in the eyes of the world as a passive nation that does not "torture" than to be a proactive nation with tough national security.

Related Posts:
Torture Memo Release - Big Mistake
Another Word on the Torture Memos

2 comments:

Jordan said...

This is unlikely to happen, nor is any attempt by this administration to toughen our interrogation tactics. This administration has already proven itself more interested in seeking good will than in seeking good intelligence. It is much more important to Obama that we appear favorably in the eyes of the world as a passive nation that does not "torture" than to be a proactive nation with tough national security.

So sad, but true. The President is at the mercy of his own frothing, naive base that believes in "touched by an American" legal theory, which states: if touched by an American working with the US government, all rights and responsibilities given to American citizens in the Constitutional is automatically given to said touchee.

According to a far-left friend, this theory is fair and true due to the lack of explicit wording in the Constitution denying said rights to everyone we touch.

Out of all the things they want to be pure constitutionalists on, the protection of mass murderers is beyond parody, sliding into uncomfortable stares and "move-along" coughs.

Quite Rightly said...

Why do Progressives believe that terrorists need to be protected from us, but we don't need to be protected from terrorists?