Matthew Alexander – an experienced military interrogator (he was part of the team that tracked down Zarqawi in Iraq using non-torture based interrogations) – subjected himself to waterboarding reading Marc Thiessen’s book defending the utility of torture and other Bush administration perfidy.  Now that that bit of unpleasantness is through with, Matthew Alexander has a question:

My gut reaction on reading Marc Thiessen’s new book, Courting Disaster, was: “Why is a speechwriter who’s never served in the military or intelligence community acting as an expert on interrogation and national security?”

Here’s an even better question:

Why would one of the nation’s leading newspapers (at least in theory) treat said speechwriter as an expert on interrogation and national security?

Alexander continues:

Certainly, everyone is entitled to a voice in the debate over the lawfulness and efficacy of President Bush’s abusive interrogation program, regardless of qualifications. But if you’re not an expert on a subject, shouldn’t you interview experts before expressing an opinion? Instead, Thiessen relies solely on the opinions of the CIA interrogators who used torture and abuse and are thus most vulnerable to prosecution for war crimes. That makes his book less a serious discussion of interrogation policy than a literary defense of war criminals. Nowhere in this book will you find the opinions of experienced military interrogators who successfully interrogated Islamic extremists. Not once does he cite Army Doctrine—which warns of the negative consequences of torture and abuse. Courting Disaster is nothing more than the defense’s opening statement in a war crimes trial.

While many of Thiessen’s opinions are appalling from a moral perspective (he justifies torture and abuse through the religious writings of St. Thomas Aquinas), the book is comprised of errors, omissions, and a whopping dose of fear-mongering. I’ll concentrate here on his worst misstatements and why his conclusions ultimately make us less safe.

Despite the self-imposed limitations on Alexander’s review, the piece is still bursting at the seams with the stupid that Alexander dutifully goes about dismantling with some ease.  Perhaps “dismantling” is the wrong word in that it connotes a preceding construction of some heft.  This exercise better resembles breathing lightly on a tissue paper barrier and watching it sail away.  At least, if the tissue paper were concealing heinous and barbaric war crimes.

Here’s a taste:

Thiessen promulgates a theory that Islamic extremists are uniquely deserving of torture because they are doctrinally obligated to resist cooperating, after which they may disclose information.

Got it.  So, the standard is: It’s OK to torture suspects because the guilty in their midst are trained or obligated to resist.  But why stop there? What if the detainee isn’t (potentially) doctrinally obligated, but just really, really good at resisting (or just doesn’t know the desired answers, which could look the same)? 

Even if we stick to Thiessen’s more “humanitarian” standard, do any other groups/religions/organizations embrace such a code of resistance?  Why, yes in fact:

Of course this isn’t unique to Islamic extremists. The U.S. military’s own Code of Conduct and the resistance training given American soldiers impose the exact same requirements. Article V, pertaining to interrogations states: I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability.

F*cking moran. 

Oh, and Heckuva Job Fred Hiatt!  You could have at least hired the smart Thiessen.

Advertisement