"The Ends Justify The Means"

Those are the words of Torin Nelson as reported by Pratap Chatterjee in the article "An Interrogator Speaks Out." Nelson was in Military Intelligence and then quit to work for CACI International. He was posted to Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantanamo. Nelson is quoted as saying:"'Today, there are two schools of thought: the new school which believes that the ends justify the means. I believe the means justify the ends,'..." He states that when he was posted via CACI to Abu Ghraib Prison that 15 of the 30 interrogators were private contractors like himself; roughly one-third had no formal training and "some had related training." He opposed the techniques utilized at Abu Ghraib, and unltimately quit CACI.

"The ends justify the means" speaks volumes to what is happening under the "New World Order" being directed out of the White House. It applies to areas of not releasing information to the public, creating propaganda (fake news), spinning the truth, engaging in pre-emptive war and strong arming of allies, and the abuse and torture of those in U.S. custody. It is interesting to hear someone trained and experienced, someone who served in different theaters, under different Presidents, and under different employers, make that assessment. What "official policy" does one need if the rule is "anything goes as long as it meets the desired goal"?

Chatterjee is on a roll in terms of articles on the privatization of "interrogation." He had a companion piece on Alternet to the article already referenced called "Intelligence, Inc., in which he introduces one of the primary military intelligence training centers at Fort Huachuca, Arizona, and the booming business of private intelligence companies contracted to the U.S. government. He goes more deeply into some aspects of this issue in a March 15th article at Inter-Press Service titled "Interrogators for Hire." In the latter piece he shares a startling bit of data:
"In 2003, just 237 interrogators graduated from the United States Army Intelligence Center, headquartered at the fort. Today, because of the war on terrorism, there are plans to quadruple the number of qualified interrogators to 1,000 a year by 2006 and the number of soldiers trained in basic intelligence skills to 7,000."

Booming business indeed!

There are two alarming issues here for me. One is what is increasingly an obvious pattern of the U.S. use of abuse and torture. The other is the escalating use of private contractors in this pursuit. Without going into a long reiteration of abuse and abuse reports, the numbers of prisoners and civilians abused (even killed) keeps creeping higher, and is apparently spreading - not coming under control. For example, on March 12, 2005 we get the report that in Afghanistan in 2002 two prisoners were beaten to death by U.S. soldiers. Interestingly, the title of that article is "Army Details Scale of Abuse of Prisoners in an Afghan Jail." Interesting because the "scale" changed dramatically in just four days from 3/12 to 3/16 to U.S. Military Says 26 Inmate Deaths May Be Homicide, and only one of the twenty-six deaths in that investigation (now closed) occurred in Abu Ghraib. Another report by John Lumpkin on Findlaw referncing data the government provided to the Associated Press (3/16/05) states that more than 100 prisoners have died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan (more specifically, "At least 108 people ...").

"Army officials said the killings took place both inside and outside detention areas, including at the point of capture in often violent battlefield conditions. "The Army will investigate every detainee death both inside and outside detention facilities," said Col. Joseph Curtin, a senior Army spokesman. "Simply put, detainee abuse is not tolerated, and the Army will hold soldiers accountable. We are taking action to prosecute those suspected of abuse while taking steps now to train soldiers how to avoid such situations in the future." (NT Times 3/16/05 - emphases mine)

The "official" position is still obviously the "few bad apples" theory with a nod to the "training" issue. There is tacit admission that the Army was not training soldiers in appropriate (humane and legal) capture and detention techniques, but they are "now;" however. that training apparently didn't come quick enough for troops engaged in the siege of Ramadi. Nor did the lessons of "don't take pictures" get learned as the news of the video of war crimes and abuse was made by soldiers into a trophy documentary Ramadi Madness. Apparently, the "message" of the U.S. approach has not dramatically changed. Nor has the shooting of people at U.S. checkpoints abated as an Iraqi General was killed at a checkpoint on 3/15/05 - again at Ramadi.

I admit it. I watch the show "24." I watch it for a variety of reasons, but I am constantly left wondering if it depicts "life imitating (so-called) art," or "art imitating life." There is a consistent use of torture as a mechanism to extract information. In the show, employees of the agency and their family members are tortured, along with estranged husbands, and the "bad guys." The clear message is "if we think you know anything, the second thing we will do is torture you." Yes, the second thing. The consistent pattern is to ask some questions and disbelieve the answers. Then, there is no other choice than torture - and a variety of techniques have been portrayed. One thing I am relatively sure of is that "24" perpetuates the myth that torture is a quick and effective way to get "valuable, credible information." It normalizes the use of torture. It also reinforces the ideology of "the end justifies the means" as a policy base. Moral concerns, while raised, are always over-ridden. It seems no coincidence that "24" is syndicated by Fox.

Despite the news that reflects that abuse and torture are systemic, and that TV shows legitimate and normalize the belief system that torture is critical to "intelligence," the issue of privatizing intelligence is huge and growing. According to Chatterjee (Interrogators for Hire), "as much 50 percent of the 40-billion-dollar budget given to the 15 intelligence agencies in the United States is now spent on private contractors". HALF of the budget? That is more than alarming.

First, is the valid concerns about the accountability of private contractors for crimes they may commit. This is an issue that raged early on after the role of contractors came to light in the murder and mutilation of 4 contractors in Fallujah in 2004. With the release of the abuse that occurred at Abu Ghraib, the Center for Constitutional Rights filed suit against contractors involved in the torture. It is telling that the lawsuit is filed under the RICO Act (anti-racketeering). The problem with contractors (and their companies) who engage in criminal behavior outside the US, is they are not subject to US military regulations or codes; nor are they subject (generally) to the law of the nation they are acting in. They are shielded from US law because they are operating outside the US. They are shielded from national law (if it exists) because they are "contractors" under the shield of the military. Ultimately, any sanctions are employer sanctions by the hiring corporation. This effectively means that contractors are given much more "liberty" in their actions than either military or government (CIA) personnel are.

The other problem with corporatizing "intelligence" and "intelligence activities" (including training of U.S. military personnel) is the transparency of critical information and wide systems access to corporations. To me, this seems to be a massive security threat. What is to keep the companies from utilizing their information and access to further their own profit and control interests? Where is the line between government and corporate in such an environment?

One of the companies named by Chatterjee in his IPS article is Anteon. A quick trip to the Anteon site is instructive. Who is Anteon's customer base? Similar to other private providers of strategic and intelligence services, the customer is government.

"Our primary customer is the Federal government. We provide support to all military services, the Department of Defense, nearly all cabinet level agencies and numerous other civilian and defense agencies within the government."

And what is Anteon's plan for future growth?

# Continue to Increase Market Penetration
# Capitalize on Increased Emphasis on Information Security, Homeland Defense and Intelligence
# Cross-Sell our Full Range of Services to Existing Customers
# Continue our Disciplined Acquisition Strategy

Let me offer my plain interpretation of the above.

# Encourage more private contracting to government agencies, by expanding existing contracts, and expanding the number of governmental agencies contracted to.

# Frame their services in terms of the governmental focus (tailored to agency) on the "war on terror."

# Take what they have sold to one agency (or information or secure systems they have with one agency) and sell that information and service to other agencies - pure gravy.

# Buy up, or merge with other companies in their market niche(s), and expand the areas they are contracting in.

It appears they are being more than mildly successful as they announce they were awarded a $47M Contract to Provide Program Management and Systems Engineering Support to U.S. Navy

So where does that leave us? Well certainly it leaves us with a number of questions just crying out to be answered.

1. What are the potential outcomes and risks of increasing control of the intelligence and security functions of the United States being the domain of private corporations?

2. As numerous functions, including evaluation, assessment, and training are done by corporations, who remains to critically evaluate and oversee these corporate ventures?

3. Who ultimately is accountable when contractors and contracting companies behave poorly, or illegally?

4. Given the increased liberties of private contractors, who ultimately pays for their bad behavior (meaning the international consequences of their actions)?

5. If the U.S. authority structure is following an ideology of "the ends justify the means," and that is having dramatically negative effects in terms of U.S. forces, what does that mean within the context of a corporatized operation?

All told there are moral issues, legal issues, ideology issues, security issues, international relations issues, constitutional process issues, authority issues. The list goes on - and the problems continue. There is no sign of dramatic decreases in the abuse and torture of detainees. In fact, the Pentagon is seeking the questionable powers of the CIA for extraordinary rendition of prisoners. There is no sign of decreasing "accidents" and "bad actions" by U.S. forces. And, as the ongoing events in Iraq show, there is an increasing civilian resistance to these policies and actions. Little of this speaks to domestic issues, of which there are plenty (i.e. the implications of a corporatized intelligence system within the framework of Constitutional and legal rights of U.S. citizens).

I am not a believer in the ends justify the means. I have learned personally that means can, and do, come back to bite you in the butt regardless of how wonderful one's perceived goal is.