The Omega Letter Intelligence Digest

Vol: 32 Issue: 13 - Thursday, May 13, 2004

When is Too Much Enough?
by Jack Kinsella

The New York Times published an expose of what it calls systematic CIA
'torture' of al-Qaeda prisoners, helpfully timed to keep the Iraqi prison
abuse scandal alive and well, and if possible, expand it across more
levels of the Bush administration.

While the Times has its own agenda, the growing scandal is causing
Americans to reach deep into their souls for answers.  Well, some
Americans, anyway.  The rest are letting CNN reach in there for them and
tell them what the answers are.

For the rest of us, it is a question of 'when is too much enough?'
Specifically, where should we draw the line in the quest for information?
After all, we aren't the Nazis, are we?  We don't have a Gestapo, do we?

But given the circumstances, SHOULD we have a 'Gestapo'?  And if we
shouldn't, then what should we do with prisoners who know things we need
to know?

During World War Two, America followed the terms of the Geneva Conventions
with EPW's.  But military interrogators were given wider latitude with the
rules when the stakes were high enough.

Several German saboteurs dropped off by a U-boat were captured in Florida
in 1942.  They were 'interrogated' by military investigators.  Those who
cooperated survived the war.  Those who did not were tried by military
tribunal and hanged.

On the other hand, there were no rules for combatants captured out of
uniform under the Conventions except one.  Once their military usefulness
was exhausted after  interrogation, they were immediately taken out, lined
up against a wall, and shot as spies.

Was it too much?  Or was it enough?  History tells us it was enough.  Much
like the internment of Japanese during World War II.  After the war,
opponents of the policy often pointed out that, during the entire war, not
a single act of sabotage was committed against the US by
Japanese-Americans, suggesting the internment policy was 'too much'.

But history cannot determine whether there were no acts of sabotage
because of the loyalty of Japanese Americans or because all the Japanese
Americans were interned in camps, so whether or not it was too much or not
enough depends on whether your vantage point in history when making that
judgment is that of 1942 or that of 2004.

(In 2004, the outcome of the war with Japan is no longer in question.
Hindsight is always 20-20)

The New York Times cites the interrogation of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.  It
is hard to present Mohammed in a sympathetic light, but the Times tries.
It describes him as a 'high-level' detainee 'who is believed' to have
'helped' plan the attacks on 9/11.   Actually, Mohammed PLANNED the
attacks, and was actively involved in the operational logistics.

But if the Times prefaced the piece by reminding readers that the intended
object of their sympathy was the guy who killed 3000 Americans,  we'd be
less inclined to be angry at his alleged treatment by US interrogators.

One of the methods used by the CIA against Mohammed was called 'water
boarding', where a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water
and made to believe he might drown.  The Times says Mohammed's
interrogation was authorized by a set of secret rules for the
interrogation of high-level Qaeda prisoners, none known to be housed in
Iraq, that were endorsed by the Justice Department and the C.I.A.

The rules were among the first adopted by the Bush administration after
the Sept. 11 attacks for handling detainees and may have helped establish
a new understanding throughout the government that officials would have
greater freedom to deal harshly with detainees.

The Times describes various forms of what it calls 'torture' including
"sending detainees to third countries, where they are convinced that they
might be executed, or tricked into believing they were being sent to such
places. Some have been hooded, roughed up, soaked with water and deprived
of food, light and medication".

According to the Times, the methods employed by the C.I.A. are so severe
that senior officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation have directed
its agents to "stay out of many of the interviews of the high-level
detainees.

F.B.I. officials have advised the bureau's director, Robert S. Mueller
III, that the interrogation techniques, which would be prohibited in
criminal cases, could 'compromise their agents in future criminal cases'."
 

Assessment:

In the case of the war against terror,  making a comparison between what
is acceptable for the FBI and what is acceptable to the military is
deliberate misdirection.

The CIA obtains intelligence useful to America's defense.  The FBI obtains
information useful to a criminal investigation.  The goals are different,
the stakes are different, so the techniques are different.

The question remaining unanswered so far is whether or not too much is
enough.  The enemy we face has no national homeland to strike.  It has no
military assets we can eliminate, apart from shadowy operators who get
captured and subsequently give information on others.

Secrecy is al-Qaeda's only vulnerable military asset.  Without information
about who to target, America's vast military advantage disappears.  It is
important to remember that our enemy was able to kill three thousand
Americans, destroy the Twin Towers and nearly destroy the Pentagon,  using
only 19 operatives and 19 box knives.  And they accomplished it all in
less than half an hour.

I've done a lot of soul-searching since the revelation of the abuse of
Iraqi prisoners and al-Qaeda detainees.  I've tried to put myself in the
place of those who are accused.  It is hard to see myself in their place,
but I honestly tried.

Assuming that those soldiers were genuine in their belief they were aiding
the interrogators, I asked myself what I would do to stop an ambush that
might kill guys I worked with?  I didn't care for my answer.

Regarding the New York Times criticism of the techniques used to
interrogate Khalid Shaik Mohammed, I asked myself what would be too much,
if it meant preventing the attacks on September 11.  I didn't care for the
answer I got to that one, either.

I considered the fact that the government may be doing things to detainees
that it doesn't want me to know, and so it may be covering some of it up.
To be honest, I don't want to know, but I also have to admit that, if it
works, I don't particularly want them to stop.

We are fighting a nameless, faceless, unseen enemy whose most effective
weapon against us is our own decency. This is a war unlike any in history,
and also, potentially more deadly.  When is too much enough?

Last year saw the lowest incidences of terrorist attacks, world-wide,
since 1992. There hasn't been a terrorist strike against a US domestic
target since September 11.

The real question is 'when will too much NOT be enough'.

The answer?  It will come when we drop our guard enough to allow al-Qaeda
another shot at duplicating 9/11.