This is a response to questioning from Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana of University College London Law Professor Philippe Sands on the subject of "coercion" of captured suspects. I was intrigued that the Professor used "coercion" instead of "torture" when making his statements because this is really what this is about. The video posted below is a post from Bloc, if you have not seen it you must.
Pence asked him about how to obtain information from someone like Khalid Sheik Mohammed, someone who would probably chuckle if you tried to do some "relationship building" with him. One of the main points made by the professor was that coercion doesn't work because the people being coerced will say anything to stop the pain. He also makes a point that these methods create a breeding ground for future terrorists and makes a comparison between the our modern day terrorists and the Irish Republican Army as well as John McCain's Vietnamese captors.
Before I address the above issues I would like to put everything into context. I am presently reading a book titled Through Our Enemies' Eyes, by Michael Scheuer a former CIA officer and analyst with years of national security experience. One of things that I have found interesting about this book is how we underestimate the actual threat of Islamic terrorism. We underestimate it by trying to look at these people as poor religious fanatics who have fallen off the deep end.
Osama bin Laden is a well educated and very wealthy man who is deeply religious and extremely patient. He honestly believes the United States of America is trying to wipe all of Islam away and dominate the world with Christianity. What makes bin Laden a radical is his steadfast belief that all Jews and Christians are profoundly evil and nothing but Jihad can be the outcome in any kind of peace. In his defense of the Afghans during the Soviet invasion he gained a lot of prominence and a lot of recruits who he has taught that death in a Jihad is one of the greatest honors.
Along with bin Laden there is the media abroad and here at home that have created a propaganda machine of hatred. This machine consistently misrepresents our position and thrives off of every negative thing. This points to the greatest mistake in any war that has ever been fought. We first should have made this a war against Islam and second we should have either countered with our own propaganda or shut down the propaganda machine that helps the enemy.
The points made above by Professor Sands contain a few fundamental flaws. First he talks in absolutes. "Coercion never works," is an example. Coercion has worked and it has saved lives like it did with KSM. Granted probably a vast majority of people we need to interrogate coercion will not work and more long drawn out methods would. At the same time a hardcore Jihadist will just waste your time if you try being nice and build a relationship with him.
The argument about something we do creates a breeding ground or a recruitment tool for future terrorists is beyond ridiculous and just plain stupid. These people have found a series of events starting with the Jews settlement on supposed Palestinian lands to the Soviets going into Afghanistan and used these events to create a radical agenda that they intend to spread with lies and bloodshed. The scary part is they believe they are doing what God wants them to do. The breeding grounds are made in schools in places like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, and on news sources like Al Jazzera and Democracy Now.
The terrorism from the IRA did not encompass the entire world. The IRA could and did eventually listen to reason. The Jihadists will never listen to reason because they are moved by revenge, radical piety, and extremist racial beliefs. I disagree with any comparison between Islamic radicals and the IRA due to the main fact the IRA never threatened our way life from a global perspective. John McCain being tortured to force him to admit something that will be used to symbolically demoralize Americans is not the same as waterboarding KSM who providing us with intelligence that saved lives. They are different circumstances in different times and one involved torture while the other didn't.
Now many will scoff at my notion that Islamic terrorism threatens are very way of life in that it goes to far. One of things I found in Michael Scheuer's book was his alluding to the fact that Osama bin Laden at one time was actively looking for nuclear and chemical weapons. "...Time magazine reported that in 1993 al Qaeda tried to buy a 'Russian nuclear warhead' on the black market. Bin Laden halted the effort when a warhead for sale could not be located, and instead, 'his agents began scouring former Soviet republics for enriched uranium and weapons components that could be used to set off the fuel.' Time magazine claims bin Laden was frustrated in this effort and 'settled on chemical weapons which are easier to manufacture'..."
Personally I do not agree with torture and do not believe our government as a matter of policy tortures people. Certain circumstances in war do require extraordinary tactics in order to save lives and win the war. Tactics like waterboarding and other things. What stops us from going to far is over-site by other branches of government. Bottom line, we are trying to fight a convenient, politically correct, non-offending, don't insult or step on anyone's toes war while the enemy has no boundaries. War is cruelty and the more cruel it is the less time it takes to win it.
