CIA Contracted Psychologists Approved Torture Methods Used

You’ve said that although torture is never acceptable, it’s nevertheless a reality of post-9/11 American policy.

Yes. I am categorically opposed to the use of torture. That’s my moral position. My empirical observation as an expert in these matters is that torture is going on, that every democracy has used and will use torture.

The analogy is to an airplane flying toward the Empire State Building with 300 innocent people in it, because it’s been hijacked by terrorists. What a terrible decision somebody might have to make, to shoot down that airplane over the Atlantic Ocean and kill 300 innocent people.

Would we ever want to justify killing 300 people on an airplane? Of course not. But if the choice is between killing 300 and killing 3,000, the decision is going to be made to kill the 300. That’s the reality of life in the post-9/11 world.

If we ever capture a ticking-bomb terrorist who could prevent the blowing up of an atomic bomb in New York City,  every democratic leader will use torture. That’s my empirical observation, as distinguished from my moral observation.

And so, if torture is a reality--as it is today--there must be accountability. We must know who authorized it. We must know the circumstances under which it was authorized.

How would we do that?

The President must in each instance sign an authorization to use torture, explain why, and explain what torture is going to be allowed and what torture is not. The warrant would require the President to say, “We have Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in our possession. He can tell us about the next 9/11, which is being planned immediately and, therefore, I’m approving the use of water-boarding." Or, "I’m approving the use of a sterilized needle underneath his nails. This is an extraordinary event requiring that national security override the usual rules of law, and I am taking responsibility for authorizing it. If I’m wrong, vote me out of office, because I’m taking responsibility.”

Just like the President would have to take responsibility for shooting down an airplane. We wouldn’t want some low-level Air Force sergeant to make that decision. And if we had this procedure in place, we could never have an Abu Ghraib, which is the result of having no accountability. 

Your critics, including Dr. Steven Miles, say that on the pragmatic level, you’re wrong: Torture does not work.

That is a stupid argument. Ask the people who submitted to torture during many instances of horrible attacks by Stalinism or by Nazism. 

The question is, is it worth it? Is it worth the deaths or the injuries? That’s a legitimate moral debate. But I pay no attention to anybody who says that it never works, because that simply blinks at reality.

The reality is, A) it works sometimes and, B) more important, all democracies believe it works and they’re going to continue to use it. So, should we have it done under the radar screen, hidden from view, or should we have it done with accountability?

If it’s done openly, and if it doesn’t work, we’ll be able to abolish it. Right now, we have some really naïve people saying it never works; therefore, why are you even bothering to have this debate? Others are saying it works all the time.

I think that it works infrequently enough, and it hurts frequently enough, so that my personal position would be to vote against its use. But, as long as it’s being used, I want accountability.

'Global War On Terror' Is Given New Name

The Obama administration appears to be backing away from the phrase "global war on terror," a signature rhetorical legacy of its predecessor.

In a memo e-mailed this week to Pentagon staff members, the Defense Department's office of security review noted that "this administration prefers to avoid using the term 'Long War' or 'Global War on Terror' [GWOT.] Please use 'Overseas Contingency Operation.' "

The memo said the direction came from the Office of Management and Budget, the executive-branch agency that reviews the public testimony of administration officials before it is delivered.

Not so, said Kenneth Baer, an OMB spokesman.

"There was no memo, no guidance," Baer said yesterday. "This is the opinion of a career civil servant."

Coincidentally or not, senior administration officials had been publicly using the phrase "overseas contingency operations" in a war context for roughly a month before the e-mail was sent.

Peter Orszag, the OMB director, turned to it Feb. 26 when discussing Obama's budget proposal at a news conference: "The budget shows the combined cost of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and any other overseas contingency operations that may be necessary."

And in congressional testimony last week, Craig W. Duehring, assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower, said, "Key battlefield monetary incentives has allowed the Air Force to meet the demands of overseas contingency operations even as requirements continue to grow."

Monday's Pentagon e-mail was prompted by congressional testimony that Lt. Gen. John W. Bergman, head of the Marine Forces Reserve, intends to give today. The memo advised Pentagon personnel to "please pass this onto your speechwriters and try to catch this change before statements make it to OMB."

Baer said, "I have no reason to believe that ['global war on terror'] would be stricken" from future congressional testimony.

The Bush administration adopted the phrase soon after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to capture the scope of the threat it perceived and the military operations that would be required to confront it.

In an address to Congress nine days after the attacks, President George W. Bush said, "Our war on terror will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."