Saturday, May 16, 2009

Al Qaeda and the Deprogramming Dilemma



Most are aware of the CIA interrogation debate involving treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay that is sweeping the United States media. It seems apparent that the conflict is not going to rise above partisan politics, and maybe people should not have expected it would! There is little likelihood of any substantive discussions about what interrogation is for, why people do it, and what interrogation is supposed to produce.

Interrogation is supposed to produce information through cooperative exchange with the party being questioned!

Consider the photograph on the right - Seem like a reasonably nice bunch of hippie kids. Even today you see people like that at 'Phish' concerts wearing their parents hand-me-downs. Let's say for argument, you had reason to believe they had been involved in a violent criminal act, and you needed to interrogate them. How would you go about it? - Sleep deprivation? Waterboarding?

In the event you weren't tipped off by the well-known face in front, Lynnette "Squeaky" Fromme, this is a photograph of the Charles Manson Family, whose members were involved in the Labianca-Tate murders. Maybe they aren't such a nice bunch of kids after all!

The Charles Manson Family, as it was called, was a "Revelation" cult with beliefs built on a violently distorted interpretation of the Book of Revelation of the Bible - Check this linked text for details. Charles Manson, the leader of this cult, is considered one of modern histories more notable psychopathic madmen. He probably has more in common with Usama Bin Laden, the figurehead of Al Qaeda, than most in Western society would tend to believe, in spite of the fact that they came from dramatically different backgrounds.

This leads back to the question -
If we were to interrogate members of the Manson Family, in the course of a criminal investigation, how would we go about it? Would we keep them naked in cells, would we take their Bibles and toss these in the toilet? Not only would this be in violation of Federal laws, and international covenants, it is unlikely this would produce reliable information! Most importantly, abuse would probably have the effect of reinforcing their distorted beliefs, as the mistreatment became interwoven with cult-based conspiracy theories, and used as divine justification for criminal actions. In the case of the Manson Family, we probably would have tried to separate those involved as decision makers from the participants on the fringes, and attempt to find some way of connecting with the latter, or deprogram them. Once removed from the cult mindset and milieu, no longer under Manson's influence, they probably would have been delighted to cooperate with authorities.

Not only is abuse of detainees illegal and immoral, it does not produce cooperation or reliable intelligence!

Torture is most effective when you wish the subject to accept your view of reality, and interpretation of events independently of the truth. This was the primary result of torture used during the Spanish Inquisition. The techniques used at Guantanamo Bay would have been just as effective in producing statements that the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy of the Government of Iceland, as they were in trying to support the flawed contention that these attacks somehow involved Iraq and Saddam Hussein.


The Saudi government, usually known for it's harsh edicts and punishment of criminals, has recognized this in their Al Qaeda related intelligence efforts, and treatment of arrestees. The Saudi approach is built on the insight that the most effective strategy for countering faith-based terrorism involves removing participants from the cult mindset.


The United States has been very supportive of Saudi counter-terrorism efforts under former President Bush, and it is safe to assume that this support will continue under President Barack Obama. It may turn out in the end that our interrogation of detainees was not simply immoral or unproductive. At a deeper level, without a strong foundation in Muslim theology within our intelligence and law enforcement communities, we may not have had the capacity to conduct effective interrogations in the first place.

For some background you might wish to read these blog posts - "Where is Usama Bin Laden Anyway"?, and "The Extremist Mentality in Islam".





Saturday, May 2, 2009

Who Killed Rafik Hariri?


As followers of international affairs would know, Rafik Hariri, Prime Minister of Lebanon, was assassinated in a massive explosion in 2005. This event shook Lebanese society severely, and at the time, suspicion was aimed at Syria, and Syrian government agents, as being both motivators and participants in this murder.

S
yria has been meddling in Lebanese affairs for a number of years, and it is natural that suspicion would fall on them!

Many in Lebanon felt then, and believe today that this event was a Syrian conspiracy. They would know, wouldn't they?
They were there when it happened. My personal feeling is that the Syrian government is unlikely to have been behind Hariri's killing. They never had any real motive, or certainly not one that would overcome the liability of a major disruption in Lebanese society, a disruption that eventually resulted in the expulsion of their forces.

It is interesting to look at events in our own nation that could provide insights in to the Lebanese response. I am referring to the attack on the World Trade Center in 2001 by a group of Fundamentalist Sunni fanatics. At the time, many in our government were convinced that Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government must somehow have been involved. In retrospect this was almost certainly not true, and even
obviously unlikely to many Americans. Most contradictory, Usama Bin Laden's involvement was well known, and Iraq under Saddam Hussein was not in any way welcoming to Muslim extremists. This aside, our government was so convinced of Iraqi involvement that it motivated military engagement of Iraq.

The tendency to blame a nation's historical enemy for society-shaking attacks such as the Hariri killing, or World Trade Center attack of 2001, is common in history, and often unjustified.

The Reichstag Fire, a key event in the years leading to WWII, was blamed at the time by the emerging Nazis as a conspiracy of German communists. In retrospect, many suspect it was the Nazis themselves who set this fire. The Assassination of Arch Duke Ferdinand by Serbian nationalists in 1914 may, or may not have involved agents of the Serbian government. This made little difference to European leaders, who considered it a pretext for World War. More recently there is the Terrorist Attack at Mumbai, blamed by many in India on their historical foe Pakistan. It is unlikely there was any Pakistani government involvement.

Who was responsible for Hariri's killing then? This remains an open question. It may not have been a major conspiracy at all, and might only have involved a few participants. The size of the explosion
does not dictate the size of the conspiracy! This is an important lesson from the Murrah Federal Building Bombing in Oklahoma City.

To me, some of the circumstances surrounding the Hariri attack seem reflective of our own Oklahoma City bombing. One might do well to take a closer look
within Lebanese society for suspects, rather than blame this event automatically on external foes. There are numerous extremist factions within Lebanon who could have been responsible. As a nation, Lebanon has been in a recurring state of civil unrest for decades.

There is, of course, the question of Hezbollah. Could they have been involved? They have the means, and certainly seem to have benefited from the resulting instability. It is important to remember, however, there are credible scholars of history who take the position the Nazis had
no involvement in the burning of the German Reichstag building - It was nothing but a very fortunate event for them. This certainly could be the case with Hezbollah.