The Coalition of Courage

I’m an unlikely member of the human rights community, having spent my entire career in the military.  Yet, for the past year and a half, I’ve been dedicated to two causes: advocating against torture and abuse as interrogation methods and proposing improvements to the legal, noncoercive techniques in the Army Field Manual.  My journey has been marked with both successes and defeats.

Shortly after the release of my book, How to Break a Terrorist, and my initial Op-Ed in the Washington Post ("I’m Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq"), President Obama, on his second day in office, signed an Executive Order banning torture.  I heard the announcement on the radio while driving on the George Washington Parkway, most appropriate given that General George Washington, during the Revolutionary War, was the original American advocate against torture.

But the road did not end with the Executive Order, and I’ve yet to be convinced that we do not abuse detainees.  There still exists the Army Field Manual’s Appendix M, which allows for indefinite solitary confinement and sleep deprivation, both of which are inconsistent with the minimum standard of humane treatment per the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Geneva Conventions, and US Law.  I’ve also been troubled by the Administration’s decision not to pursue accountability for the policy of torture and abuse, a decision which debased the argument to one of a policy decision versus a legal or moral one.  A lack of accountability for torture is perhaps the most accurate predictor that a country will torture again.

The arguments that I have made against torture have fallen into three broad categories: efficacy, legal, and moral.  Regarding the first, the long term costs of using torture will always outweigh short term gains.  I back my argument with first-hand experience supervising the interrogations of foreign fighters in Iraq who consistently stated that they came there to fight because of our policy of torture and abuse.  Those foreign fighters killed American soldiers, thus proving that torture is counterproductive to our objectives.

I also shared numerous stories of how my team of interrogators used noncoercive techniques to great success, convincing even the most hardened terrorists to cooperate.  Audiences were surprised to learn that in my experience, those described as the most ‘hardcore’ members of Al Qaida were often the easiest to interrogate.  They were recruited based on emotional approaches and it was emotional approaches that proved to be effective against them.  Compassion was one of our most expedient weapons.

In addition, I’ve written about the need to improve our interrogation techniques by using a multidisciplinary approach, adopting law enforcement methods and principles from other fields such as social science, psychology, sales, compliance theory, and global negotiations.  I created a website, InterrogationsCentral.com, the first central depository of interrogation information to map out where we’ve been and where we need to go.

Efficacy, however, should never be the basis for our decisions about interrogation methods or any other combat tactic.  Chemical weapons are extremely effective, but the infantry doesn’t use them because of legal and moral boundaries.

The legal arguments against torture are also convincing.  US and international law are absolutely clear in forbidding torture;  as a former military criminal investigator I was shocked at how direct violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) were ignored by the highest echelons of the military as well as military investigators.  Every member of the military has been taught during training on the Law of Armed Conflict and Geneva Conventions.  To authorize Enhanced Interrogations Techniques was to corrupt the entire military justice system.  The effects of having done so on our military culture have been articulated by numerous military officers, including the former Dean of the U.S. Military Academy.

My conclusions at the end of this year, however, have steered me more than ever to the moral argument against torture—as the National Religious Campaign Against Torture has so eloquently penned in their slogan, “Torture is a moral issue.”  I’m deeply concerned about an America that values its security more than its principles.  Some of our elected officials have publicly stated that their first responsibility is to protect the American people.  They’d better review their oaths.  Their first responsibility is to the Constitution.

I’ve conducted over sixty television interviews, dozens of speeches at universities, churches, and other venues, authored numerous articles and Op-Eds, and worked with a wide range of organizations, including my colleagues at the Open Society Institute, Human Rights First, Amnesty International, The American Civil Liberties Union, The Center for Victims of Torture, VoteVets, The Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, and many other organizations.  I’ve spoken with dozens of members of Congress and current or former government officials, hundreds of interrogators as well as World War II and Vietnam veterans, and thousands of American citizens.  From these experiences, I have cause for both concern and optimism regarding the future.

First, my concern is that younger generations are going to view national security issues in terms of expediency versus morality.  The rhetoric put forth by the supporters of torture is based on fear-mongering and ignorance, among other misguided opinions.  Behind some of their arguments is prejudice against Muslims and Arabs.  They have been at least partially effective at convincing portions of the American population that security comes before principle.

To counter this, I’ve attempted in my speeches to convey a clear message to the next generation of American leaders, policymakers, and activists: abiding by our principles is our strength and respect for human rights is not only consistent with American values, but is also one of our most effective weapons in countering violent extremism.  By leveraging our principles of freedom, liberty, and justice, and by abiding by the rule of law, we counter our enemy’s ability to call us hypocrites and use such arguments to recruit new members.  This is the long term war we have to win.  Stopping terrorist attacks should not be the focus of our national security strategy.  Our end goal is to stop terrorist recruitment.  We must preserve our principles in the process.  Furthermore, the choice between torture and terror is a false one.  We can abide by our principles and ensure our security.

In contrast, I will continue speaking out against torture.  Many members of the human rights community have experienced frustration in recent years over the issues of accountability for torture, detention policies, extraordinary rendition, and the persecution of whistle-blowers.  These are legitimate causes of concern, but one need only look at the sheer diversity of individuals involved in the anti-torture movement to find the fortitude to press on.

I’ve worked with thousands of brave citizens who have spoken out against torture and inspired others to do so.  They have come together in what I call the "Coalition of Courage." It includes military veterans, journalists, academics, medical professionals, religious leaders, lawyers, human rights activists, authors, government officials, politicians, and, most importantly, every day citizens.  When I reflect back on this journey, what I will remember most is the individuals who joined together to stand up for the very principles upon which our country was founded.  And the result, hopefully, is that future generations will understand that torture is always wrong.