I’m on record with many posts saying that I think the “enhanced interrogations” are torture, broke international and domestic law, there should be prosecutions, it undermines our image and makes us more dangerous, that the law maneuvering sets a bad precedent that one day could harm us in ways that aren’t in our worst nightmares, so on and so forth. And still, I read something today that really reminded me of the worst aspect of the whole situation.
This article in Time reveals in depth what techniques interrogators used that were successful and how every major break came from those techniques. It’s standard fare: a lot of really basic psychology, detective work and dare I say compassion and empathy. These people committed (and most likely planned to commit) some of the most evil acts imaginable, but at the end of the day they are still human, and that’s what successful interrogation takes advantage of. Some of them committed unjustifiable acts for justifiable reasons, some got caught up in something they didn’t understand and were more akin to cult members and some are just egotistical monsters that once they realize their remaining life will be spent in captivity at least want notoriety.
I’ve read recollections by interrogators that talk about the close and unique bond they develop with a target. That bond is both real and fake. It’s fake in that the interrogator doesn’t actually befriend the detainee nor become emotionally connected; indeed a lot of the circumstantial commonalities that the interrogator “notices” are lies used to construct a persona that best mirrors what the detainee needs (the Time article has several examples of this). But it’s also real inasmuch that it speaks to the human condition and universal themes. I confess I’ve never had any personal experience, but from reading many accounts, it seems to me that in some ways successful interrogators are artists. Like any good art, their work rises above the egocentric “reality” of the situation by constructing a false one that touches on some Truth. And from that comes that strange quasi-bond that enables the subject to open up and step outside of the futility of their current situation. I think they know that much of what the interrogator is saying is a lie, but from their perspective, it’s a comforting lie…and lies of comfort are readily believed, because they beg to be.
The target in a lot of cases is feeling guilty about what they’ve done, but have suppressed that both because it’s natural to avoid self loathing and because they’ve had so much practice. Even if there is no guilt, there is often still shame and a sense of betrayal — either betrayal feeling that someone let him down and he was the undeserving fall guy, or even feelings that God betrayed him. And of course there is the question of whether it was all worth it. Living in a concrete box for a year would turn any non-insane person into an Existentialist. And aside from these emotions, or whatever other may apply, the supreme feeling is one of helplessness and loneliness. So yes, they want to believe the interrogators’ “connection” because it makes them feel like they have some control and that they are worthwhile.
Dehumanization destroys all of that. It puts the emphasis on what the interrogator wants, which leads to Lies. Instead of the detainee having a false sense of control and feeling some elation that they “get to” tell a secret (after all who doesn’t like that) they instead just try to figure out what the interrogator wants to hear, and if there is pain, will say anything. Given enough time, they may even just give up and shut down completely, and literally be incapable of even knowing what is true and not. And yes, it can last for life in some form, even if it doesn’t leave marks. Anyone that’s had an animal that was abused will know how all the loving and proper care in the world can’t completely get rid of the times where a random trigger will make them terrified and uncontrollable.
Which brings me to the worst thing about this situation: all of this has been known for hundreds of years. The techniques themselves have been formalized for over the last sixty, really maturing during WWII. Intelligence operatives have studied what happened when regimes were harsh — like the KGB, etc — and found that they uniformly didn’t work, and eventually just led to widespread sadism. We executed people as war criminals and condemned nations as evil for doing what we did.
And yet, none of that is stated in the press or public argument. We have a “debate” as if there are unsettled questions; the Time article is written as if it’s exposing some new interesting finding. The entire climate is steeped in narcissism and ignorance, onward ho into the dustbin of history.
I really see three separate failures, two more tragic and one deserves scorn and condemnation.
First off, the most powerful people in the world sat in a room, discussed and approved these policies. Our leaders evidently did not possess the slightest insight into humanity nor history nor even a modicum of modesty that would have had them bring in experts that would have uniformly shot down the idea. Their sole concern was not about efficacy, but self delusion and preservation. That our political environment produced such “leadership” is sickening — although I’m not sure if this is more reflective of our country or humanity in general — but at least they would be fun to have a burger and beer with, or so we were told. As much as I try to work up outrage about this aspect, I just find it more tragic than anything. Tragic for the Adminsitration in the grandest Shakespearean sense, as their flaws led them to commit total folly that eventually brought complete failure, and if there is any justice, will see them jailed or at least mocked by history. Tragic for the country in the natural disaster sense as the promise of a new dawn of cooperation gave way to…whatever we have now.
The second failure concerns the institutional failure of the military and intelligence branches. They are supposed to maintain professionalism and historical understanding that will pull us through in times of crisis. Indeed, there were many individuals at all levels that fought against it, but the leadership was not there. I really hope that there is a lot of soul searching in those quarters to try to understand how there was such a failure of internal leadership and how to avoid it in the future. Again I view this as tragic. The interrogator that was led to Al Zarqawi has said that the vast majority of his subjects were fighting because of Abu Gharib and he believes that the majority of our killed and wounded sacrificed because of this blunder. I’d even go so far to say that it — along with the economic crisis — took the shine off America as the benevolent power and this loss of luster will lead to great geopolitical conflict in the future.
Lastly, I come to the failure that deserves scorn. That of the media, meaning the press and the driving of political discourse in general. The media had a large failure in the run up to the Iraq War, but at least in that case it rested on objective evidence that the Adminsitration kept secret and manipulated. Their failure when it comes to torture dwarfs the Iraq War since everything is laid out so cleanly. I think that their failure actively contributed to the two ones I laid out above. An ineffectual, preening press is a threat to this country. There were good men and women in both the Administration and the Military/Intelligence apparatuses that tried to fight back but had no help. There were many more that would have down so if they felt that it would have done any good. Our Administrations no longer fear the press because they know that they can use it to manipulate the debate and get away with whatever they want. This continued lawlessness strongly reinforces the egotistical thought process that the Bush Administration displayed.
A weak press also helps keep the population ignorant, both about historical precedent and also current evidence. Without an informed and engaged populace, democracy is a sham and we might as well not even bother. We are at a point where I read what are supposed to be serious political arguments, and to me it is indistinguishable from parody, yet the media has helped create and enforce such an insane relativism that it’s not even noticed. There are no facts presented any longer, merely opinion, and the epitome of Seriousness is not the search for Truth, but Balance. Heck, Fox News exists solely on that gimmick. It’s helping to foster such a climate of anti-intellectualism and ineptitude that we should seriously be concerned whether our country can even make it to the next century. I mean billions of pages and man-hours were written about California and Prop-8, yet the entire state is on the verge of what will literally be the second largest collapse in the last 50 years (only behind the USSR) and there is hardly a peep. It’s incredible. (And don’t get me started on what happened when Obama correctly pointed out that minimal car maintenance would save more in oil than drilling ANWR).
So yeah, the tone of the Time article ticked me off just a tad. To me the media’s failure is not tragic, because they continue to perpetuate. Many of Bush’s cabinet members and other high ranking officials quit and said that Bush was lying about things or his policies would lead to ruin, and they were given no more credibility than I. Heck, Scott McClellan wrote a whole book on it, which only made waves for a week in order to get ratings. If Network were made today you could pass it off as a documentary and no one would even blink.
The more I think about it the more I realize that is the root of our political and policy failures, and it’d be a lot more useful to target the press instead of politicians. I fear that the press is just as bad about Obama and the economy as Bush and the war/torture and that we will soon find ourselves in a morass that few understand. And in that criticism, the torture “debate” should be forefront, as it’s so poignant and clear.