Amazingly, experts in interrogation at the FBI are getting results in their interrogations of the underpants bomber. This, despite not being tortured, not being subjected to military commision’s rules and regulations, despite his being mirandized and despite having an attorney present. None of this should come as a surpirse or even warrant highlighing under normal circumstances, and yet in the era of the pro-torture, anti-due process Republican Party (and its Democratic allies), this amounts to a newsworthy event if for no other reason than to silence misinformation and other pernicious theories that have incubated divorced from facts. From the New York Times:
Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, the Nigerian man accused of trying to blow up a jetliner bound for Detroit on Dec. 25, started talking to investigators after two of his family members arrived in the United States and helped earn his cooperation, a senior administration official said Tuesday evening.
Mr. Abdulmutallab, 23, began speaking to F.B.I. agents last week in Detroit and has not stopped, two government officials said. The officials declined to disclose what information was obtained from him, but said it was aiding in the investigation of the attempted terrorist attack.
“With the family, the F.B.I. approached the suspect,” the senior administration official said, speaking to reporters at the White House on the condition of anonymity because of the pending legal case. “He has been cooperating for days.”
It is highly doubtful that the family would have been brought in to the process, let alone cooperated, if Abdulmutallab was being tortured, or even kept within the quasi-military justice system. Would military interrogators have even reached out to the family in the first place? Luckily, the experts are in charge. As Matt Yglesias argues:
It’s true that as an investigative technique “convince the guy’s family to convince him to cooperate” isn’t quite as bad-ass as “use Khmer Rouge torture tactics against him.” On the other hand, the non-torture way actually produces reliable information. And note that these are really inconsistent ideas. A family that has confidence in the basic fairness of the US criminal justice system is prepared to help the FBI secure cooperation from their son. A family that believes the US government holds suspects in “black sites” where they’re tortured and/or tries them in kangaroo courts is much less likely to cooperate.
But most of all, when you’re faced with serious problems you want to rely on seasoned investigators and their proven investigative techniques. You don’t take a problem “more seriously” by handing it over to the military or the CIA. The you take a problem seriously by having it addressed by the appropriate agencies. If we’d handled this in the blood-soaked manner preferred by the right, who knows what kind of nonsense information people would be sorting through right now.
Right. As the torture of KSM, al-Libbi (connecting al-Qaeda to Iraq) and Zubaydah show, torture leads the tortured to concoct any manner of tale in order to get the torturer to stop. Once the truth has been exhausted, to the extent it is offered at all, the tortured prisoner will resort to falsehood to satiate the torturer’s desire for certain predetermined information. But the torturer cannot discern the difference between truth and convenient lie, rendering the entire output unreliable. At considerable cost to our image and effort to garner intelligence and cooperation from civilians at large.
Adam Serwer makes this a teaching moment, using the development of this case to puncture several pro-torture, anti-due process myths. A sample:
Mirandizing a suspect prevents intelligence from being collected. Clearly not the case, as Abdulmutallab has continued talking to investigators after being mirandized. Interrogating someone without mirandizing them means that you can’t use that information in court, though it’s still usable as intelligence.
The FBI stopped interrogating Abdulmutallab so they could mirandize him. No. As the LA Times reported, the FBI decided to read Abdulmutallab his rights after he stopped talking.
Putting an “enemy combatant” like Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system is unprecedented. False, as the Bush administration did it with nearly 150 terrorists convicted in civilian courts over eight years. Most recently, Bush-era CIA Chief Michael Hayden wrote an op-ed criticizing the decision to put Abdulmutallab in the criminal justice system, even though it was standard practice under Bush. A recent example is Bryant Vinas, an al-Qaeda recruit captured in Pakistan in 2008, who as part of a plea deal has reportedly provided a “goldmine” of intelligence. Hayden was CIA chief at the the time and said nothing, because the practice was uncontroversial.We would have gotten all this information more quickly if we had just tortured him. Unlikely, and there would have been substantial downsides. Part of interrogating a suspect is verifying that information is true, and that takes time whether someone is being tortured or not. But if we had tortured Abdulmutallab, it’s unlikely that his family would have played such a key role in his interrogation. Also, the information he gave wouldn’t have been as reliable. Treating him humanely shows the world that it can trust the United States and encourages Muslims who may have important information to come forward.
These are lessons that the American people need to take stock of. Along those lines, it would be helpful if the Republican Party, and certain Democratic accomplices – even the Obama administration in certain contexts – would actually lead rather than demagogue or allow themselves to be seduced by the alluring, yet false, expedients that inhabit what Cheney aptly termed the “dark side.” Of course, Cheney uttered the phrase approvingly.
Related posts:
recent comments