Skip to main content

Gearing up for Zero Dark Thirty's chance at an Oscar tonight, CNN's favorite foreign policy wonk cum plagiarist has been interviewing a Bush-era torture apologist about "enhanced interrogation."

Which is to say: Fareed Zakaria and Michael Hayden have been indulging in a session of Beltway-groupthink mutual masturbation.

Hayden's taken this opportunity to reveal--and not for the first time--that torture did not prevent, and was not even intended to prevent, any impending terrorist attacks.

What's interesting about today's interview is that Hayden began talking about torture in response to a question about "winning the hearts and minds" of the Iraqi people. (Note that, in 2005, Bush defended the Iraq War by claiming that "hearts and minds are opening to the message of human liberty as never before.)

Hayden cited "enhanced interrogation" as a means of opening detainees' hearts and minds. Torture, according to Hayden, brought detainees into a "zone of cooperation."

I don't think a transcript or video clip of today's interview is yet available online (if you find one, please let me know so I can link to it), but Hayden's made similar statements before.

Back in 2011, Hayden went on Zakaria's show and said much the same thing he did today:

And the lead information I referred to a few minutes ago did come from CIA detainees, against whom enhanced interrogation techniques have been used, not to elicit specific bits of information, but move them from their initial air of defiance into a zone of cooperation.
Before taking this statement apart, let's recall the "ticking time bomb" scenario often invoked to defend "enhanced interrogation." It's something like this: A suspected terrorist is believed to know about an impending terrorist attack. The only way to extract this information is to torture the terrorist. Our suspectedterrorist, of course, is a hardened zealot who will not respond to any questioning less painful than thumbscrews and the rack.

Bush administration officials turned countless times to this scenario in justifying their "enhanced interrogation" policies. Here's a link to just one example among many:

He [a "senior Bush administration official"] cited as an example a ''ticking time bomb" scenario, in which a detainee is believed to have information that could prevent a planned terrorist attack.
Seeing a contradiction? Hayden, the architect of the administration's torture policy,  has now admitted multiple times that no time bomb was ever ticking. Yet the Bush administration raised this specter over and over again in defense of torture.

What we're left with is a justification that's decidedly more distasteful: The Bush administration used torture to break alleged terrorists, people who were deprived of due process and denied any real opportunity to challenge the charges against them.

Hayden and others in the CIA understood that torture is unreliable, at best, in extracting "specific bits of information" from a detainee.

Instead, as Hayden stated today on Fareed Zakaria GPS, the CIA subjected about one-third of alleged terrorist detainees to "enhanced interrogation techniques" for the sake of moving them from an "air of defiance" into a "zone of cooperation." (He used that same language not only in the 2011 interview to which I've linked but in his interview today).

As I said: The purpose of Bush-era torture was to break down human beings, a la Winston Smith in 1984, who may or may not have been implicated in terrorism (without public trials, we'll never know).

The purpose of our country's torturing detainees was to crush their hopes, to strangle their spirits, and thereby to render them desperate enough to say what CIA interrogators wanted to hear.

There was never a ticking time-bomb. Even if there had been, Hayden's comments--on Zakaria's show and elsewhere--make it clear that the CIA recognized that torture would be unlikely to defuse a ticking time-bomb, anyway.

Instead, "enhanced interrogation" served as a means of slapping, sleep-depriving, and drowning detainees into submission.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Not just "detainees into submission" (8+ / 0-)

    but bringing detainees into a condition of denying them their emotions, mind and humanity. From there, rape, murder and other instruments of the inquisition would be freely justified.

    We have become ANIMALS.

  •  Why switch mid-stream. (0+ / 0-)

       First, you write about Hayden and then switch in the comments - your diary your choice!
         In a meanwhile, back at the ranch:  Did you read the Black Banner.   Did you read all the memo's re:  development of the torture memo's.   Did you read the APA's bait / switch mismanagement to change their definition and handling by psychologists as to re-define their roles.
          I don't doubt that many here don't like the Drone Strike Information, but if it is that important, then try writing another diary.   I dislike bait / switch tactics.

    •  Sorry it seemed like a bait and switch (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Trotskyrepublican

      whenwego mentioned "murder" as the kind of tactic which Hayden's reasoning might lead to.

      I thought that mentioning drone strikes, then, would be pertinent. Granted, drone strikes might better be termed democide than homocide, but my own opinion is that "extrajudicial killings" of any sort are just murder by the executive branch.

  •  Unfortunately, we've lost this debate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arainsb123, semiot

    if only by allowing this to become the debate subject.

    "Did torture give us actionable intelligence?"

    The implicit assumption in the question is that if it did, then torture is okay, and if didn't, then torture isn't.  Which is a false framing of the discussion.  Because, really, whether it did or not (and it didn't, but that's where this has got us), it's still a massive dishonor on a generation of Americans.  And that's something that will last longer than the hype over this one movie.

    I'll confess I haven't seen it.  I downloaded it to watch it, have had it sitting on my computer for weeks now, and I haven't had the stomach to watch it.  So maybe I really am an old prude speaking about things of which he knows not.

    But I can see "the debate" as it has become framed on TV, especially on Fox News, where they are deliriously happy that this movie is up for an Oscar and are already gearing up, it seems, to cry "Foul, liberal bias!" if it doesn't win.  I even heard that from a Republican on MSNBC a few hours ago, so I can't lay it all on Fox News.

    I really am crossing my fingers this doesn't win.  It's a dirty rotten shame.  It could be the best film ever made, and the motives of the director might be naive and ignorant, yet it could still be as destructive as Birth of a Nation.

    •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dumbo

      From what I hear, the movie gives the impression that torture led to the capture of bin Laden--which is deplorable. I'd say the same about any distortion of the historical record to benefit an ideology.

      But any debate about torture's effectiveness--as if torture were ever justifiable--is more deplorable still.

  •  An authoritarian mind speaking (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    arainsb123, semiot

    "Respect mah authoritah!"

    Why?

    "Because you need to Respect Mah Authoritah!"

  •  IOW, "What we have here is a failure (0+ / 0-)

    to communicate."

    Courage is contagious. - Daniel Ellsberg

    by semiot on Mon Feb 25, 2013 at 04:36:22 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site