There is no justification for torture

By Will Shonbrun

The President leaned forward on the podium and stared into the TV camera’s eye, then deliberately and emphatically said to the country and the rest of the world, “The United States does not torture. It's against our laws and it's against our values. I have not authorized it and I will not authorize it.” He stated unequivocally, “We do not torture.” This was in 2005. It was an out and out lie then as it is now.

It’s possible that the former President lied so convincingly because he’d tasked his Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, and attorneys in the Office of Legal Council including John Yoo, Jay Bybee and David Addington, among others, to change the legal definition of torture and to set “legal” parameters of so-called “enhanced methods” regarding the treatment and interrogation of suspected terrorist detainees labeled broadly as “enemy combatants.” At the same time these attorneys were charged with creating a legal framework for the Bush Administration to bypass the legal restrictions pertaining to the treatment of prisoners-of-war as defined by Geneva III articles (Geneva Conventions of 1949), the U.S. signed Convention Against Torture and other laws defining and prohibiting torture. So when Bush looked into the eyes of his fellow countrymen and the other nations of the world he might have convinced himself at that and later such televised appearances that he was telling the truth. Of course what Bush overlooked was the fact that the enhanced interrogation program was put into operation as early as 2002, before there was even the attempt to make it justifiably legal. It’s not possible to know what was true or not in this man’s mind, but in any event it’s totally irrelevant. Actions of despicable cruelty, sadistic brutality and torture, some instances resulting in the death of detainees, were conducted because the President, the Vice-President and some of the other higher-ups in his administration ordered it and set it in motion.

In researching this issue I’ve read dozens of accounts, news stories, opinion pieces and sections of the infamous released government memos including multi-page, minutely detailed timelines exhaustively cataloguing how we got to here from there – meaning to a government that condoned torture. The news and information about this issue is added to daily with new revelations constantly cropping up. In short we are a long way from the end of this sad and sickening chapter in our nation’s history, with no final destination or denouement in sight.

The picturse flashing on the screen, the newspaper accounts, the interviews with political principles and lesser players, and the roiling sea of verbiage from a punditocracy of all stripes is our daily fare; a steady diet of the government initiated, justified and systematically implemented program of torture.

As for the use of the term ‘torture’ I think it is absolutely necessary to call this aberration, this twisted perversion, by its real name. The (then) government agencies that crafted these dehumanizing policies – Bush and his cabinet, the Justice Department and the Office of Legal Council, and the CIA and some fellow miscreants in the military – devised euphemisms like “enhanced interrogation methods,” or the “softening up” (of detainees) or the like to mask the reality, the truth about what they were doing. But it was torture, plain and simple, whatever one wants to call it: physical, psychological and emotional anguish visited upon human beings for a variety of reasons. So let us call it by its rightful name – torture – and say that our government, under its leadership and highest judicial branch took this country to where it had never been before: It implemented and sanctioned torture.

The arguments

The use of torture is justified by former Vice President Cheney and those who agree with him because, they claim, it worked. They maintain that water-boarding – suffocation by drowning – and other extreme methods were necessary in order to get information from certain high-profile detainees deemed to be al-Qaida terrorists. They have claimed that the information ascertained by the use of these methods saved lives by foiling terrorist plots. In addition they state that there was no other way to elicit this kind of information in short order.

These claims have been resoundingly characterized as false and misleading by myriad highly credible individuals in government, security agencies, including current and former CIA operatives and interrogation experts, the director of the FBI, Robert Mueller, and even National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair. In one by now famously quoted instance Blair stated “high-value information came from interrogation in which these methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaida organization that was attacking the country.” On the heels of this seeming endorsement Blair followed with this statement: “The information gained from these techniques was valuable in some instances, but there is no way of knowing whether the same information could have been obtained through other means [emphasis added]. Blair added, “The bottom line is these techniques have hurt our image around the world, the damage they have done to our interests far outweigh whatever benefit they gave us and they are not essential to out national security.”

In fact the preponderance of opinions as to the ineffectiveness, unreliability and counter-productiveness (hardened resistance and false or worthless information) of harsh methods of interrogation far outweigh claims to the otherwise. The few examples cited by Cheney as proof of plots thwarted or vital information extracted to protect national security have been roundly refuted and dispelled. The so-called evidentiary proof to substantiate Cheney’s claims about torture’s effectiveness in the as yet unreleased memos remains unverifiable. By the same token claims could be made about these memos that counter Cheney’s arguments and show them to be totally false. Anyone can claim anything until the facts show otherwise.

One of the most damning allegations recently leveled against Cheney’s proffered rationale for using torture to gain vital, life-saving information comes from Colonel Laurence Wilkerson, Colin Powell’s former chief of staff. Wilkerson accuses Cheney of ordering torture methods on certain detainees in 2002 – before the establishing of any contrived legal justifications – not to uncover possible terrorist attacks on the U.S., but to reveal (supposed) links between Iraq and al-Qaida in the lead up to war in 2003. Claims of such links, along with claims about WMDs and an Iraqi nuclear weapons program constituted the basis on which the Bush/Cheney government took us to war, and even to this day when these claims have been proven patently false, Cheney still maintains that al-Qaida/Iraq links did exist. Why any credence is given to Mr. Cheney’s utterances about anything defies reason.

But…

But to argue that the use of torture and interrogation methods that induce severe physical pain or psychological torment and humiliation is acceptable because it works, i.e., the ends justify the means, is legally untenable. The methods used and admitted to are legal violations of U.S. law, Human Rights Law and International Humanitarian Law and the Geneva Conventions. For a summary of these laws prohibiting torture and explicating the accepted treatment of detainees see: Human Rights Watch:
Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-Treatment of Persons in Custody.

Besides being prosecutable war crimes and crimes against humanity the use of torture on detainees violates basically accepted norms or morality. Whatever degree of moral standing the U.S. had among the world’s nations prior to its actions from 2002 until approximately 2006 has now been undermined; shown to be devoid of any such pretenses. As cogently stated by author Deepak Chopra, “A country that resorts to torture has lost the battle to begin with.” In the eyes of many we are the nation that tortures prisoners or kidnaps and outsources for the purpose of torture those we suspect intend to harm us. We have also become the nation that holds suspects for indefinite detentions without charges.

The 2004 CIA Inspector General’s report investigating the agency’s use of torture against “high-value” detainees concluded that the program violated some of the provisions of the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The report revealed that there were (at least) three detainee deaths in American-run detention facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq, and eight criminal cases of alleged homicide. These are just cases of which we are aware. It’s little wonder that Cheney did everything in his power to squelch Inspector General Helgerson’s report.

We don’t know and probably never will what these detainees’ alleged crimes were, just as we don’t know the alleged crimes of some of the prisoners in Guantanamo. Because the aforementioned principals in the Bush government ordered and embarked on a program of “enhanced interrogation” techniques that violated all known laws, domestic and otherwise, some of these detainees may not be able to be brought to trial; at least not under our current judicial system. An unintended consequence of the program? Perhaps.

There are so many twists and turns to this dark tale and they are changing and expanding every day. It’s impossible to encompass all the evidence and the events to date starting in 2001-2 and say conclusively –this is what happened, and these were the primary players responsible for its results. There are two books currently receiving a lot of acclaim for the depth and breadth of investigation and analysis of the events and players who changed the rules about handling people in detention: Philippe Sands’ “Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values,” and Jane Mayer’s “The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals.” In light of disclosure, I’ve not read either book, but have heard the authors interviewed on radio a number of times, and have read excerpts of Mayer’s book in the New Yorker magazine.

No Justification for Torture

There is no justification for torture, as its legal definition has stood for decades, be it for the purposes of national security or some kind of misguided patriotism. Every dictator or authoritarian government has used the it’s-got-to-be-done-for-the-good-of-the-country excuse as a rationale for torture. Most of the nations of the world came together after WWII and decided and declared that there are things we cannot do for any reason, compelling or not, because it’s immoral, degrading to the mores of civilized behavior, diminishing to the souls of the perpetrators as well as the victims and, finally because it constitutes crimes against humanity.

When these precepts are violated it must be brought to light, not in the pursuit of revenge or for the purpose of moralizing, but because it’s important, I’d say vital, that we, the people of this country know what was done in our name. The reasons and justifications for taking the country in a dark direction are now being laid before us with an insistence on need and necessity, but it is up to the people to decide what kind of a country they want.

If we say we abhor what was done, but don’t want to revisit or wallow in it and would rather get on with more pressing things, then we turn our backs on what are supposed to be our standards of behavior; our legal system. Pulitzer Prize journalist Eugene Robinson reminds us that, “The rule of law is one of this nation’s founding principles. It’s not optional.” These laws were meant, ostensibly, to serve justice. Is justice served by being ignored or dismissed because the violations were so unpleasant? This kind of rationale does not apply to any judicial system to which this country ascribes.

There is no justification for torture. Attempts are being made by the former Vice-President to justify the course that was taken because it was necessary to safeguard the nation in a time of peril, and that using torture saved American lives. Every single claim that Cheney has made in this regard has been refuted by highly credible sources. But in a sense it’s almost beside the point. Effectiveness is not a legal argument. If it were, consider this: Where can a line be drawn as to what you can’t do to someone in trying to get information out of them? If ‘effectiveness”, i.e., it works, is the criterion then any means of torture is permissible to achieve that end. Is this the country we want?

The country has survived two world wars that claimed millions of lives, and the latter threatened our survival as a nation. This country survived a 30-year cold war with an enemy capable of annihilating us and the rest of the world without resorting to using torture. Mr. Cheney and some in Congress and other branches of government would have us believe we must use torture to assure our continued survival. This flies in the face of history, disgusts our sensibilities and challenges the system of Constitutional laws by which we abide. He would have us throw that aside, cower in fear and resort to tactics that reduce us to the base actions of our terrorist adversaries. He would reduce us to the level of people who have lost their humanity and any sense of morality.

It should not be up to the current President or Cheney to decide the right course of action regarding the past use of torture. This is a legal matter. Either laws were broken or they were not. Either a crime or crimes were committed or they were not. It is up to our government’s legal offices to initiate independent and unbiased investigations about what took place and who were those involved. It must be conducted as would any criminal investigation to get to the truth of the matter and confer guilt or innocence as is dictated by law. If we are a nation of laws to which ALL must adhere or face the consequences then we must let that course be taken. If we don’t then we violate and undermine our own system and we live hypocrisy, not a democracy. We also set a precedent for all that has happened to happen again at some time down the line. This is not the kind of country I want, nor do I believe it’s what most of us want.

There is no justification for using torture or any tactics that could be construed as such. Let the disinfecting light of the sun into this darkness and let the legal chips fall where they may. We will be the stronger for it.
…


Sources:
Nick Mottern, truthout.org., On Prosecuting War Crimes
Human Rights Watch: Summary of International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody
Matt Apuzzo, Unresolved debate in DOJ memo: Does torture work? Associated Press
Jason Leopold, Panetta’s Defense of CIA Interrogators Undercut by New DoJ Disclosures, The Public Record
Jennifer Loven, Obama Open to Prosecution, Probe of Interrogations, Associated Press
Eugene Robinson, Torture Is a Crime, and Crimes Demand Prosecution, Washington Post Writers Group
Andrew Lalloch, General Taguba: Accountability for Torture Does Not Stop at White House Door, Harvard Law Review
Jason Leopold, The Bush Administration’s Stunning Geneva Hypocrisy, The Public Record
Steve Weissman, How Torture Worked to Sell the Iraq War,
Truthout.org
Scott Horton, Investigating Bush’s Crimes, The Nation, March 2009
Mark Seibel and Warren P. Strobel, CIA Official: No Proof Harsh Techniques Stopped Terror Attacks, McClatchy Newspapers]
Glenn Greenwald, author, Glenn Greenwald.com
Deepak Chopra, The Toxic Residue of Torture, San Francisco Chronicle
Elizabeth de la Vega, Prosecuting Torture: Is Time Really Running Out?, TruthOut.org
Mark Danner, US Torture: Voices From the Black Sites, The New York Review of Books
Spencer Ackerman, FBI Agent’s Account of Interrogations Conflicts with Report, The Washington Independent