DOCSLIB.ORG

The Persistence of Torture: Explaining Coercive Interrogation in America's

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Persistence of Torture: Explaining Coercive Interrogation in America's The Persistence of Torture: Explaining Coercive Interrogation in America’s Small Wars William L. d’Ambruoso A dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University of Washington 2016 Reading Committee: Elizabeth Kier, Chair Jonathan Mercer Jamie Mayerfeld Christopher Adolph Program Authorized to Offer Degree: Political Science 1 ©Copyright 2016 William L. d’Ambruoso 2 University of Washington Abstract The Persistence of Torture: Explaining Coercive Interrogation in America’s Small Wars William L. d’Ambruoso Chair of the Supervisory Committee: Elizabeth Kier, Associate Professor Political Science Why has the United States used torture in small wars over the last hundred-plus years? After all, torture is morally bankrupt, risky, and frequently ineffective as an interrogation method. I argue that the anti-torture norm has two features that can lead to torture. First, because it is difficult to separate torture from milder acts, the norm lacks specificity. This allows practitioners to portray their behavior as something short of torture and redefine torture to exclude their behavior. Second, the anti-torture norm can, paradoxically, encourage torture by attracting those who believe unscrupulous methods confer advantages on those who use them. The two explanations interact as well: torture occurs because actors believe that torture is harsh enough to work, and the definition of torture is blurry enough that actors believe they can sell their methods as legitimate. Through archival and bibliographic research, I confirm these patterns in three different settings: the Philippine-American War (1899-1902), the CIA from its founding to the Vietnam War, and the post-2001 war on terror. 3 Chapter 1: Torture and the Norm against It: Undying Rivals “It is hard to believe that we are sitting here talking about torture.” Washington Post reporter Dana Priest opened with this thought while serving as a panelist at a forum on the United States’ use of torture during the war on terror. CBS News had published pictures of American torture at Abu Ghraib – hooding, use of dogs, death threats, sexual humiliation, and more – earlier that year. Some of the torture memos describing legal justifications for “enhanced interrogation techniques” were now in public hands. Priest and her fellow panelists were calmly and politely discussing, among other gory particulars, the details of different forms of water torture that their country had recently used on terrorist detainees. Other panelists echoed Priest’s sentiment: How odd.1 For torture to make it all the way to the twenty-first century in the United States, it had to be remarkably resilient. Torture survived the intellectual assault from European Enlightenment authors like Baccaria. It had to find a way around the United States’ founding documents, which, with strong influence from European thinkers and experience, expressly prohibited cruel and unusual punishment in the Bill of Rights. Torture persisted despite an absolute prohibition in the American Civil War’s Lieber Code, a forerunner to modern laws of war. It managed to continue beyond the Geneva Conventions from the first half of the twentieth century and the Convention against Torture of 1984. Torture has also endured less legalistic admonishment. The U.S. Government’s own State Department has been a leading whistleblower for torture and other cruel treatment, with such comprehensive reports that scholars have used them to construct torture variables for quantitative analysis.2 “[T]he norm against torture has been thought to be 1 Greenberg 2006, 13-32. 2 For one example among many, see Hathaway 2002. 4 the pre-eminent manifestation of a global commitment to civilized norms.”3 This book examines why torture and the norm against it have persisted in tandem like undying rivals for over a century. Torture and liberalism make especially strange bedfellows. David Luban (2007) argues that most forms of torture, for punishment or humiliation, make no sense in combination with the liberal value of political sovereignty, because the people would be trying to impress themselves with a show of absolute control. Luban believes that the incompatibility between torture for intelligence and liberalism is less fundamental, and he discusses at length why even the promise of limited, rare torture exclusively for intelligence in high-stakes cases would unravel. Luban’s argument understates the case. Even torture for intelligence is essentially illiberal because it treats individuals as means rather than ends. Michael Ignatieff writes that “torture should remain anathema to a liberal democracy and should never be regulated, countenanced, or covertly accepted in a war on terror. For torture, when committed by a state, expresses the state’s ultimate view that human beings are expendable.”4 While liberal states have not tortured as much as their illiberal counterparts, they have done their share. In fact, they have invented their own “liberal” methods. Darius Rejali (2007) explains how international and domestic monitoring of detainee treatment has forced liberal states to develop and perpetuate “stealth torture” methods that leave no trace and help the perpetrator escape detection. Any given “enhanced interrogation” technique from the war on terror is more likely to be a descendent of American slavery or British military punishment than fascist or Communist coercion. These techniques lived on through the twentieth century, in 3 Linklater 2007. See also Foot 2006; Mckeown 2009. 4 Quoted in Lukes 2005. 5 British and French colonies, as well as in American counterinsurgencies and interrogation manuals. The U.S. war on terror brought torture to this century. The war on terror case is particular crucial for arguing that torture has been persistent, because many of the background conditions that carried torture through the twentieth century are no longer in effect. Old-fashioned colonialism is mostly done, and liberal democracies’ rejections of the horrors of torture may have even had a hand in colonialism’s demise.5 The Cold War is over, and with it the counter-revolutionary torture that clandestine U.S. bureaucracies helped to develop and spread. The three main empirical cases of this book – the Philippine- American War (1899-1902), the CIA from its founding to the Vietnam War, and the post-2001 war on terror – correspond with imperialism, the Cold War, and post-Cold War conflict, respectively. My strategy is to extract from these cases the common factors that have allowed torture to persist across the varied contexts. The hypocrisy of liberal torture would not surprise most international relations scholars, especially realists and rational choice theorists that expect states to say and do things in pursuit of self-gain, even if their words and deeds are mutually inconsistent.6 However, there are (at least) five instrumental reasons for avoiding interrogational torture. First, torture is a method for gathering intelligence. Perhaps the most persistent critique of interrogational torture is its flimsy connection to truth: Victims are likely to say anything, including false statements, to stop the suffering.7 I defend the claim that torture is usually an ineffective means of gathering intelligence – a topic that has engendered considerable debate in the popular press since 2001 – in more detail in the Appendix. Second, torture can fuel the enemy’s recruitment efforts, giving 5 Merom 2003. 6 See, for instance, Krasner 1999. 7 This argument is as old as Aristotle, runs through Cicero, St. Augustine, and Beccaria, and continues to be made today. For historical recounts, see Holmes 2007; Langbein 2004. For a recent example, see Soufan 2009. 6 life to terrorist and insurgent groups.8 Third, torture may deter the enemy from surrendering, prolonging wars and causing more casualties on both sides.9 Fourth, torture can produce extreme stress in the interrogator.10 Fifth, torture runs counter to the “hearts and minds” campaigns that many modern counterinsurgency strategists advocate.11 Torture does not easily lend itself to straightforward, utility-maximizing explanations. Why have states persisted in practicing it? More broadly, why would states do something that is both odious and of dubious instrumental value? If the reader buys the foregoing argument that torture for intelligence carries great risks and little promise, then the significance of the puzzle is clear. Torture that doesn’t work has no redeeming ethical qualities, and is therefore a horrendous mistake. Knowing why and how it occurs can hold implications for its eradication. And although the puzzle specifies torture for intelligence, people turn to torture for many reasons – punishment, forced confession, revenge, social control, sadistic glee – but it often begins with superiors’ approval of interrogational torture. Once states approve torture, it is notoriously difficult to regulate.12 Understanding why states approve torture for intelligence can have implications for preventing other types of torture as well. Even a reader that is skeptical of torture’s supposed inefficacy has reason to seek explanations. Liberal states’ use of torture is still puzzling on ideological grounds. Moreover, even if torture reliably yields valuable information, this does not imply that it was chosen for rational reasons. The choice still needs explanation. 8 For one example of this argument, see Alexander 2008. It is possible that torture, if sufficiently widespread, could
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018
    Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law Release Date: April 23, 2018 CERL Report on The Ethics of Interrogation and the Rule of Law I. Introduction On January 25, 2017, President Trump repeated his belief that torture works1 and reaffirmed his commitment to restore the use of harsh interrogation of detainees in American custody.2 That same day, CBS News released a draft Trump administration executive order that would order the Intelligence Community (IC) and Department of Defense (DoD) to review the legality of torture and potentially revise the Army Field Manual to allow harsh interrogations.3 On March 13, 2018, the President nominated Mike Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State, and Gina Haspel to replace Mr. Pompeo as Director of the CIA. Mr. Pompeo has made public statements in support of torture, most notably in response to the Senate Intelligence Committee’s 2014 report on the CIA’s use of torture on post-9/11 detainees,4 though his position appears to have altered somewhat by the time of his confirmation hearing for Director of the CIA, and Ms. Haspel’s history at black site Cat’s Eye in Thailand is controversial, particularly regarding her oversight of the torture of Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri5 as well as her role in the destruction of video tapes documenting the CIA’s use of enhanced interrogation techniques.6 In light of these actions, President Trump appears to be signaling his support for legalizing the Bush-era techniques applied to detainees arrested and interrogated during the war on terror.
    [Show full text]
  • Freedom Or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis
    Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights Volume 3 | Issue 1 Article 4 Spring 2005 Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq Hannibal Travis Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr Recommended Citation Hannibal Travis, Freedom or Theocracy?: Constitutionalism in Afghanistan and Iraq, 3 Nw. J. Int'l Hum. Rts. 1 (2005). http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njihr/vol3/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights by an authorized administrator of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Copyright 2005 Northwestern University School of Law Volume 3 (Spring 2005) Northwestern University Journal of International Human Rights FREEDOM OR THEOCRACY?: CONSTITUTIONALISM IN AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ By Hannibal Travis* “Afghans are victims of the games superpowers once played: their war was once our war, and collectively we bear responsibility.”1 “In the approved version of the [Afghan] constitution, Article 3 was amended to read, ‘In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the beliefs and provisions of the sacred religion of Islam.’ … This very significant clause basically gives the official and nonofficial religious leaders in Afghanistan sway over every action that they might deem contrary to their beliefs, which by extension and within the Afghan cultural context, could be regarded as
    [Show full text]
  • Global War on Terror
    SADAT MACRO 9/14/2009 8:38:06 PM A PRESUMPTION OF GUILT: THE UNLAWFUL ENEMY COMBATANT AND THE U.S. WAR ON TERROR * LEILA NADYA SADAT I. INTRODUCTION Since the advent of the so-called “Global War on Terror,” the United States of America has responded to the crimes carried out on American soil that day by using or threatening to use military force against Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Pakistan. The resulting projection of American military power resulted in the overthrow of two governments – the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, the fate of which remains uncertain, and Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq – and “war talk” ebbs and flows with respect to the other countries on the U.S. government’s “most wanted” list. As I have written elsewhere, the Bush administration employed a legal framework to conduct these military operations that was highly dubious – and hypocritical – arguing, on the one hand, that the United States was on a war footing with terrorists but that, on the other hand, because terrorists are so-called “unlawful enemy combatants,” they were not entitled to the protections of the laws of war as regards their detention and treatment.1 The creation of this euphemistic and novel term – the “unlawful enemy combatant” – has bewitched the media and even distinguished justices of the United States Supreme Court. It has been employed to suggest that the prisoners captured in this “war” are not entitled to “normal” legal protections, but should instead be subjected to a régime d’exception – an extraordinary regime—created de novo by the Executive branch (until it was blessed by Congress in the Military * Henry H.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Hearing: Nomination of Gina Haspel to Be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency
    S. HRG. 115–302 OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF GINA HASPEL TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 30–119 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 VerDate Sep 11 2014 14:25 Aug 20, 2018 Jkt 030925 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 C:\DOCS\30119.TXT SHAUN LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio CHRIS JOYNER, Staff Director MICHAEL CASEY, Minority Staff Director KELSEY STROUD BAILEY, Chief Clerk (II) VerDate Sep 11 2014 14:25 Aug 20, 2018 Jkt 030925 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 5904 Sfmt 5904 C:\DOCS\30119.TXT SHAUN LAP51NQ082 with DISTILLER CONTENTS MAY 9, 2018 OPENING STATEMENTS Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina ................ 1 Warner, Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia ........................ 3 WITNESSES Chambliss, Saxby, former U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................... 1 Amnesty International's Concerns ..................................................................................... 3 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................... 5 Arrests and detentions ........................................................................................................ 7 ISRAEL AND THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES ................................................................ 9 Regulations governing detention ........................................................................................ 9 The Landau Commission and the failure of judicial safeguards ................................. 11 Extending the guidelines or exceptional dispensations? ................................................ 14 Methods of torture ............................................................................................................ 15 Torture and ill-treatment: the practice ............................................................................. 17 THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY .................................................................................... 22 Regulations governing detention ...................................................................................... 22 Arbitrary political detentions in the Gaza Strip ..............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    1 Introduction Intelligence collection is one of the earliest recorded organized human activ- ities, along with war. The earliest writing about intelligence collection dates from the seventh and sixth centuries BCE: Caleb the spy in the Book of Numbers and The Art of War by Sun Tzu. It is striking that two cultures, ancient Hebrew and Chinese, geographically remote from one another and undoubtedly unknown to one another, should both discuss the importance of intelligence collection at roughly the same time in an early part of human history. But the precept is elementary at its core—information confers power. Whoever is best at gathering (and exploiting) relevant information tends to win. In the twenty-fi rst century, the U.S. Intelligencedistribute Community (IC) is premier in its capabilities for doing both. Collection in the IC generally refers to fi ve ordisciplines (or sources): Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), Human Intelligence (HUMINT), Signals Intel- ligence (SIGINT), Geospatial Intelligence (GEOINT), and Measurement and Signature Intelligence (MASINT). A great deal of mystery and myth surrounds the subject of those sources and the capabilities and uses implied. And many popular perceptions are far afi eld from reality. That is why we have written this book. Our intentionpost, is to give readers an approachable but detailed picture of U.S. intelligence collection capabilities. To that end, each chapter follows a similar construct. We discuss the unique origin and history of the INT, or intelligence collection discipline, which is important to under- stand in terms of both its development and how it is used today. We discuss the types of intelligencecopy, issues that each INT is best suited for and those for which it is of little help.
    [Show full text]
  • Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of the Dark Side
    Six Questions for Jane Mayer, Author of The Dark Side By Scott Horton, HARPER’S, July, 2008 In a series of gripping articles, Jane Mayer has chronicled the Bush Administration’s grim and furtive dealings with torture and has exposed both the individuals within the administration who “made it happen” (a group that starts with Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, David Addington), the team of psychologists who put together the palette of techniques, and the Fox television program “24,” which was developed to help sell it to the American public. In a new book, The Dark Side, Mayer puts together the major conclusions from her articles and fills in a number of important gaps. Most significantly, we learn the details on the torture techniques and the drama behind the fierce and lingering struggle within the administration over torture, and we learn that many within the administration recognized the potential criminal accountability they faced over these torture tactics and moved frantically to protect themselves from possible future prosecution. I put six questions to Jane Mayer on the subject of her book, The Dark Side. 1. Reports have circulated for some time that the Red Cross examination of the CIA’s highly coercive interrogation regime—what President Bush likes to call “The Program”—concluded that it was “tantamount to torture.” But you write that the Red Cross categorically described the program as “torture.” The Red Cross is notoriously tight-lipped about its reports, and you do not cite your source or even note that you examined the report. Do you believe that the threat of criminal prosecution drove the Bush Administration’s crafting of the Military Commissions Act? Whether anyone involved in the Bush Administration’s interrogation and detention program will be prosecuted is as much a political question as a legal one.
    [Show full text]
  • The Abu Ghraib Convictions: a Miscarriage of Justice
    Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal Volume 32 Article 4 9-1-2013 The Abu Ghraib Convictions: A Miscarriage of Justice Robert Bejesky Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the Military, War, and Peace Commons Recommended Citation Robert Bejesky, The Abu Ghraib Convictions: A Miscarriage of Justice, 32 Buff. Envtl. L.J. 103 (2013). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.buffalo.edu/bpilj/vol32/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Buffalo Public Interest Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ University at Buffalo School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE ABU GHRAIB CONVICTIONS: A MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE ROBERT BEJESKYt I. INTRODUCTION ..................... ..... 104 II. IRAQI DETENTIONS ...............................107 A. Dragnet Detentions During the Invasion and Occupation of Iraq.........................107 B. Legal Authority to Detain .............. ..... 111 C. The Abuse at Abu Ghraib .................... 116 D. Chain of Command at Abu Ghraib ..... ........ 119 III. BASIS FOR CRIMINAL CULPABILITY ..... ..... 138 A. Chain of Command ....................... 138 B. Systemic Influences ....................... 140 C. Reduced Rights of Military Personnel and Obedience to Authority ................ ..... 143 D. Interrogator Directives ................ ....
    [Show full text]
  • Confidentiality Complications
    Confidentiality Complications: How new rules, technologies and corporate practices affect the reporter’s privilege and further demonstrate the need for a federal shield law The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press June 2007 Lucy A. Dalglish, Esq. Gregg P. Leslie, Esq. Elizabeth J. Soja, Esq. 1101 Wilson Blvd., Suite 1100 Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 807-2100 Executive Summary The corporate structure of the news media has created new obstacles, both financial and practical, for journalists who must keep promises of confidentiality. Information that once existed only in a reporter’s notebook can now be accessed by companies that have obligations not only to their reporters, but to their shareholders, their other employees, and the public. Additionally, in the wake of an unprecedented settlement in the Wen Ho Lee Privacy Act case, parties can target news media corporations not just for their access to a reporter’s information, but also for their deep pockets. The potential for conflicts of interest is staggering, but the primary concerns of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press are that: • because of the 21st-century newsroom’s reliance on technology, corporations now have access to notes, correspondence and work-product information that before only existed in a reporter’s notebook; • the new federal “e-discovery” court rules allow litigants to discover vastly more information than a printed page – or even a saved e-mail – would provide during litigation; • while reporters generally only have responsibilities to themselves,
    [Show full text]
  • Dueling Absurdities
    Dueling Delusions: Terrorism and Counterterrorism in the United States Since 9/11 John Mueller Ohio State University and Cato Institute Mark G. Stewart University of Newcastle November 9, 2011 Prepared for presentation at the Program on International Security Policy University of Chicago, November 15, 2011 John Mueller Senior Research Scientist, Mershon Center for International Security Studies Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio 43201, United States Cato Senior Fellow, Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001, United States polisci.osu.edu/faculty/jmueller +1 614 247-6007 [email protected] Mark G. Stewart Australian Research Council Professorial Fellow Professor and Director, Centre for Infrastructure Performance and Reliability The University of Newcastle New South Wales, 2308, Australia www.newcastle.edu.au/research-centre/cipar/staff/mark-stewart.html +61 2 49216027 [email protected] ABSTRACT: A preliminary, if rather lengthy, set of ruminations on our ten years, and counting, of absurdity and delusion on the terrorism issue. It seems increasingly likely that the reaction to the terrorism attacks of September 11, 2001, was massively disproportionate to the real threat al- Qaeda has ever actually presented either as an international menace or as an inspiration or model to homegrown amateurs. But the terrorism/counterterrorism saga trudges determinedly, doggedly, and anti-climactically onward: people profess fear of another attack, funds continue to be expended irresponsibly, and killing continues, all in the name of the fabled tragedy of 9/11. A warning: the paper includes reference to the Wizard of Oz and to The Emperor’s New Clothes and may not be suitable for all audiences.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Music for Free.] in Work, Even Though It Gains Access to It
    Vol. 54 No. 3 NIEMAN REPORTS Fall 2000 THE NIEMAN FOUNDATION FOR JOURNALISM AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY 4 Narrative Journalism 5 Narrative Journalism Comes of Age BY MARK KRAMER 9 Exploring Relationships Across Racial Lines BY GERALD BOYD 11 The False Dichotomy and Narrative Journalism BY ROY PETER CLARK 13 The Verdict Is in the 112th Paragraph BY THOMAS FRENCH 16 ‘Just Write What Happened.’ BY WILLIAM F. WOO 18 The State of Narrative Nonfiction Writing ROBERT VARE 20 Talking About Narrative Journalism A PANEL OF JOURNALISTS 23 ‘Narrative Writing Looked Easy.’ BY RICHARD READ 25 Narrative Journalism Goes Multimedia BY MARK BOWDEN 29 Weaving Storytelling Into Breaking News BY RICK BRAGG 31 The Perils of Lunch With Sharon Stone BY ANTHONY DECURTIS 33 Lulling Viewers Into a State of Complicity BY TED KOPPEL 34 Sticky Storytelling BY ROBERT KRULWICH 35 Has the Camera’s Eye Replaced the Writer’s Descriptive Hand? MICHAEL KELLY 37 Narrative Storytelling in a Drive-By Medium BY CAROLYN MUNGO 39 Combining Narrative With Analysis BY LAURA SESSIONS STEPP 42 Literary Nonfiction Constructs a Narrative Foundation BY MADELEINE BLAIS 43 Me and the System: The Personal Essay and Health Policy BY FITZHUGH MULLAN 45 Photojournalism 46 Photographs BY JAMES NACHTWEY 48 The Unbearable Weight of Witness BY MICHELE MCDONALD 49 Photographers Can’t Hide Behind Their Cameras BY STEVE NORTHUP 51 Do Images of War Need Justification? BY PHILIP CAPUTO Cover photo: A Muslim man begs for his life as he is taken prisoner by Arkan’s Tigers during the first battle for Bosnia in March 1992.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Enforcement Intelligence: a Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies
    David L. Carter, Ph.D. School of Criminal Justice Michigan State University Law Enforcement Intelligence: A Guide for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies November 2004 David L. Carter, Ph.D. This project was supported by Cooperative Agreement #2003-CK-WX-0455 by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Points of view or opinions contained in this document are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice or Michigan State University. Preface The world of law enforcement intelligence has changed dramatically since September 11, 2001. State, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies have been tasked with a variety of new responsibilities; intelligence is just one. In addition, the intelligence discipline has evolved significantly in recent years. As these various trends have merged, increasing numbers of American law enforcement agencies have begun to explore, and sometimes embrace, the intelligence function. This guide is intended to help them in this process. The guide is directed primarily toward state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies of all sizes that need to develop or reinvigorate their intelligence function. Rather than being a manual to teach a person how to be an intelligence analyst, it is directed toward that manager, supervisor, or officer who is assigned to create an intelligence function. It is intended to provide ideas, definitions, concepts, policies, and resources. It is a primer- a place to start on a new managerial journey. Every effort was made to incorporate the state of the art in law enforcement intelligence: Intelligence-Led Policing, the National Criminal Intelligence Sharing Plan, the FBI Intelligence Program, the array of new intelligence activities occurring in the Department of Homeland Security, community policing, and various other significant developments in the reengineered arena of intelligence.
    [Show full text]