News Clips - Retired Military Leaders Speak Out Against Torture in South Carolina and Florida

<<Back to Human Rights First

Sticks and stones can break their bones, but in torture debate words are key

Panel of retired military leaders discusses use of torture by the U.S. government

January 28, 2008

By Felicite Fallon

Whether the question is posed to prospective attorney generals, presidential hopefuls or Jack Bauer on 24, the issue of the use of torture by the government as a means of obtaining information is a question generating heated national debate. A panel of retired military leaders convened Wednesday, Jan. 23 in Broad Lecture Hall in Claude Pepper Center to discuss the issue of torture as an interrogation technique.

The panel was the second in a series of lectures titled "Human Rights and National Security in the 21st century," which is sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Human Rights and Human Rights First, a non-partisan international human rights organization.

The three panelists, Lt. Gen. Harry E. Soyster (USA), Maj. Gen. Fred E. Haynes (USMC) and Brig. Gen. David R. Irvine (USA) spoke for a group of 40 retired generals and admirals working to ensure that U.S. policy in terms of prisoner treatment upholds the standards of the Geneva Convention.

Soyster, who served as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency during Operation Desert Shield/Storm, outlined the fundamental stance of their coalition in regard to torture.

"We think its wrong," he said. "We think it's immoral to torture, and we think it's against the treaties that we've been a part of. We have a fundamental belief that the United States of America is a country above torture. We also think that it is not effective, that the enhanced techniques that amount to torture do not get reliable information that then can be converted into actionable intelligence."

"Enhanced techniques" refers to interrogation techniques, like water boarding, sleep deprivation and prolonged exposure to extreme temperatures, which are no longer considered torture but which still cause physiological and psychological pain. Torture refers only to interrogation techniques that result in organ failure or systems failure or death. This semantic issue is of central importance in the debate for Irvine, who taught prisoner of war interrogation and military law for 18 years with the Sixth U.S. Army Intelligence School.

"Words are very important," Irvine said. "Words frame this debate. As we have begun to engage in a national discussion of this significant issue, the words that our leaders use are extremely important. They can change the nature of the debate. No one favors torture. That's a bad word. We talk about 'enhanced interrogation techniques.' We mask what we do with the words that we use."

Their appearance at Florida State University coincides with the Florida presidential primary, which will be held Jan. 29. According to Soyster, this group has convinced all the Democratic presidential hopefuls and two of the Republican hopefuls to endorse their position. For Soyster, the issue of the use of torture is important in this upcoming election because it reflects America's identity as a nation.

"These techniques, our standards and values, they're about us," he said. "They're not about what the enemy may use against us; they're about who we are as a nation and as a people as to the standards that we would set. Those standards allow aggressive techniques, but within the bounds of humane treatment."

Even though torture is not allowed to be used by the military, allowing the CIA and other agencies to use torture can still be damaging for the military, said Irvine.

"As we talk about enhancing and preserving the security of our troops, this double standard is a severe undermining of our troops' security and protection in the event they become prisoners," Irvine said. "We've been in this business for a long time. We will very likely be required to combat enemies for who knows how many generations in the future. What we do today makes law for tomorrow. So we want to be sure that we're not giving up the position from which we have been able, so effectively, to lead the world in improving the treatment of prisoners of war."

Irvine also pointed out that the use of torture can make new enemies for America by alienating suspects or even driving them to cooperate with the enemy.

"If we brutalize them, we have given our enemies a built-in recruiting tool that they would not otherwise have had," Irvine said. "And so how I treat this person with whom I'm talking is a really big deal."

Fundamentally, however, Irvine, Soyster, Haynes and the coalition of generals they represent believe that torture is neither necessary nor effective, and that good interrogation tactics can get better and more reliable information merely by utilizing their understanding of human psychology.

"We're not dealing with a race of supermen in this current conflict," Irvine said. "These are people like anyone else, and a great many of them are as susceptible to psychological manipulation as the rest of us are. We all have egos.We all have various needs that we want to have fulfilled, and we like to feel important. We don't want to be marginalized or minimized. Interrogators can play on this very effectively and very successfully."

Haynes, a combat veteran of World War II, Korea and Vietnam, spoke about the role of authority figures in providing a model of conduct for all to follow, a point with which Irvine agreed.

"When General Haynes talks word coming down from the top and filtering throughout the ranks, that's really true," Irvine said. "Words are so significant, and words from the commander in chief can give soldiers cause to do harm, or the courage to do what's right."