david bromwich · working the dark side: on the uses of torture · lrb 8 january 2015

8/10/2019 David Bromwich Working the Dark Side: On the Uses of Torture LRB 8 January 2015

1/7

Back to article page

Working the Dark SideDavid Bromwich writes about torture

A week before the release of the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA, a Staten

Island grand jury chose not to return an indictment for the police killing of Eric Garner a

large black man standing on the sidewalk of a street in New York City. The attention of

millions had been transfixed by a video that showed the fatal attempt to arrest Garner.

Looking on wearily as he saw the police approach, Garner told a cop that he was doingnothing wrong, in fact he had just broken up a street fight (which was why the police were

called). They were always harassing him, he said. In the foreground of the image, a cop hung

back from Garner at arms length, then closed in (with an eye on other police at the edge of

the picture); he began to poke Garner, to trick him into a response and occupy his hands

while a second cop surprised him from behind with a choke hold a take-down move he

would later testify he had learned at the academy. There were five of them, and they piled

onto the unresisting Garner as if they were wrestling a steer at a rodeo. The one applying the

choke hold kept it tight while the others pressed Garner face down on the sidewalk. He said I

cant breathe, and repeated it many times before he died as the police were fumbling withhandcuffs. It was this spectacle more than the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson,

Missouri, after a violent altercation that set off the demonstrations which continue in many

American cities to protest against the mistreatment and killing of citizens with impunity.

The Senate Select Committee report on CIA detention and interrogation was published on 9

December; and it seemed part of the same story as the video of Garner. The agency

co-operated minimally with the committee. It had declined, in the words of Senator Dianne

Feinstein, to compel its workforce to appear before the committee. Almost all the

Republicans in Congress, with the distinct exception of John McCain, opposed the

publication of the findings, and their highest card was the absence of testimony by agents. Yet

written materials of sufficient quantity and authority may have a credibility that only the

most reliable of witnesses could claim. The committee staff reviewed more than six million

pages of CIA documents, while also drawing on an earlier CIA inspector generals report. A

wrangle over agency requests for censorship began in February 2013 and was never resolved.

David Bromwich Working the Dark Side: On the Uses of Tortu... http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n01/david-bromwich/working-the-dark...

of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P


2/7

But after the midterm loss of the Democrats Senate majority, Feinstein, as chairman of the

committee, decided to publish the findings before the party of Bush and Cheney could vote to

seal them for ever.

The total report exceeds six thousand pages. We have been shown only the 525-page

summary, but any American can read it, and the director of the CIA, John Brennan, offered

no challenge to the facts. Exactly 119 detainees were held at CIA sites in various countries

from 17 September 2001 to 22 January 2009. It is the first official tally since Michael Hayden,

a CIA director under Bush and Cheney, ordered that no matter how the facts changed the

reported numbers should never climb above 98. Of all who were held and interrogated, 22

per cent were found to be innocent. There was no process for freeing them.

Some of the methods employed were atrocious in ways that are scarcely imaginable. One

prisoner was subjected to forced rectal feeding. Another was chained to a wall for 17 days. A

third, subjected to sensory and sleep deprivation and chained to a concrete floor, died of

hypothermia. The secret programme was placed under the guidance of two former instructorsin resistance to torture, James E. Mitchell and Bruce Jessen. Like the agents they supervised,

Mitchell and Jessen are protected by pseudonyms, but earlier reporting in their case has

made it possible to penetrate the disguise. Their strategy was to reverse engineer the

pedagogic methods of resistance training. Selling themselves to the government as experts on

the psychology of terrorism, they were paid $80 million over the years of the Bush-Cheney

administration when the programme was in force. Occasionally in that period, the press had

hints of the abuse which it declined to follow up. The Washington Post disclosed the

existence of the torture programme in November 2005. As early as 2002 the New York Times

had a story in preparation about a secret prison in Thailand, but agreed at Cheneys requestnot to publish it. How were the journalists cowed? Termination of the programme,

according to the CIA, would result in loss of life, possibly extensive. The same thing is now

being said about the committee report. No disgrace is deep enough, it seems, to stand up to

the knock-down question: will it be good for America if people learn the truth?

The US national security state is the lengthened shadow of Dick Cheney. He made himself a

master of the levers of government when he was secretary of defence under George H.W.

Bush. His sense of rightful authority will have been confirmed by his regular participation in

the continuity-of-government exercises: a yearly ritual enactment of the governments

response to a national catastrophe, begun in the Reagan years and put aside under Clinton, in

which the lives of important members of the government and military were preserved at a

fortress hideaway, and a design was worked up and executed for a post-constitutional order.

An account of these exercises is given in James Manns excellent Rise of the Vulcans (2004);

a curious detail is that Cheney and his associate Donald Rumsfeld stayed on as participants


of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P


3/7

even when they held no government office.

After the real catastrophe of September 2001, Cheney succeeded in changing Americas idea

of itself. He did it with a tireless diligence of manipulation behind the scenes, commonly

issuing his orders from a bunker underneath the Naval Observatory in Washington. The

element of fear in Cheney is strong: a fact that is often lost in descriptions of him as an

undiluted malignity. His words and actions testify to a personal fear so marked that it could

project and engender collective fear.

Cheney worked hard to eradicate from the minds of Americans the idea that there can be such

a thing as a suspect. Due process of law rests on the acknowledged possibility that a suspect

may be innocent; but, for Cheney, a person interrogated on suspicion of terrorism is a

terrorist. To elaborate a view beyond that point, as he sees it, only involves government in a

wasteful tangle of doubts. Cheney concedes from time to time that mistakes can happen; but

the leading quality of the man is a perfect freedom from remorse. Id do it again in a minute,

he said recently of the plan for the interrogation programme and the secret prisons which theoffice of the vice president vetted and approved.

In a Daily Mail interview concerning details of the programme, Mitchell was prompted to

recall that he saw British agents at some of the CIA black sites. Add his testimony to what is

known of the collaboration between MI6 and the CIA in preparing the ground for regime

change in Libya in 2011 add also the surveillance-sharing agreement by the Five Eyes

partners (Britain, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and the evidence suggests

that Anglo-Saxon democracies in our time have influenced each other chiefly in the cause of

social control and illegal violence. In effecting this rupture of morale, Tony Blair had an

importance second only to Cheney. After 2001, Blairs words carried a weight with

respectable opinion in the US unrivalled by any American politician. His demeanour lent to

the campaign for war a presumption of humility that Cheney could never have supplied. His

pledge of fidelity to the sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty was a

much-needed supplement to the Cheney imperative of working the dark side; and the

combination of Blair and Cheney seems to have relieved George W. Bush of any last residue

of doubt that he was right to set the entire Middle East on the path of war. Two wise and

experienced politicians, so different yet speaking now in a single voice: how could they be

wrong?

Cheney has dogged the Obama administration from its earliest days, and he has continued in

interviews that seek to discredit the committee report. He is a team player to the death, and

the team he plays for is the greatest power. It was Cheneys indifference to any other standard

of right and wrong that made him more than a match for opponents like Senator Patrick

Leahy, the head of the judiciary committee in 2007-8, or Jay Rockefeller, the head of the


of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P


4/7

intelligence committee in those years. Leahy and Rockefeller had their chance to subject him

to investigation when the Democrats became the majority party in 2006. They chose to do

nothing. No Senate hearings of any substance were conducted during the last two years of the

Bush-Cheney administration.

Most of the relevant indications and considerable earlier documentation appeared in

Seymour Hershs Chain of Command (2004), Mark Danners Torture and Truth (2004),

Alfred McCoys A Question of Torture (2006), Jane Mayers The Dark Side (2008), Philippe

Sandss Torture Team (2008) and Barton Gellmans Angler: The Cheney Vice Presidency

(2008). Before Obama became president, he seems to have had some exposure to this

literature. He denounced torture and implied, early on, that the practices fomented by Bush

and Cheney fitted the international definition of torture; yet Obama also told workers at the

CIA, in early 2009, that under no circumstances would they be prosecuted. He paired the

words of responsible acknowledgment with a policy of non-accountability. This show of

forbearance was high-sounding in its way hate the crime, pardon the criminal but if it

makes a generous line to take with vices such as a gambling habit or heavy drinking, the

hands-off resolution seems radically unsuited to crimes such as rape, torture and murder.

Obama was leaving someone like Feinstein to do the investigative work of justice when he

declared his recognition of a crime and in the same breath avowed that he would stand in the

way of its being punished as a crime.

At the very outset of his government, he pulled into the White House an ambiguous figure

from the Bush-Cheney years, John Brennan. As a high official of the CIA under George Tenet,

Brennan had registered a dissenting view of the interrogation techniques in 2001 and 2002,

but took care to do so in a way that would maintain his status. He quit the agency in thesecond term of Bush-Cheney and offered his services to Senator Obama. Brennan was

Obamas first choice to serve as director of the CIA, but in 2009 he was judged a bad fit for

confirmation: his role in the actions of the agency under Tenet was too fresh in the public

mind.

Yet Obama was unwilling to part with an insider so potentially useful in dealing with the CIA,

and he elected to move Brennan inside the national security apparatus of the White House

itself. Brennan took charge of the kill lists for drone strikes which would replace torture as

the technique of choice for the new president. (Bush ordered fifty drone strikes; Obama has

ordered four hundred.) The reliance on a different secret policy and the man he chose to

control it were Obamas signal to the CIA and the armed forces that he, too, was willing to

transgress the boundaries of conventional war.

Brennan has defended the drone strikes in terms as wildly improbable as those Cheney used

in defending the CIA protocols for torture. The CIA, as Cheney tells it, squeezed, smashed,


of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P


5/7

deafened, hounded, shocked and drowned its inmates into giving up truths that assisted the

US effort to fight al-Qaida. Looking back on his time in command of a virtual CIA inside the

White House, Brennan claimed in June 2011 that the drone strikes of the preceding year had

caused not a single collateral death: every missile hit its designated target and nothing else.

Later, slowly, he revised that estimate. In recent days he has also tempered his response to

the Senate committee report whose publication he resisted. Brennan seems to have read it with care (where Cheney boasts of not having read it at all) and the findings have prompted

him to alter the agency explanation that the torture of Hassan Ghul produced the lead that

opened the trail to Bin Laden.

*

The emerging line among the members of the deep state seems to be this. A misguided love

of our country and a justified panic caused many persons between 2001 and 2008

especially, and with decreasing intensity thereafter to do things which if rightly understood

would naturally be forgiven. This was the alibi endorsed in January 2010 by David Margolis,the Justice Department official who reviewed the recommended censure of the torture

memos by the lawyers John Yoo and Jay Bybee and upgraded the evaluation of their actions

from professional misconduct to poor judgment. Like the interrogators who were spared

any penalty, the lawyers who twisted the law were said to have done their best to serve the

president in a time that was hard on everyone.

The promise of impunity that has greeted the lawless conduct of government officials obeys

the ancient maxim fac et excusa . The deeds in fact are free to recur because the excuses are

potentially limitless. We are all patriots Obamas word for CIA interrogators and under

enemy attack, we respond as patriots do. The truth of course is that we know nothing about

the motives of the torturers or the motives of those who wrote up the exculpating rationale for

torture before the fact. Selfless patriotism may be part of it. Sadistic self-indulgence may also

be part of it. Who can say in what proportions they were mixed? A principle such as an

unconditional ban on torture is tested precisely by its observance in a fear-engendering crisis.

If your belief in the principle gradually disintegrates, it was never a solid belief.

There was, in any event, a traceable motive for the brutality of the interrogations apart from

the quest for clues about al-Qaida. The CIA counterterrorism organiser Jose Rodriguez, who

destroyed the torture videotapes and has been effusively praised by Cheney, may have hadmore than one reason for eliminating the record of interrogations. As Sam Husseini noticed

in a commentary for the website Common Dreams , a main purpose of the torture was

achieved whether the things the prisoners said were true or not. Bush and Cheney in early

2002 were hell-bent on a war against Iraq; essential to the case for war was the production of

quotable sentences (truth or lie would do equally well) concerning the links between al-Qaida


of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P


6/7

and Iraq, and the possession of WMD by Iraq. A groan of assent of the relevant kind was

extorted from the prisoner Ibn Shaykh al-Libi, as footnote 857 of the report clearly says.

Additional materials seem to have been drawn from other prisoners, and in that sense the use

of torture was a success. The stainless Colin Powell would cite al-Libis confession in his

presentation to the UN in February 2003.

The record of illegal violence, dissimulation and suppression of evidence runs very deep. The

torture of Abu Zubaydah lasted for weeks; objections by officers who questioned the

procedure were unavailing. (Rodriguez told the disturbed agents to scrub all language about

legality from their communications.) And the programme seems to have thoroughly

penetrated the culture of the spy agency. In April this year, Brennan was told by the new

head of counterterrorism that more than two hundred people still working for the agency

were at one time involved in the detention and torture programme. To dispose of even a

quarter of those agents would be a significant purge. This has been suggested to Obama by

Senator Mark Udall, but Obama can be relied on not to do it, for reasons that are tactical,

politic and implicit in his decision to grant all agents immunity.

So a conspiracy of silence to muffle the crimes of the past now encompasses members of two

administrations not least because of the continuity between them. Much of Brennans

utility to Obama came from his status as an insider to the torture arrangements. If Obama

called in Brennan the former agent in large part to protect himself from the agency, Brennan

on his side must have been wary of still-active agents. There were things they could divulge

about him if they chose. The silence regarding torture until now was a predictable

consequence of this web of mutual fears. As for the posture of Obama toward the contents of

the report, it has been fairly consistent. He acted so as to be able to tell the intelligencecommunity that he had done the most he could to slow down its release and muffle its

impact. At the same time, he could tell his own party that he did his best, after all, to assure

its publication in some fashion.

Apologists for torture come in two sorts. There are the contingent defenders (We were beside

ourselves in a time of emergency; understand us and forgive us!). And there are the

unabashed (War is hell and we play by the rules of hell). A whole subset of the argument on

torture has asked whether it works whether any confession extracted by such means can

supply a useful lead or serve as reliable evidence at a trial. With the same propriety, one

might ask whether slavery works. It is said that people have always tortured. Indeed they

have, and so, too, have people always had an appetite for slavery. But the judgment of slavery

in the 21st century is very different from what it was in the 19th; and before 2001, the same

had come to be true of torture: it was understood as an atrocious practice which no one

should defend and no one should want to get away with. This was the recent heritage that


of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P


7/7

Bush and Cheney tore to shreds.

The object of torture is a slave as long as the infliction lasts; a slave has no recourse against

torture so long as the master chooses to inflict it. To suppose that slavery is a matter of

ownership is a half-truth that misses the political basis of the oppression. The evil consists in

the ability to dominate other persons without check, the ability to do with them what you will,

armed with assurance of impunity. Such a custom of acquittal or habit of non-accountability

may have broad consequences in the treatment by the state of its own people the treatment,

for example, of a large black man on the streets of New York by a huddle of police who are

determined to subdue him. The suspect becomes a rightless subject and not a person who

bears the inalienable rights of a citizen.

Vol. 37 No. 1 8 January 2015 David Bromwich Working the Dark Side

pages 15-16 | 3289 words

ISSN 0260-9592 Copyright LRB Limited 2014 ^ Top


of 7 12/27/14, 12:14 P

david bromwich · working the dark side: on the uses of torture · lrb 8 january 2015

Documents