In an Orwellian logic twist that not even Orwell could have dreamed up, former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen writes in a Washington Post op-ed piece that:
[T]he memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely. [emphasis added]
Yes, you read that right: It's the job of the interrogator to help the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.
You can't make this stuff up.
Myriad questions tumble unbidden from this single paragraph.
Did Abu Zubaydah graciously offer up this tidbit of religious insight before or after he was subjected to waterboarding?
Did interrogators take Abu Zubaydah's claim on faith, or did they verify its veracity? Did they check Zubaydah's credentials as an expert on the teaching of tenets of Islam with regard to torture? Were his claims carefully researched and documented, with quotes from appropriate Quranic references? Remember, according to the memos, this is permission granted "by Allah," so there must be verifiable sources. Surely they checked before blithely accepting this and then quoting it in the memo justifying expanded use of extraordinary interrogation methods. Right?
Do they realize that their claim makes it seem like they were actually using Zubaydah as a credible and valued consultant on their torture techniques?
Are religious experts on hand when a detainee is being processed to determine whether he actually ascribes to this belief, or is it just assumed that this information comes with every Muslim's Muslimness software?
Why would interrogators feel called to religious service in the name of Allah by torturing men to free them and therefore do their duty to Allah?
When Zubaydah's words were translated, why wasn't the term "Allah" translated as "God"? By retaining the term "Allah," there's a certain whiff o' the infidel ascribed to the whole belief system. And it seems a little more believable to folks who think that "they" don't think the way "we" do: by writing "Allah," it seems just like something any ordinary Muslim would believe; whereas if you'd used the term "God" ... well ... would have seemed quite as credible an excuse for torturing a Muslim?
I mean, seriously, people: They told us to torture them? C'mon. That's the best your top legal minds can come up with?