August 8, 2006

Ask Amnesty: Interrogators Reject Torture

Twenty former interrogators told Congress last week that torture, abuse and ill-treatment are unnecessary to win the U.S.-led "war on terror." Join us Tuesday, August 8th from 1:00-2:00 p.m. EDT for an online discussion with former Army interrogator Peter Bauer.

We'll talk about why former interrogators with experience ranging from the Vietnam era to Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, and Iraq signed a statement declaring that abuse won't work for gathering intelligence.

Featured Guest: Peter Bauer

From our featured guest: "I look forward to speaking to you on the 8th."

---

Question Submitted by James:

What about the President's "signing statement" claiming exemptions from the McCain antitorture bill?

Peter Bauer answers:

Our hope is that when the Administration realizes that trained and skilled interrogators do not require such techniques, that the techniques will no longer be authorized.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Xyra:

Why do you think torture remains an acceptable means of gathering information? Are all humans capable of torturing another, when authority figures free them of direct responsibility for their actions? I am ashamed to be part of a species that seems predisposed to such practices – while also being somewhat entertained by them!

Peter Bauer answers:

People who believe that torture is an acceptable intelligence-gathering tool are not trained and skilled interrogators.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Chris:

WHAT ARE SOME OTHER PRAGMATIC REASONS (that would appeal to soldiers and military officers & politicians and voters, especially hawks) NOT to torture, or to violate international standards concerning interrogation and the treatment of prisoners/detainees/ material witnesses, or whatever else they may be called?

Peter Bauer answers:

Let me refer you to the exact wording of the Statement on Interrogation Practices: “Prisoner/detainee abuse and torture are to be avoided at all costs, in part because they can degrade the intelligence collection effort by interfering with a skilled interrogator's efforts to establish rapport with the subject.” I can’t imagine a more compelling reason than “it hurts the intelligence-gathering mission.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by B.J.:

To Whom It May Concern: The country of which I was (at one time) proud to be a citizen did not torture captives, prisoners of war, enemy combatants, or anyone else. I want the limits on "interrigation" made very clear and, signing statements notwithstanding, a policy of NO TORTURE at all at any time!! Thank you. Sincerely, B.J.Ballantyne

Peter Bauer answers:

B.J., please take a closer look at the history of the United States. You’ll find that we have not always worn the “white hats” in our past. Remember that the US government intentionally spread small pox among Native Americans (biological warfare), has supported Third World dictators, was relatively late to ban slavery, and didn’t enact the Civil Rights Act until 1964. I’d like to live in a nation that upholds the highest standards, but that would be “in the future” rather than “at one time.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by robin:

Can you comment on the participation of medical personnel in the abuse of prisoners?

Peter Bauer answers:

No, I cannot comment on that issue because I do not have first-hand information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by ernest:

IF TORTURE IS PERFORMED ON PEOPLE, IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THEY WOULD SAY ANYTHING TO KEEP FROM HAVING THE TORTURE CONTINUE. PEOPLE WHO ARE INNOCENT HAVE CONFESSED TO CRIMES THEY DIDN'T COMMIT OUT OF FEAR. WHY IS THIS BEING ALLOWED?

Peter Bauer answers:

The practical problem with torture, not from a legal or moral perspective but from an intelligence-gathering perspective only, is that you don’t know whether the source is telling the truth or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by William:

The issue shouldn't be whether or not torture is necessary....It's just plain wrong. And it's disgusting that the U.S. which has tortured for decades and taught other how to do it has now elevated torture to an instrument of our policy. And further, that there is so little outrage...I'm deeply ashamed.

Peter Bauer answers:

Again, William, I am not an authority on “just plain wrong,” but I am an expert on “interrogation.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Willard:

Interrogating people for timely information is important. Were you taught or exposed to the work of Major Sherwood F. Moran, who successfully interrogated Japanese POWs? He was nice to them! If you weren't exposed to his methodology, why not? The URL for this page is http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200506/budiansky or google: Stephen Budiansky's home page

Peter Bauer answers:

Moran’s experience in WW II generally holds true today: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. But make no mistake about it, when a skilled and trained interrogator employs them, the less-friendly interrogation techniques (short of abuse) they do have a place in the intelligence-gathering process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Elizabeth:

Personally, I am not sure whether I am against torture or not. I would like to say I am against torture, but what about the "ticking-bomb scenario"? What if officials had detained a terrorist who knew the location of a bomb about to explode in New York City? Would you use torture or not? Why?

Peter Bauer answers:

Ah! I’m glad you mention the “ticking bomb” scenario. First, there has not been to my knowledge any actual example of a terrorist or criminal being questioned – in real life, we’re not talking about TV or the movies – with all the marbles on the table. There was an incident in Frankfurt, Germany, some years ago involving a kidnapped child, but that went horribly wrong; the child was already dead, and a good police official who made a mistake in judgment paid the price.

But think practically about the “ticking bomb” scenario. First, we would have to know a bomb was planted (how would we find out?), then we would have to have in custody someone who knew about the bomb (how would we know that he/she knew?). Perhaps someone, for the sake of argument, called a media outlet to say a bomb had been planted and you (or your Congressperson) were standing right there and heard the call. Now what? Do you know how to torture? Does your Congressperson? Do you even know what questions to ask and in what order? Perhaps a trained police detective would know what questions to ask and in what order, but would he/she actually have to resort to torture to get answers? No trained and experienced interrogator or investigator would START with torture. Instead, an approach would be run, perhaps along the lines of “Do you realize what you’re doing? The last time somebody committed a major act of terrorism in the United States, it started two wars (which are still going on today), that have killed far more innocent civilians in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere than died in New York and Washington. Is THAT what you want? More of your people killed? More bombs to fall on the heads of your neighbors and relatives?” That approach is just one of many available to a trained and skilled interrogator or police questioner in a hypothetical “ticking bomb” scenario. Do I think such an approach would be successful? Yes – it certainly would have a better chance of success that torture.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Betiana:

How should soldiers resist using torture or abuse methods on prisioners in light of the differences of opinion on the matter between the US Congress and Attorney General Gonzalez?

Peter Bauer answers:

Members of the military are bound by Army Regulation 190-8 (which applies to all members of the Armed Forces), which says:
“All prisoners will receive humane treatment without regard to race, nationality, religion, political opinion, sex, or other criteria. The following acts are prohibited: murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation, the taking of hostages, sensory deprivation, collective punishments, execution without trial by proper authority, and all
cruel and degrading treatment.”
--AR 190-8, paragraph 1-5(b)
(The similarity to Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions is not a coincidence.)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Cranston Knight:

After all that the French went though during the years that they were at war in Algeria, in which they used torture, and gathered very little information, why is that we did not learn from their experence? Torture does not wind wars.

Peter Bauer answers:

There are many examples from which we have not learned, including the French in Algeria and the British treatment of IRA prisoners at the infamous Maze prison. The Maze became a major recruiting tool for the IRA and had to be shut down.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Janine:

What would you say to those who say that the other side tortures our POW's, therefore we have a right to torture theirs?

Peter Bauer answers:

That would be using torture as retribution and punishment, not as an intelligence-gathering technique. Torture is not an effective intelligence-gathering technique.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Marian:

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has asked Congress to define what constitutes a war crime because under the federal War Crimes Act, it is a felony to violate Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions which bans "humiliating and degrading treatment." How should Congress respond to the Attorney General's request, especially if definining war crimes could mean permitting coercive acts, such as sensory deprivation, sexual manipulation and waterboarding, that fit into the category of "torture lite"?

Peter Bauer answers:

I’d like to see Congress quote AR 190-8 to the Attorney General.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jennifer:

What are some of the short-term and long-term effects (psychological, sociological, physical) that interrogators experience during and after their work? The work of torture is unique but are there comparable effects felt by other groups? For example, because of the secrecy and public disapproval of torture, do many interrogators (those who have tortured) suffer from PTSD as Vietnam vets did after exposure to and participation in combat that included gross violence and was found shameful by the US general public?

Peter Bauer answers:

Actually, I recently asked that very question to a psychiatrist with the Veterans Administration. He says that while he’s not come across cases involving interrogators or military guards, some cases of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) do have guilt as one of the underlying problems.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Valerie:

Why have the countries of the UN not taken action against the US for violating the Geneva Convention?

Peter Bauer answers:

That question is outside my area of expertise.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by William DuSold:

Why is the Bush Administration covering up its practices in regards to torture. Are they afraid of congress finding out the truth about their actions in regards to torture and starting impeachment proceedings against the president?

Peter Bauer answers:

Again, not my field.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Toni:

One thing I don't see addressed is the inhumane effect on the abuser-interrogators and their lives? Would you want one of these people living next door? have you given license to people with inordinate aggression, or have you ruined more ethical people's lives? What do you know about this? Thanks.

Peter Bauer answers:

During the interrogator training program at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona, great care is taken to filter out any bullies or sadists. In the full-time military, senior interrogators are generally very careful to observe and evaluate their troops, watching for inappropriate behavior or attitudes toward the sources (prisoners/detainees). I cannot say that the same attitude is uniform among the Reserve and Guard units called to active duty, nor does it seem are the companies hiring civilian contractors so careful.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Canary Burton:

Are there enough ex torturers to make a difference in the Bush attitude?

Peter Bauer answers:

Please do not use the terms “interrogator” and “torturer” interchangeably. That does a great disservice to the many men and women who has served honorably in the military intelligence field.

The letter from the retired JAGs (Judge Advocate Generals, military lawyers) to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary received quite a bit of media attention. It was signed by 20 JAGs. The “Statement on Interrogation Practices” is signed by 20 former interrogators. I hope that the members of Congress to whom the letter was sent, as well as DoD officials, take the Statement seriously.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by William White:

Even in a genuine war, where does it say in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that it's ever legitimate to totally strip another of his rights to protect our own? Ancient barbarities will only assure us of a blind, toothless world.....

Peter Bauer answers:

To the best of my knowledge, it does not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by russ:

I have several questions. With regards to the US, what is the most common form of torture? When using torture, how does the interrogator determine if the information is vaild? What form of interrogation yields the most reliable information. If torture is not needed, then how should the goverment proceed in obtaining information? Can you describe types of torture that might be considered mild to more harmful forms of torture?

Peter Bauer answers:

To quote from the Statement on Interrogation Practices, “Trained and skilled interrogators can accomplish the intelligence gathering mission using only those interrogation techniques found in Army Field Manual 34-52 (1992).”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Tracy:

What information specifically does the US have on these people they are holding, other than being in a specific place at a certain time? Are they combatants of US? Has anyone sued that has been tortured? Why can't this be on mainstream tv, I always have seen it on Sundance channel? How is the American Bar Association doing in getting Bush out of office?

Peter Bauer answers:

The circumstances of capture and evidence against the various detainees varies. I am aware of a number of lawsuits related to detention and abuse while in detention. I am not aware of any effort by the ABA to impeach the President.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Carol:

Since torture, etc. produces no real results except damage or death to a human with "inalienable" rights, is torture then ordered by the sado-masochistic tendencies of the "ruling class" (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney among others)for its own amusement?

Peter Bauer answers:

I hardly believe that any member of the Administration finds torture to be “amusing.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Amy:

Have you noticed anything about how torturers interact with their own children?

Peter Bauer answers:

No.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by joel:

Would you be willing to testitify toward the end of international arrest against the illegitimate government of the United States as it presently stands ( election fraud, Geneva violations, transparently infantile, dangerously mentally ill policies ) ?

Peter Bauer answers:

I would have to say that it seems you and I don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Nancy:

My Grandmother always said that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar! Why isn't that approach used more? Hamas builds schools, digs wells and holds health clinics. People love it! They turn to them in droves! Think what we could have done in Iraq by now with all the money the US has spent on war, prisons and torture, and now they distrust us and hate us enough to form militias to kill soldiers and those who cooperate!

Peter Bauer answers:

I agree with your Grandmother.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Janet Fraser:

This savage country (the USA) will not stop the inhumane and un-necessary beatings, starvings, rapings of children,dogS,hanging from the roof, attacks,sexual humiliation of Iraqi men, women & children! WHY? You might ask...well the reason is that the terrorist bu$h... of the GreatOilParty...the Get Old People party to answer that question. However, everyone knows that this piece of sh-- GETS OFF ON THE PICTURES OF THESE SAVAGE ACTS. HE LIKES TO WATCH THE RAPES OF CHILDREN. WHEN WILL WE THE (USED-TO-BE-PEOPLE) begin the long overdue, revolution in the streets to rid this country of our very own "hitler-and -his-own-gestapo

Peter Bauer answers:

Nothing like a rational, well thought-out, logically-presented piece of reasoning to further your cause!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Cecily:

It is the right and the duty of those in the military to refuse illegal orders. Given the recent Supreme Court ruling wouldn't an interrogator have the right and authority to refuse to torture a suspect if ordered to do so and in fact arrest the person for war crimes that has given him/her the order?

Peter Bauer answers:

A soldier does have the right and obligation to question what is believed to be an illegal order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Harry:

I fully agree that the torture, abuse, and ill-treatment of detainees are not necessary to gather intelligence. I would even go further and say that they are very counterproductive. I would not trust any intelligence gathered that way. Would you agree with that? Given all that, then I have to ask, what in your opinion is the reason that these methods have been used, probably are still being used, and, not only that, but are argued by the Bush Administration to be NECESSARY to gather intelligence? Is it, like the murders and rapes of innocent Iraqui civilians, due only to "a few bad apples?"

Peter Bauer answers:

In my opinion, based on the information I have gathered, the reason that abusive interrogation techniques were requested/approved/implemented is that improperly trained, unskilled interrogators were assigned to perform a mission for which they were not prepared. If the Department of Defense had gathered a couple of dozen of the very best, most experienced interrogators and sent them to Guantanamo Bay prior to the arrival of the prisoners, I don’t think the question of “coercive interrogation” would ever have been raised.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Mark:

What kinds of torture or ill treatment did you observe or participate in during your time as an interrogator? In your experience, what was the highest level of command at which ill treatment/torture was explicitly allowed or encouraged?

Peter Bauer answers:

During my time on active duty (1986-1997, including combat service in the Gulf War) I never saw any instances of mistreatment of a prisoner that were not immediately stopped and punished.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Steven:

How does the US Constitution ( in spirit and law) and your professional ethics allign ( or not) with the actions of 'interrogation'? And in what contexts and through what means can 'humane questioning serve the same purpose?

Peter Bauer answers:

I am not a specialist in Constitutional Law, but I know of nothing in that document, the Geneva Convetions, or any other governing that prohibits the use of the interrogation techniques described in US Army Field Manual 34-52 (1992).
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Nick Bell:

Is there a humane method to extract information from someone who doesn't want to give it?

Peter Bauer answers:

FM 34-52 documents the techniques with which a trained and skilled interrogator can obtain actionable intelligence. Please keep in mind that the Field Manual was not written in a day. It is the product of decades of experience. Terrorists are not the first “hard cases” that American interrogators have faced. Korea, Vietnam, Soviet spies in the years of the Cold War, senior officers of the Iraqi Republican Guard – the techniques that were very successfully used on such prisoners are in FM 34-52.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by mark:

Your comment about the Maze prison becoming a recruitment tool is interesting. Al Qaeda's newly released DVD for recruitment of American Muslims cites "our" use of torture, and in particular, extraordinary rendition, as proof of our evil nature and the need to destroy us.

Peter Bauer answers:

That's the point!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Art:

Have you or will you ever seek counselling help for the time that you served as an interrogator? If so or not so, why or why not?

Peter Bauer answers:

You make the assumption that I need psychological help. That is an unfair assumption and demonstrates a lack of knowledge of both the interrogation field and of me personally.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Joe:

Should those who violate restrictions on torture be tried as war criminals?

Peter Bauer answers:

I am not a lawyer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Stephen:

It has been my impression that it has been widely known for a long time that torture is not a good way to get information. I have come to the conclusion that there are just three reasons for torture, in order of increasing importance: 1. sadism 2. vengeance 3. obtain politically useful statements, even if not true. Any comments on this?

Peter Bauer answers:

I would say:
1. Ignorance of the interrogation field.
2. Attempts to gain confessions.
3. Misguided attempts to deter future behavior.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by rachel:

What is known about the impact of conducting torture for intelligence on the long-term mental health of the torturers?

Peter Bauer answers:

To my knowledge, there has been no such study.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Anne:

It is obvious that torture has been counterproductive in getting information from detainees. So why are authorities in the government advocating its use? Is it to establish a reputation of the US as a "tough guy you don't want to mess with"? Is it more about punishment and vengeance than information?

Peter Bauer answers:

I believe that it’s possible that senior officials have been misled, through the chain of command, by interrogators who don’t have the skills and training to properly interrogate using the techniques in FM 34-52.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Barbara:

When the Geneva conventions and the Nuremberg Tribunal proceedings make it clear that torture is not acceptable and is a war crime or a crime against humanity, depending on the military status of the person being tortured, why would any official or employee of the United States regard it as not only an acceptable but a worthwhile practice?

Peter Bauer answers:

Misinformation from interrogators who can’t do the job properly.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Ruth Gonzalez:

What can the public do to raise awareness on torture and to prevent it?

Peter Bauer answers:

While I am far from an activist or lobbyist, you might want to download a copy of the Statement on Interrogation Practices (and cover letter) and send it to your local newspaper, explaining that it was sent to members of the Congressional committees on the Armed Forces 7/31/06. You local media might want to contact your Congresspeople for a reaction to the Statement.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Linda:

Since president bush Jr. & his administration have APPROVED torture's of innocent people (With real terrorists?)why can't someone powerful enough put a final stop to it once and for all?!There MUST be someone higher than the president's office. They enjoy putting torture on others but would HATE it to be delt on them or a friend/ family member.

Peter Bauer answers:

“Higher than the President’s office”? Are you referring to the First Lady?

Seriously, as cases reach the Supreme Court, I expect we’ll see how well three branches of government really work. The McCain Amendment was certainly a good start.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Rose:

What prompted you to realize the attrocity of military interrogation after all this time?

Peter Bauer answers:

The Statement is not directed to “the atrocity of military interrogation.” When conducted properly, interrogation is not an “atrocity.” I served my nation prod\udly and honorably during an 11-year career, including time in combat.


The timing of the Statement is due to a request from a staffer on the Senate Armed Services committee, who asked me if I would be able to find support among interrogators for statements I had made to him about the interrogation process. That meeting was 7/21 and 10 days later the Statement was released.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Rose:

Is interrogation the only military practice you have committed and is it the only thing you have a problem with?

Peter Bauer answers:

“Committed”? You make military service sound like a crime! I take great pride in my accomplishments during the course of my career – and find that having been an interrogator was not then and is not now something of which I personally should be ashamed. I have no “problem” with my service in uniform.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Amy:

I admire and commend all these men and women for coming forward with this statement. I thank them wholeheartedly in the name of decency as well as national security.

Peter Bauer answers:

Thank you, Amy. And thank you for including “national security.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by John:

I think we are all on the same page, but I don't think King Bush is even on the same book. Do you think it is possible to get Bush to really understand the thousand points of light that he refered to a while back? I'm not so sure of that happening.

Peter Bauer answers:

I believe that President Bush can, in fact, be convinced that trained and skilled interrogators do not require abusive techniques and torture to fight the War on Terror. Hopefully, so too can the Vice President be convinced, although that may be more difficult.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Michael:

How can your views reach our administration forcefully enough to change their abandonment of the principles on which this country was founded?

Peter Bauer answers:

I’m hoping the Senate and House Committees on the Armed Services will make the point.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Flavia:

What if they felt that torture, abuse and ill-treatment were necessary to win the war against terror? Would their reaction be any different? Do they believe torture, abuse and ill-treatment are ever acceptable?

Peter Bauer answers:

The signatories to the Statement on Interrogation Practices represent over 200 years of interrogation service and experience. We do not believe that any techniques beyond FM 34-52 are necessary. We are the subject matter experts and no one outside the field of interrogation should have a say on what techniques are used to gather intelligence in the interrogation booth.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Chuck:

How do we counter those who continue to promote the idea that torture, while distasteful, is sometimes necessary? They always do the "if you could only save the world by torturing someone" scenario. Is it a moral arguement only, a case of intelligence gathering efficiencies, or how about the long term liabilities?

Peter Bauer answers:

Education. Refer them to this on-line discussion.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Brenda:

Hi. Did you feel you ever gathered any real intelligence while interrogating prisoners? How do you feel about the current issues in Guantanamo Bay and there methods of interrogation? Being that you do not believe that abuse will bring out any intelligence from a prisoner, do you feel that abuse is wrong and should not be done at all even as a form of interrogation?

Peter Bauer answers:

Yes, Brenda, I gathered much actionable interrogation during my service as an interrogator. The current interrogation practices at Guantanamo Bay, to the best of my knowledge, now comply with FM 34-52. And please understand that abusive interrogation and torture are not discouraged because they’re not in FM 34-52, it’s our position that FM 34-52 techniques are BETTER than torture. They are more effective in gathering actionable intelligence. Remember that the techniques in FM 34-52 have been developed over decades and put to practice in many wars.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Adrienne:

Recently there have been reports out suggesting that information retrieved through torture provides no reliable information because the detainee will say anything to stop the torture. If this is so and officials know this, why do they continue to torture prisoners? What is a good way to extract accurate information from an unwilling detainee?

Peter Bauer answers:

Untrained and unskilled people serving in interrogation roles cannot effectively implement the doctrinal techniques, so they rely on what they believe to be effective techniques that involve abuse and degradation. Such people should not be permitted to fill interrogator positions.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Deborah:

Why is it that torture techniques do not work with the victims?

Peter Bauer answers:

The source, when abused or tortured may or may not be telling the truth. It’s possible that the source is saying what he or she believes the interrogator wants to hear, whether or not it is the truth, in order to make the abusive behavior stop. Because the interrogator doesn’t know whether the information is true or not, it is not “actionable” – the information is not reliable enough to be used as the basis of plans or operations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by anam:

I understand it was your job, and now your consience and with experience you have come to conclusion that torture is inhumane and illegal and doesn't work. I want to know how are you going to compensate and make things right for your victims. All the horrible thing you and US did to humans like yourself, who are living breathing men like yourself, who have wives, mothers, children and were innocent victims brutalized by the most powerful nation in the world. Does President Bush knwo what they suffered how they suffered and how long the suffering was, What is he willing to do as president and leader of the armed forces who gave permission to torture men so brutally and constantly and still have not given them an apology or their freedom. You do realize that this will be in their minds bodies and memories forever, you do see that you didn't have to obey Bush, you could have went to media or other means and gotten these men out of the living conditions that were forced on them. You do know that you are guilty,and apolizing is no where enough to compensate men and victims of torture anywhere in the world. EVEN IF THEY WERE SUSPECTED OF TERRRISM OR ARE MUSLIMS. i really want you to face this question and give me an answer.I don't understand why BUSH continues to have the torture continue in Guantano or Iraq or anywhere. Sending prisioners to countries where abuse is accepted is really inhumane and unforgiveable.What are you saying and doing for your victims, and their families???Is it really enough, can you face your self in mirror, don't you feel remorse, guilt don't you feel that you could have said "NO" don't you feel you could have stopped and give them life. What can you do for the unfortunate or fortunate victims who died at your hands from the pain and torment of abuse??? I am a american woma nad i am ashamed of US policy, president ,and every thing that was done to the prisioners.I hope they will accept and forgive me for not stopping their suffering. I just read the bio, that you didnot personally impose the abuse but you knew,but i still put blame on you,too since you are as guilty of these practices in your carreer.

Peter Bauer answers:

There are no "victims" of any ac tion I took while serving on active duty. I did not commit any acts in violation of the Geneva Conventions or of Army Regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Hannah:

In your opinion, why don't we hear more aboutcases of torture and campaigns against torture on the news? And why, when people do know about it, do they choose to ignore it?

Peter Bauer answers:

Oh, I'd say there has been PLENTY of coverage of abuse and torture! Front page stuff, big headlines, large pictures....
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Mike Clavet:

I am disturbed of this adminstrations violation of human rights- he is creating an atmosphere of acceptance of abuse.

Peter Bauer answers:

Hey, folks, let's try to stick to the subject -- the Statement on Interrogation Practices as submitted to Congress. Thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Barb:

How can torture ever be justified by civilized society in the year 2006?

Peter Bauer answers:

The "justification" for torture has been that it is necessary to win the War on Terror. The Statement on Interrogation Practices says:
Trained and skilled interrogators can accomplish the intelligence gathering mission using only those interrogation techniques found in Army Field Manual 34-52 (1992).

The cover letter says:
In the Statement you will find that trained and experienced interrogators refute the assertion that so-called "coercive interrogation techniques" and torture are necessary to win the "War on Terror."

We don't believe that torture is justified.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by ARLENE:

I CAN'T HELP BUT WONDER WHY BUSH ISN'T BEING TRIED AS A WAR CRIMINAL. AFTER ALL, HE HAS BEEN FOUND GUILTY ON ALL CHARGES IN TWO TRIBUNALS, TOKOYO AND ISTANBUL AND THE SUPREME COURT HAS SAID IT IS AGAINST THE LAW.

Peter Bauer answers:

I am not an expert on intrnational law, but he is a currently-sitting head of state is he not?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Dimitria:

The governement will not allow the red cross (and other such groups) to talk to the detaines in private. Is this a sign that there is widespread abuse there? Are there any other ways to find out what is realy going on there?

Peter Bauer answers:

I don't believe that detainees are shy about complaining to the Red Cross, whether they are alone or not.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jean Maria Arrigo:

As interrogators opposed to torture, what kind of help, if any, do you want from psychologists in training interrogators? What institutional measures are needed to assure that any training of interrogators is the right sort of training?

Peter Bauer answers:

We believe (collectively) that the training program at Ft. Huachuca is admirable and produces well-trained interrogators. Those interrogators then gain experience under the guidance of the Senior Interrogators in the field. The signatories with whom I have spoken on the subject of training believe that ALL who serve in interrogation positions (military, civilian contractors, employees of government agencies) should be required to pass the Interrogation course at Ft. Huachuca.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Harry:

If, as I strongly suspect, the orders to torture the detainees come from the highest level of our government, from the oval office in the White House, then is not that sufficient grounds by itself, let alone all the lies and other crimes committed by this imposter in the White House, to warrnat the swift and immediate impeachment of the President and Vice-President?

Peter Bauer answers:

That would be a question for the Senate, not for a former interrogator.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Alex:

Is torture necessary to win wars? If yes, then how much and how often should people be tortured? If no, then what should happen to people/nations who torture?

Peter Bauer answers:

From the cover letter of the Statement:

In the Statement you will find that trained and experienced interrogators refute the assertion that so-called "coercive interrogation techniques" and torture are necessary to win the "War on Terror."
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by peno:

so many of the techniques used from git-mo to iraq are sexual in nature---is there no one who could see how such actions undermine the integrity and credibility of america,and her citizens? i am ashamed.

Peter Bauer answers:

Trained and skilled interrogators avoid humiliating the source -- it makes it much more difficult to obtain actionable intelligence because it generally hardens the will and opposition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Melissa:

Do you think that the US will try to hang the guilt on one or two 'agents?' Like the one they have pegged in Afghanistan this week, David Passaro?

Peter Bauer answers:

There have been dozens of trials and hearings in the military, some of which are on-going today.

Passaro was a medic, not a trained interrogator. I don't know why he was hired. I do believe that he should stand trial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Carolee:

Under torture, do people tend to give names of anyone they can think of, just to make the torture stop?

Peter Bauer answers:

I would not use the word "tend," but it has happened.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Betty:

What is your argument against those that claim that forms of torture, however "mild" or "extreme", are a quick way to gather the desired information? Also, what other arguments have you encountered that support torture, and how would an interrogater using such methods sift out the truth from what the victim was only telling them to make the pain stop?

Peter Bauer answers:

The argument against using any form of torture is that it does not produce reliable intelligence -- the interrogator does not know if the information gained is, in fact, the truth as the source knows it, intentionally misleading, or an attempt to end the abuse by saying what the source thinks the interrogator expects to hear.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Jeanne:

Has the interrogator's training been abreviated -in other words, rushed with the result of standards of behavior being disregarded - or in some instances, is there a deliberate disregard for the old rules?

Peter Bauer answers:

To the best of my knowledge, the Army has not shortened the basic interrogation course. I do not know what training the CIA is providing. I do know that the "training" for civilian contractors is either substandard or nonexistent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by c:

Because torture/abuse is counter-productive in gathering intel is the wrong answer. The right reason to ban torture/abuse is because it is wrong.. and takes our civilation in the wrong direction. What the f is the matter with you people, have you not heard of decency??

Peter Bauer answers:

Once again, please understand that I am not a lawyer, not an ethicist, not a theologian. I do not have suitable credentials to address the legality or morality of torture.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Harry:

This is a comment, not a question. I thank you for taking this on. Your answers are very good and reasonable. It is a daunting task to do what you have just done--to face the pent-up questions, animosity, and, yes hatred, toward the Bush Administration that you have tapped into here. You did well. And thank you again!

Peter Bauer answers:

Thanks!
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by John:

What is the length of time a person is held prior to being interrogated? And once the interrogation process starts, how long does it take to determine if the detainee can offer any quality information? When determined to be of no informative value, are they then immediately released?

Peter Bauer answers:

There is no set time to hold a potential source before interrogation. The "screening process" also does not have a set time. If the senior interrogator has five interrogators available for duty and 200 prisoners arrive, the time prior to screening might be long and the screening short. If there are five interrogators available and three prisoners, the reverse is likely to be true.

Release is not likely to be immediate under most circumstances.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by Van:

By what authority, and from what experience does Sec of Defence Don Rumsfeld, Vice Pres Dick Chaney, and current Pres George Bush have to impose torture on of the detainees. Also, what are the legal ramifications for their actions.

Peter Bauer answers:

I cannot address legalities -- not a lawyer, remember?

I believe that the chain of command has passed along the recommendations that stem from using untrained or unskilled interrogators, who are not able to fulfill the intelligence-gathering mission using FM 34-52.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Question Submitted by David:

I can't join you at that time. Will a transcript or summary be available later? DAR

Peter Bauer answers:

I believe this on-line discussion will be made available, but you'd want to check with the Webmaster.

I'm told that we're out of time -- thanks for your questions.
Pete
-----------------------------------------------------------------

ASK AMNESTY Home

The views expressed in the online discussions hosted on this site reflect the views of the discussion guests and do not necessarily reflect those of Amnesty International USA. Amnesty International USA does not necessarily sponsor, endorse, recommend or license content posted by third parties.