The CIA Enhanced Interrogation Techniques

Weston Thompson
00555484
POLI:3505:0EXW Fall14 Politics of Terrorism
Final

Was the CIAs Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs), as a counter-terrorism strategy, effective?

In 2002, the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the Department of Justice approved the CIAs request to perform what it called Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EITs). There were ten techniques in total, they are: attention grasp, cramped confinement, cramped confinement “with an insect”, facial hold, facial slap, sleep deprivation, stress positions, walling, wall standing and the most controversial of these being waterboarding.1 Following unfavorable media exposure of EITs the Obama administration banned it's use in 2009, just three years after the Department of Justice
One of the men behind EITs is said, by the New York Times and other news outlets, to be Dr. James Mitchell. The New York Times stated in it's article about Dr. Mitchell that “By the start of 2002, Dr. Mitchell was consulting with the CIA's Counterterrorist Center, whose director, Cofer Black, and chief operating officer, Jose A. Rodriguez Jr., were impressed by his combination of visceral toughness and psychological jargon.”3 Though Mitchell isn't allowed to comment about his direct involvement due to a nondisclosure agreement with the CIA, in an interview with Vice News, he did provide some clarity as to the true purpose behind these
It would seem that the Drone Campaign was activated in it's place as an effort to combat terrorism. Even though the first drone strike was ordered in 2004 it wasn't until after the enhanced interrogation program was abandoned that drone strikes rapidly increased. An estimated 51 strikes occurred during the Bush administration ending in early January of 2009. The first drone strike under the Obama administration occurred on January 23, 2009. By December of that year the CIA recorded it's 100th drone strike.8 An estimated total of 350 drone strikes9 have been ordered under the Obama administration resulting in at least 2,400 deaths10. With the question of morality it's hard to comprehend that there are those that believe drone strikes are more moral than EITs. Especially when looking into the fact that strikes are ordered on 'suspected' terrorists while EITs are performed on those working with or known to be terrorists. All that aside collateral damage needs to be taken into consideration as well. The act of EITs doesn't result in collateral damage whereas it does with drone strikes. Even if this is dismissed it would be hard for one to argue that drone strikes provide more intelligence than EITs. After all, how can a suspected terrorist provide information if he's dead? Because the drone campaign is now targeting suspected terrorists some believe the United