Did we torture?
There has been much fuss over the recent memos from the Bush administration that appear to authorize the torture of terror suspects. While I’m perfectly willing to admit that the techniques used sounded unpleasant, I also heard quite a few safeguards deliberately written in so as to prevent any lasting harm to the interviewee. What I have not yet heard is whether anyone died from this torture or suffered permanent physical damage. Honestly, the techniques seemed designed not to even cause much pain. Slapping stings for a moment or two, and I know having water up your nose is incredibly uncomfortable, but as torture techniques go, they all seem rather tame. Forced nudity? Uncomfortable positions? Sleep deprivation? I can understand why John Yoo at the Justice Department thought these techniques fell short of actual torture.
Perhaps I’ve simply been desensitized by the media, but when I think of torture, I think of hot pokers being shoved into sensitive areas, the use of dental equipment without anesthetic, or stretching someone out on a rack. I don’t think of being forced to hold still in a painful position or of being slapped in the face.
The problem, as I see it, is that the definition of torture is far too subjective. Is causing any pain while questioning someone really torture? Is any level of fear-inducement unacceptable? Here is what the Geneva Convention on torture actually says:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Obviously, we have to keep our international treaty obligations, but what exactly are those obligations? Do you know where the line between severe pain or suffering and moderate pain or suffering lies?
I also understand the argument that if we torture, eventually our soldiers will be captured and tortured as well. But against Al Qaeda I have little reason to believe that any captured American soldier would not be tortured, regardless of how we treat our own captives, so in asymmetric warfare that particular argument loses some of its weight.
If the Geneva convention on torture is to have any legal authority, then it needs to include precise language delineating the difference between torture and non-torture. If we did torture, then we have got to have prosecutions. And if we didn’t, then we need to move on and leave this painful chapter in the past.
May 2nd, 2009 at 5:06 pm
You’re not serious? This has to be a joke. Since when does the United States of America beat up its prisoners? Since when do we induce the fear of drowning by simulating it? Since when do we keep prisoners awake for 28 days on end (13 causes permanent psychosis)? Since when are our citizens so accustomed to sadism that they could write the above blog entry?
May 2nd, 2009 at 6:05 pm
I’m very serious. The United States never beats up its prisoners or subjects them to the sort of techniques outlined in the Yoo memos, but terror suspects’ detention is not penal. The government’s purpose in holding them is to attempt to glean information that may be vital to the security of our citizens. And while some of them are likely wrongly imprisoned (and personally, I find it hard to imagine a more horrible situation for an innocent person to be in), some of them really are terrorists, and need to be interrogated.
Vague definitions like the one in the Geneva convention make it impossible to prove torture happened in any but the most extreme cases. John Yoo attempted to give torture a specific, provable definition and then provide a guide for staying within the bounds of lawful interrogation. I personally believe that Yoo’s definition of torture was too limited, and would support a broader one, but until we have a clear and internationally accepted definition as to what level of physical or mental pain and suffering qualifies as torture, this issue is almost certain to come back.
May 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Seems to me that you have interpreted the word torture too simplistically. I am not a lawyer, and won’t attempt to frame a better argument for you. However, I understand that case law is used in situations like this to improve definitions such as the one you are finding “too subjective.” I understand that post WW2, there were trials and convictions for the water boarding tactic - these were trials that American military jurists participated in and argued the prosecution, gaining convictions.
So let’s focus on waterboarding as one example from the Bush list of treatments that has been defined as torture by precedent. We now have at least two problems. First, our own troops and others in harm’s way are in danger of the same treatment. Second, some woefully inexperienced member of the Bush administration wrote a policy document that creatively rationalized the use of a criminal tactic.
I’d like to see the country go all the way down the road with prosecutions on this. It’s the only way we come out the better for the situation.
May 4th, 2009 at 10:09 am
Granted, I’m no legal scholar either. I simply read a definition, scratched my head, and wondered “So did we torture or not?”. I would certainly be interested to know whether any judges have ever handed down legal tests to determine whether or not an interrogation technique crossed the line into torture. I certainly don’t think we can rely on the Bush administration era definition.
The most disturbing aspect of the Yoo memos, in my mind, was not the authorization of waterboarding, but rather, the incredibly limited definition given to what torture is. Yoo wrote (or one of his aides) that torture is “pain equivalent to organ failure.” That was my WTF moment right there. How can anyone in their right mind think you can go up to that line, and so long as you don’t cross it, say that torture never took place?
I actually do support prosecutions for actions taken by the previous administration. I think that trials and sentencing are an extremely important part of both repairing our country’s image and ensuring that no future administration ever tries to get away with the same sorts of actions.
By the way, a good article about John Yoo can be found here at salon.com
May 4th, 2009 at 10:43 am
I don’t choose to allow anonymous comments on this blog. If you are willing to put your name to your opinions, you can say pretty much whatever you please. If not, your comments will not be shown.