Los Angeles Times

Avoiding the torture trap

Faulty informatio­n obtained by torture can have deadly consequenc­es.

- By David Abramowitz David Abramowitz served as chief Democratic counsel to the House Committee on Foreign Affairs from 1999 to 2009 and is vice president for policy and government relations at Humanity United.

The Senate will soon consider an amendment by Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Dianne Feinstein (DCalif.) that would prevent torture from being used during interrogat­ion by any U.S. personnel. This amendment stems in part from the release in December of the Senate’s report on CIA torture, which stirred an intense debate about the efficacy of this method — particular­ly whether informatio­n sought from suspected terrorists could be gleaned using other sources or techniques.

Less attention has been paid to the risks posed by fabricated informatio­n obtained via torture. The Senate’s report detailed two cases in which suspects tortured by the CIA sent agents down false trails.

And I have personal experience with this problem. I remain haunted by one instance when fabricated informatio­n helped lead to the deaths of thousands of Americans.

Although the informatio­n came from a rendition case in which the United States transferre­d a detainee to a foreign country (reportedly Egypt), the episode is a cautionary tale for why U.S. policymake­rs should never allow torture nor rely on informatio­n acquired from it.

In 2002, I was the chief counsel for the Democratic members of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. At the time, the committee was considerin­g legislatio­n authorizin­g the use of force against Iraq. The central justificat­ion raised by the George W. Bush administra­tion revolved around Iraq’s suspected and continued possession of weapons of mass destructio­n.

In the fall of 2002, the committee received a briefing on Iraq from the intelligen­ce community. I remember thinking that almost all of the details presented to us by the Bush administra­tion were old and familiar. It was concerning but not alarming. In fact, I felt a growing sense that there was no new informatio­n to suggest that Iraq was a real threat, and certainly not one that could justify U.S. military action.

Then the CIA briefer dropped a bombshell. With the great confidence that was this briefer’s hallmark, he stated that Iraq had provided chemical and biological weapons training to Al Qaeda members.

I remember the jarring impact of this revelation. I thought to myself that if we knew that, perhaps there was even more informatio­n we didn’t know, including a possible transfer of such weapons to Al Qaeda. I looked over to one of the senior staffers who shared my reaction: This was serious.

I had attended hundreds of briefings in my 10 years of working on Capitol Hill, but very few resulted in such an immediate change in my thinking or had such an emotional impact. Until that day, I had been dubious that the regime of Saddam Hussein would cooperate in any meaningful way with jihadists. Afterward, when lawmakers or staffers asked me about my own view, I would point to this intelligen­ce as an important considerat­ion. And I believe that lawmakers very much took the CIA briefer’s dramatic revelation into account when deciding whether to vote to use military force against Iraq.

We now know that this informatio­n was obtained from a single source. According to the New York Times, the individual, Ibn alShaykh al-Libi, was captured in Pakistan, transferre­d to a military base in Afghanista­n and then rendered to authoritie­s in Egypt, where he claims he was tortured. Indeed, even at the time, his statements on Iraq were disputed within the intelligen­ce community, and the Senate report on prewar intel- ligence indicates that no corroborat­ing evidence was ever found. Once back in U.S. custody, Libi recanted his statements, and the CIA withdrew intelligen­ce based on these remarks.

I am not writing to re-litigate the reasons we went to war with Iraq. And I recognize that this informatio­n was coerced by a foreign intelligen­ce service, not by the CIA.

But we need to remember that nearly 4,500 U.S. service members lost their lives in a conflict that was justified, in part, using unreliable informatio­n obtained via torture. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also lost their lives. And we are still dealing with the ramificati­ons of our interventi­on there.

People will continue to debate the value of the informatio­n gained via torture during the Bush administra­tion. What I know for sure, however, is that informatio­n coerced by using torture can lead to not only wasted resources and bad foreign policy decisions but also to tragic consequenc­es, including the loss of life among men and women serving in uniform. We cannot allow that to happen again.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States