Melana Zyla Vickers, “Shamnesty International,” TCS:
The torture and abuse of terrorist suspects is very much in the news these days, so it’s interesting to note the advice on the topic found in an Al Qaeda training manual seized some time ago in the U.K. The manual says that when captured or facing trial, “brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security.” Noting the utility of the open U.S. media, the manual also calls “spreading rumors and writing statements that instigate people against the enemy” one of the top-five missions of the terrorist organization.
This is not to say that torture and abuse at the hands of American troops is always a figment of Al Qaeda propaganda: The Abu Ghraib prison scandal proves otherwise. But the manual sure puts Amnesty International’s newest annual report, as well as recent claims of torture, Koran desecration, and other abuse, in perspective.
Al Qaeda knows better than any organization that its success depends on peeling both Muslim-world support and U.S. public support away from the Bush administration’s war on terrorism. Consider the quasi-reasoned tone Osama bin Laden adopted in a recording he allegedly made last November, calling on the “people of America” to drop their support for the president. The recording was full of contemporary and historical allusions, as is the training manual. If Al Qaeda’s savvy enough for that, it’s savvy enough to know that civil liberties—even the civil liberties of accused bad guys—are a hot-button issue in the U.S.
Well, I might have gone with ”especially the civil liberties of accused bad guys”—remember, Howard Dean insists that Usama Bin Laden is innocent until proven guilty (despite the Al Qaeda leader’s having personally taken credit for 911), whereas Tom Delay is guilty until proven innocent, his being Republican and all, and Republicans being evil and brain dead monsters who’ve never known an honest day’s work—but then, I’m a cynical bastard. Other than that, though, Ms Vickers’ column has much to recommend it, including a list of things we should keep in mind when we hear stories of purported abuses by the US military:
First and foremost, torture, abuse, killing, good guys running amok, these are all standard features of war. They occurred in the past and will again in the future. “War is cruelty,” Civil War Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman said, and its cruelty is part of the reason the U.S. tries to avoid going to war in the first place. But of course, we are at war.
Second, human-rights watchdogs and lawyers are a veritable cottage industry these days. Whatever the international conflict, there is always a group of them around, wringing their hands, making their names known to newspapers, and pointing out, as if for the first time, that war is hell (another Sherman quotation). They’re often well-meaning. But they may be getting wagged by the Al Qaeda training handbook without even knowing – or refusing to believe – it could be so.
Third, it’s essential to know the messenger. In this case, Amnesty, the hand-wringer of the week, is no friend of American foreign policy. The group, whose roots lie with early 20th century leftists both here and in Britain, has always bent over backwards to make the capitalist U.S. look bad. Consider that the “Americas Regional Overview” in this 2005 annual report goes on at length about the U.S. and its detention camp, the U.S. and its horrible friend the government of Colombia, the U.S. and its evil counter-narcotics efforts in the region, yet makes not one mention of communist Fidel Castro’s abominations in Cuba. Also, the report bends over backwards to blame the human-rights abuses of the quasi-communist Venezuelan government on those trying to unseat President Hugo Chavez.
The report’s tone is reminiscent of its Cold War work, when Amnesty rather perversely thought it important to be even-handed in its assessment of Soviet human-rights abuses and our own. Considering Amnesty’s fellow-traveler pedigree, perhaps it intended its Stalinist “gulag” comparison as a compliment.
Ouch.
****
update: much more here.
APOLOGIST FOR TORTURE! WE LOVE THE TROOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!
I cant help but question the authenticity of these ‘training manuals’ that crop up from time to time and spell out in all too simple language instructions that support our government’s assertions and explanations.
Dont get me wrong, I’m very much pro defense, pro military and supportive of an aggressive foreign policy and taking the war to the bad guys… but I often wonder about the veracity what we see in the MSM in general.. How much is psyops aimed at shaping western opinion?
Years ago when I was part (a very minor player) of Special Operations (Army Special Forces), we went to lengths to keep our mission objectives and specifics a secret from the bad guys.. Some missions required even sterile uniforms and gear so our country of origin couldnt be proven beyond plausible deniability . And we certainly had training, proceedure and policies related to how to comport ourselves if captured. At no time do I ever remember carrying any training manuals with me in the field , most especially out in the world.
Keep in mind that our enemy is not stupid. They are a very intelligent people.. The citizen on the street may lack much formal education but the terrorists leaders are both sharp and educated.. often in the US and Europe. Many have lived in the US and/or Europe… In my opinion, when these ‘manuals’ are discovered its because one side or the other wants them discovered to make an impression on the general population. Remember how much stir a picture of The Space Needle in Seattle caused when it was found on a laptop in a cave in Afghanistan ?
Well, I’m an Occam’s Razor guy myself, my love of both the X-Files and Foucault’s Pendulum notwithstanding.
KARL ROVE IS JEFF’S MASTER! HE HAS SWALLOWED THE KONSERVATIVE KOOLAID!
(Coincidentally, I just started rereading Foucault’s Pendulum the other day.)
Great book to return to whenever you feel yourself going stale. Not quite Gravity’s Rainbow, but still…
Alpha: You do make an interesting point, but it leads to, perhaps, multiple and opposing interpretations. For example, al Qaeda is smarter than to let a valuable training manual be discovered, therefore the implications of the information contained therein must be suspect. Alternatively, the capture of the manual proves the ineptness of the organization, therefore captured members couldn’t possibly adhere to operational procedures they guarded so cavalierly.
Clearly, these are not the only conclusions one could suscribe to this document capture. Something tells me the answer lies somewhere between the conclusion that al Qaeda is either clever or inept.
If you’ll remember the first WTC bombing, where everyone from the MSM to President Clinton thought the perpetrators were a bunch of idiots because the truck driver went back to the rental dealerto seek the return of his $200 deposit. Well, everyone but Jim Fox, the NY FBI director, who saw it immediately as a “false flag” meant to throw the investigation in the wrong direction–which it did, as the Clinton administration dealt with it as a law enforcement problem. Fox saw it as one involving the sophistication of the spycraft–and perhaps a foreign government as the source of such training and techniques. Fox was one of the few, involved in the initial investigation, with counter-intelligence experience. And of course it turns out that Fox’s instincts were mostly correct–the WTC bombers were part of a global network of Islamofascists, and not a bunch of crazy simpletons.
And while in your experience you wouldn’t take manuals out into the field, al Qaeda can no longer be certain of safe havens for training and recruitment, so by definition, they have to operate “in the field”, therefore such documents are subject to capture.
Finally, I don’t find anything in the manual to be exceptional or unusual given that planning and preparation has gone on for many years by people that were educated and lived in the West.
Alpha Baboon
I remember hearing something much more interesting than the training manual – an essay on government by an Al Qa’eda leader in Afganistan.
It was intellecually phrased and self consciously totaliarian. Basically it said that only constant terror applied a society that Al Qa’eda was in control of could keep society pure.
Its confusing to use to word “terror” to mean both terrorism and the eternal terrorizing of the masses in a totalitarian state, but it’s the second that they were writing about. Al Qa’eda policy was to terrorize Afganistan, a country they were in control of.
These are evil people. But of course you doubt that their manual calls for lying. I have news for you, being honest with your enemies isn’t considered a virtue in Islam.
Joshua.. No I dont doubt their training and doctrine calls for lying.. I just wonder out loud who wanted that manual seen and why … I agree 100% that these are evil people and I’m not going to be bated by the implication that I dont know the true nature or resolve of the enemy.. I’m no longer involved in special ops.. havent been for years.. but even back in the 70’s (probably earlier) , the intelligence community was quite aware of middle east terror activity and the certainty that it was coming here eventually.. I worked counter terror in LA for the Olympics back in the day.. anxiety was high even then. I heard classified intelligence briefings that made me paranoid as hell even to this day.. I doubt very much that I’m the only one to watch the news as if it were a rolling psyop rather than actual news.
Forbes, I think you hit on something.. Maybe I’m just paranoid because the first thing that goes through my mind when the balloon goes up is ‘What would I do if I were them?’.. On the morning of 9/11 I wondered just what I’d do had it been my operation and I had the cash and personnel to carry it out.. I truly expected more of an attack that day and many more casualties in the days and weeks that followed.. I still get worried looking at that uncontrolled Mexican border… Maybe were just lucky that al Qaeda doesnt seem to have many truly highly trained operators fielded..
–AB
I just wonder how the whole Al Queda-tells-them-to-lie thing squares with the conclusive evidence of horrible wrongdoing on our behalf. I just don’t see it as anything surprising that can in any way justify our more atrocious actions.
It doesn’t put things into a new perspective so much as coat the whole scummy mess in another layer of filth.
Let’s review: Our enemy, who is afraid to fight us on a normal field of battle, chooses to fight us with lies, subterfuge, allusion, slander, propaganda, and less-than-honorable tactics? No fucking way! Next they’ll be telling us they are religious fanatics.
I dont think its either unpatriotic or un-American to suggest that our government is fighting several wars simultaneously. One obviously is the open conflict in Iraq. A second paramilitary and intelligence war against the worldwide terror networks. A third is waged for internal security against terrorists and sympathizers already inside our country and those trying to enter. But probably the most crucial war theyre fighting is for the support of its own people. In the 70’s we watched a war won on the ground and lost via the media influence on public opinion. The American people have a short memory for the most part and need constant reminding of exactly what the good fight is; who the good guys are; and why its neccessary for our soldiers to finish whats been started successfully. If our government ISNT using psyops like planted ‘Terror Training Manuals’ found in our own country or pictures of our monuments planted in Afghanistan caves, or at least exploiting the hell out of the ones they do find, to keep the public aware of the terror situations, then they should be.. and those guys dont often miss a trick. I’m not criticizing them by suggesting they might create some news to keep the public’s eye on the ball.. I’m applauding it.
You know, I come to PW because the majority of the commenters are pretty well informed and have formed their opinions based on news and op/ed that theyve gotten from multiple sources. These people are the minority. During the elections I listened to man on the street interviews.. 8 out of 10 of the meatpuppets out there couldnt tell the interviewer who was running for Pres & VP… Even less could give even a half assed reason for supporting the candidate they were voting for. Where I’m going with this is here; when you have millions of apathetic citizens with attention spans just long enough to catch part of soundbite, and who consider an informed opinion to be whatever words they can parrot back from their favorite popstar or movie actor, who could blame the government for taking whatever steps are neccessary to sell a positive attitude toward their policies rather than simply rolling over and giving up the media to the far left..? Someone has to remind the public that the terrorists are not the innocent victims here, despite months of front page Abu Ghraib ‘atrocities’ and ‘Guantanamo Q’uran flushings’…
Oh, and as far as Occam’s Razor *** goes.. I think this sort of explanation requires fewer assumptions or at last AS few as the ‘serendipitous find’ theory.
–AB
*** I do like that phrase though.. Right up there with ’gamboling‘.
You might not carry training manuals in the field, but didn’t we capture several training camps in Afghanistan and Iraq? I doesn’t seem unreasonable to assume there would be written training material in training camps.
Sure.. In training camps you’d expect training manuals.. and Afghanistan was a haven for terrorists and supported their training..
Something tells me the answer lies somewhere between the conclusion that al Qaeda is either clever or inept.
I wasn’t too fond of AI’s likening Guatanamo to a gulag. It has led to another thing of which I am not fond: arguing about the report instead of the issue. In another post here, on the topic of the filibuster, the author of the blog asserted that the focus in that debate should be on the qualifications of the individual. That resonated because of what I chose to write about on the issue; namely the appointment of C. Everett Koop as Surgeon General. He was, I opined, “a persuasive argument that perceived ideology shouldn’t weigh too heavily in confirming appointments”.
Of course I went on to say that I was not as hopeful about the current appointees under debate, but in truth I can’t be sure because their qualifications are discussed little and always at the top of someone’s lungs.
Being an uninformed, apathetic citizen with an attention span just long enough to catch part of a soundbite, I can’t say whether the potential appointees are as bad as their opposition says. Similary, not having visited Guatanamo, I can’t say what’s gone on there.
But I think, just maybe, that the “hand-wringer of the week” might have applied observation in its survey (unless, of course, they decided to assess the situation via e-mail or by reading blogs). When I hear that news story, I have to assume that the report was based on something.
To be fair, my viewpoint does not include the position that pissing on the Koran (accidental or not) is an OK thing to do because the detainees are “bad guys”. If those “bad guys” were in a federal penitentary and the book being desecrated were the Christian Bible, no one would be defending the action as a “standard feature” of incarceration. And frankly, the distinction between who is threatening me (whether foreign terrorist or domestic serial killer) would be sorta lost on me in the moment.
What I find the most repugnant about the debate is saying this:
First and foremost, torture, abuse, killing, good guys running amok, these are all standard features of war.
while at the same time undoubtedly supporting this:
A memo written by Jay S. Bybee, then head of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, advised White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales that the president had “reasonable factual grounds” to determine that Taliban fighters captured in Afghanistan were not entitled to prisoner of war status.
Something tells me the answer lies somewhere between the conclusion that all negative reports about Guantanamo are lies and all actions at the base have been appropriate. Disregarding the report in its entirety (training manuals or no training manuals) is akin to throwing out the Constitution of the United States because it at one time sanctioned slavery. For which, apparently, it should apologize and pay large fines.
I really have to stop writing things at 4:00 AM….
Should read:
Something tells me the answer lies somewhere between the conclusion that all negative reports about Guantanamo are true and all actions at the base have been appropriate.
B:
That’s a bit like being confident that the solution to an arithmatic problem is somewhere between negative and positive infinity.
Joshua,
I agree that it’s a simplistic statement. That was kinda the point. I find it useless and irresponsible to debate over the truth of the AI report (and I’m talking about the administration here) in lieu of gathering credible evidence (or shock of shocks, ordering an independent inquiry). And asserting that it doesn’t matter (as is done so vociferously in some camps) is beneath contempt. Yes, it is easy to grasp that something’s probably wrong there. So find out the truth and fix it. How’s that for simple?