Torturous Contortions

As an American citizen who cares about this country and its status in the world I have been increasingly dismayed at the tenor and direction of the conversation regarding the use of torture against detainees held by U.S. force in the secret "black sites" abroad as well as Guantanomo Bay and Abu Ghraib prisons. Rather than being appalled by the Bush administration's deliberate subversion of the law in order to justify clearly abusive treatment of human beings held in our custody, the conversation has centered on whether these techniques "work" in producing "actionable intelligence" and if they should be permissible under some hypothetical doomsday scenario. What's disconcerting about all this is that it calls to mind the conversation that dominated the public debate during the lead up to the Iraq war. Bush administration officials conjured up the doomsday scenario of "the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud" with respect to WMD in order to silence critics who questioned the necessity for war. Such talk diverted attention from the essential question of whether Iraq posed a real threat - it was only after the U.S. invaded Iraq that we learned there were no WMDs.

Fast forward to the present. President Obama has categorically stated his opposition to the use of torture or as it's euphemistically called, 'harsh interrogation techniques'. He correctly - in my view - released the legal opinions used to authorize torture and descriptions of the specific techniques employed. To anyone who questions the legitimacy of the legal opinions generated by lawyers in the U.S. Justice Department, I suggest you read them. They are a shameful attempt to circumvent the rule of law by asserting an interpretation of the applicable statutes that makes Bill Clinton's parsing of words seem amateurish. John Yoo's interpretation of "executive privilege" would make the Founding Fathers role over in their graves. The claim that the attacks on Sept. 11, 2001 were of such an extraordinary nature that it necessitated the assumption of supreme war time powers is simply not credible. The drafters of the Constitution created it in the aftermath of war and were acutely aware of the needs of a strong military commander - nonetheless they instituted a system of 'checks and balances' as a form of insurance against domination by any branch of government, to apply at all times, including times of war. The truly sad part is that the media - which is supposed to be independent - dutifully played their assigned roles as scribes instead of investigators. It appears with respect to the torture issue they're following the same tired script.

The public needs to be engaged in a discussion of the myriad reasons the international community has outlawed torture and why the U.S. has long supported that position - instead we are debating the wisdom of making the evidence of torture public and acting as if adherence to the Geneva Conventions constitutes some undue burden that unreasonably restricts our freedom - like say, taxes or gun laws. I think it bears repeating - as often as necessary to sink into public consciousness - the REASONS TO OPPOSE TORTURE:

1. TO PROTECT YOUR SOLDIERS WHEN THEY ARE CAPTURED IN BATTLE!!! Notice I said when - not if, because if you are fighting war(s) you will have soldiers that are captured in battle and unless your opponent executes them on the spot (also considered a war crime) you want them to be treated humanely until the conflict is over and/or you negotiate their return.
2. TO AFFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF BASIC STANDARDS OF HUMAN RIGHTS CIVILIZATION IS EXPECTED TO ADHERE TO. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms the fundamental dignity and worth of all persons and the basic equality of men and women. It commits UN member states to protect these rights in part because, "it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law". I don't understand the theory that believes an effective way of fighting terrorism and reducing new recruits it to engage in human rights violations against people from the group we need to win over.
3. IT DOESN'T WORK!! Who really doesn't believe that torture compromises the integrity of the information elicited from the victim. At a certain point people will what they think their captors want to hear in order to stop the pain. Read the accounts from the International Red Cross report (IRCR) and ask yourself how long could you withstand such treatment?
4. THE "HARSH INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES" ARE TORTURE UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION, US STATUTORY LAW OR ANY CONTEMPORARY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WORD. Some people have questioned whether in fact the "harsh interrogation techniques" were in fact torture. I've heard several commentators suggest (including Joe Scarborough on MSNBC) that perhaps 'waterboarding' was torture but the other techniques were not, and after all, only three (3) of the most dangerous 'terrorists' were waterboarded. To put this argument to rest I include the following excerpt from the Red Cross report setting forth the list of techniques employed in interrogating detainees at the secret "black sites" abroad as well as Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib:

"The CIA seems to have arrived at a method that is codified by the International Committee of the Red Cross experts into twelve basic techniques, as follows:

Suffocation by water poured over a cloth placed over the nose and mouth… Prolonged stress standing position, naked, held with the arms extended and chained above the head… Beatings by use of a collar held around the detainees’ neck and used to forcefully bang the head and body against the wall… Beating and kicking, including slapping, punching, kicking to the body and face… Confinement in a box to severely restrict movement… Prolonged nudity...this enforced nudity lasted for periods ranging from several weeks to several months… Sleep deprivation...through use of forced stress positions (standing or sitting), cold water and use of repetitive loud noises or music… Exposure to cold temperature...especially via cold cells and interrogation rooms, and…use of cold water poured over the body or…held around the body by means of a plastic sheet to create an immersion bath with just the head out of water. Prolonged shackling of hands and/or feet… Threats of ill-treatment, to the detainee and/or his family… Forced shaving of the head and beard… Deprivation/restricted provision of solid food from 3 days to 1 month after arrest… The Red Cross writers tell us, “each specific method was in fact applied in combination with other methods, either simultaneously or in succession

I don't know anyone (myself included) that would not feel they were being tortured if subjected to such techniques - particularly if they occurred over a prolonged period of time with no hope of release or relief.

I'm old enough to remember the public debate over the release of the information about the Mai Lai massacre and subsequent court martial of Lieutenant Calley for ordering the murder of an entire village of defenseless Vietnamese. At the time many Americans were sympathetic to the anger and frustration of soldiers who had lost many of their comrades during the Tet Offensive and were suspicious of civilians who often harbored enemy combatants. However, the majority of Americans favored accountability and affirming the rule of law. Despite the known hardships and stress our soldiers were experiencing, American integrity was on the line, it was considered unthinkable that such crimes should go unpunished.

So it is here. Our integrity and moral authority is at stake. We can't use terrorist tactics against 'suspected terrorists' and expect to win the 'war on terror'. The ends do not justify the means. Which is why we condemned apartheid South African authorities for torturing members of the African National Congress (when they were fighting their insurgent war of liberation) and the North Koreans for torturing US prisoners of war.

Which brings me to my final point. It's the pervasive sense of U.S. exceptionalism - the notion that everyone else is supposed to play by the rules but we get a free pass - that we can do what we want to protect ourselves from military attack, economic collapse or ideological invasion - that got us into the mess we are facing today. Former President George W. Bush epitomized the swaggering, arrogant, tunnel-vision, self-righteous attitude that dominated both government and the business community over the past decade.

In voting for Barack Obama as the 44th President we pretty much voted for the opposite of that and in most essential ways, President Obama is delivering on his campaign promise of CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN. One major change this President is asking us to make is to admit the truth - "our government did commit acts of torture" and make the necessary changes in both word and deed to insure we NEVER DO IT AGAIN. That would be change the world can believe in - particularly, the Arab world...............

Cognitive Dissonance

There is a basic disconnect in the attitude of Americans between what they believe to be true and what they are willing to tolerate in the name of 'public safety'. Some examples:

1. The majority of Americans believe the "harsh interrogation techniques" used on prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib constituted torture under both the Geneva Conventions and U.S. law, yet they are willing to allow people to be subjected to such treatment, if it is necessary to protect 'national security' - i.e. avoid an imminent terrorist attack.

2. The majority of Americans believe racial profiling is wrong but they are willing to tolerate it to: (a) facilitate the identification of 'illegal aliens' (e.g. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's roundups in Arizona) or (b) target potential 'terrorists' (e.g. profiling of Arabs and sometimes Sikh's at airports, etc.) and (c) to justify the exclusion of "troublesome" - usually Black & Brown - youth from public spaces (e.g. malls, street corners, parks in cities throughout the U.S. of which the Maryland example is just one)

3. The majority of Americans believe we are not winning the "war on drugs" and that it is unwinnable, yet they are willing to tolerate (a) the disproportionate arrest, conviction and incarceration of Blacks and Latinos for minor drug offenses; (b) the arrest of more than 700,000 Americans annually for marijuana possession - primarlly youth of color; (c) the continued violence on our border with Mexico driven by America's insatiable appetite for illegal drugs (the majority of which are not consumed in poor inner-city neighborhoods) as well as our unwiliingness to deal with the gun lobby; and (d) the escalation of the war in Afghanistan with the mission of suppressing the cultivation of poppy to limit the ability of insurgents to use drug profits to finance their operations (didn't we try this in Colombia and Nicaragua and Boliva? How well did it work there?)

Our politicians and media would rather talk about John Edward's infidelity, Michael Steele's buffoonery and Dick Cheney's Orwellian view of history rather than address any of the above issues on anything but a superficial level and we let them. So what does that say about us?
Postscript: What ever happened to the investigation into the roots of our current economic crisis? With all the focus on the bank bailouts and various stimulus plans, the reasons we got into this mess seems to have faded from view. Unfortunately, the institutional forces that led to the crisis are still in place so it's in the public interest to understand these forces so we can develop appropriate and effective regulations and safeguards - but don't count on Washington to light the way - they're in the pockets of these forces - pay attention to the battle over the legislation to limit credit card fees.