EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Collapse: Does Washington Bridge Expose the Crumbling of a Nation?
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- German Official Warns of Immediate 'Revolution' if EU Adopts US Model
- Exclusive: Why I Spoke Out at Obama's Foreign Policy Speech
- Get Apocalyptic: Why Radical is the New Normal
- Think Fracking Is Bad? Wait Until You Hear about the Gas Industry's "Acid Jobs"
- Over a Million Signatures in Support for Sen. Warren's Student Loan Bill
- We’re Being Watched: How Corporations and Law Enforcement Are Spying on Environmentalists
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Tortured Law on Torture
Ah yes, those torture confessions have proved so useful. That, at least, was the claim of our president in justifying one of the most egregious assaults ever on this nation's commitment to the rule of law. But now comes news that charges have been dropped against the so-called Sept. 11 attacks' 20th hijacker, one of dozens so identified, because the "evidence" he supplied under torture and later recanted is not credible enough to go to trial.
That fact, of course, will not compel President Bush to cut the tortured prisoner loose. After all, Saudi citizen Mohammed al-Qahtani has only been held in confinement for more than six years without being charged with a crime, and without being allowed to confront his accusers in a court of law.
The fact that the information produced is worthless -- as evidenced by Qahtani, once driven insane, naming everyone around him in the camp as a major al-Qaida operative -- will not deter those who condone torture. But others expert in these matters, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, will recoil from such tactics.
It was the treatment of Qahtani and other prisoners, as witnessed by horrified U.S. Navy Department investigators at Guantanamo, that got the attention of the Navy's then-General Counsel Alberto J. Mora. In one of those all too rare examples of true heroism that makes one proud to be an American, Mora challenged the Bush administration to practice the human rights standards that America proclaims to the world. But Bush would stay true to his own values: "Any activity we conduct is within the law," Bush stated in November 2005, adding, "We do not torture."
What was it then? As the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported in 2006, citing the Army's own interrogation logs, Qahtani, in addition to being subjected to documented beatings and other physical abuse, was put through an S&M routine calculated to drive him mad, which it accomplished:
"Qahtani had been subjected to 160 days of isolation in a pen perpetually flooded with artificial light. He was interrogated on 48 of 54 days, for 18 to 20 hours at a stretch. He had been stripped naked; straddled by taunting female guards, in an exercise called 'invasion of space by a female;' forced to wear women's underwear on his head, and to put on a bra; threatened by dogs; placed on a leash and told that his mother was a whore.'"
Quite an advertisement for the American way of life. Should we expect the rest of the world to boycott the Olympics when we next get to host the Games? Others might question why the Third 1949 Geneva Convention's prohibition against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," doesn't apply to the United States.
The failure to elicit any usable incriminating information from Qahtani once again supports the view of most experts that torture is not only morally repugnant, it is in fact counterproductive to getting at the truth.
But this didn't trouble John Yoo, then the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the infamous Bybee memo on torture, named after Yoo's boss, Jay S. Bybee, who was rewarded for his leadership with a judgeship on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles. Yoo, the best recent example of what the great anti-Nazi writer Hannah Arendt once referred to as the "banality of evil," teaches law at UC Berkeley when not touring the country to argue that if an action does not produce death through organ failure it can't be torture. Audiences tend to clap politely and observe that while they don't agree with him, he is, as I was told by a UCLA professor after such an appearance, "a very bright fellow."
On Feb. 6, 2003, as Qahtani was being led around on a leash, Yoo visited Mora in his Pentagon office. Mora later told the New Yorker writer Mayer that he asked Yoo, "Are you saying the president has the authority to order torture?" Yoo answered with a clear "yes." Following that stellar legal advice, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with Yoo's encouragement, officially approved "hooding," "exploitation of phobias," "stress positions," "deprivations of light and auditory stimuli" and the other horrors that the scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would burn into the legacy of the United States.
Robert Scheer's new book, "The Pornography of Power: How Defense Hawks Hijacked 9/11 and Weakened America," will be published June 9 by Twelve.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

24 Comments so far
Show AllIf we want to lead through example,
we will need a new generation of leaders.
Stop complaining and run for office.
Start an organization that organizes people for peace, justice, etc...
Write letters to the editor and post your thoughts on blogs, forums, etc...
Do your homework.
Don't give up.
We are the people we have been waiting for.
We have the ability to live in peace.
One BIG correction Bob; you stated that "John McCain, will recoil from such tactics."
In fact, McCain (aka; McSame) has endorsed Bush's veto of Congress' Bill to disallow such activities.
Being the smart person you are Bob you must have known this; so why the mis-information?
Bush, Cheney, . . . should be tried for torture.
Bush, Cheney....should be tried BY torture......
There may be a case for terrorists or guerrillas without not falling under the 4th Geneva Convention for treatment of prisoners of war because they are neither uniformed soldiers or paramilitaries, nor are they, if caught with weapons, civilians. Civilians are allowed to take up arms only in spontaneous and immediate reaction to an invasion. See Article 4 below. But if one accepts their exclusion, the proper response is to create new legislation or international treaties to define their treatment, not say "Whoooopeeeee! We can do whatever we want!"
Article 4
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power. [Think the Confederate States of America--ml]
4. Persons who accompany the armed forces without actually being members thereof, such as civilian members of military aircraft crews, war correspondents, supply contractors, members of labour units or of services responsible for the welfare of the armed forces, provided that they have received authorization from the armed forces which they accompany, who shall provide them for that purpose with an identity card similar to the annexed model.
5. Members of crews, including masters, pilots and apprentices, of the merchant marine and the crews of civil aircraft of the Parties to the conflict, who do not benefit by more favourable treatment under any other provisions of international law.
6. Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war. [Think Lexingon and Concord--ml]
"Yes, well, what he ought to be saying is, is that America doesn't torture," Bush replied.
That was just yesterday. Notice he didn't say "Americans do not torture."
"President Bush says he was aware that his top aides met in the White House basement to micromanage the application of waterboarding and other widely-condemned interrogation techniques. And he says it was no big deal.
"I'm aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved. I don't know what's new about that; I'm not so sure what's so startling about that."
Nothing at all startling says God's POTUS:
"The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." But not torture, see?
"An FBI agent's account of an interrogation at Guantánamo - an interrogation apparently conducted by Defense Department personnel - in which a detainee was wrapped in an Israeli flag and bombarded with loud music and strobe lights."
5 million missing emails later...
bush and cheney should be tried by and for torture --- and for the mass murder of thousands of their own citizens on 9/11 and for the million plus murder of Iraqi citizens. Tried, convicted, and SENTENCED.
They can't escape their punishment. If there's a hell, these people are undoubtedly going to spending a lot of time there.
Did anyone hear the news item broadcast repeatedly last weekend that a former detainee at Guantanomo had become an insurgent fighting in Iraq? It seems to me the media wanted to shore up the Bush administration's position of rationalizing detentions/renditions/"enhanced interrogation techniques" by suggesting that the prisoners live only to fight against American interests.
Hold an innocent man for six years and torture him. Why would he not want to kill as many of you as he could?
"Hold an innocent man for six years and torture him. Why would he not want to kill as many of you as he could?"
...Thought you were talking about McCain for a second :)
As a former lawyer, I have to applaud the military lawyers and judges who have taken great personal risks to represent Guantanamo detainees and especially those who have spoken out against what they have seen. These professionals believe more in the rule of law than in cheap and easy "loyalty" and personal advancement. It is not enough, but it is a start in recovering from this disaster.
IMPEACH!!! Put these pieces of CRAP on trial and HANG THEM if it is found they did this. These are WAR CRIMES writ large! IMPEACH these treasonous bastards! MY God, what has happened to our country????
Brattleboro Vermont approved articles of indictment on Bush and Cheney. If either of these criminals show up in that town, they will be arrested and tried. We should ALL push our local pols to approve such resolutions. These killers should KNOW that there is nowhere for them to go in OUR America!! Congress is nothing but a shill for these traitors. I have never, EVER felt so ashamed of my country!!! CRIMINALS!!!
I deeply respect and admire Robert Scheer. From the get go he told it like it was/is... his career has suffered, too; but his commitment to truth as a journalist has held fast and I applaud his courage.
Regarding the president's power to authorize torture, read Article 1 of the Constitution where it states that Congress has the authority to make rules for captures on land and sea. This part never seems to enter into the discussions.
Just to emphasize--aside from questions of effectiveness and legality, torture is immoral. And, of course, we can't define what actions are torture because we can't discuss specific techniques. How convenient!
PRESENCE and PEACE COUP - Thanks to both of you for helping to focus the minds of others, here, on moral truth and morally-useful actions.
Those who feel legitimate rage toward torturers but who then go on to say that we should torture the torturers as punishment, badly miss the mark. And in missing the mark, the human moral error is guaranteed to be reproduced.
The Mark (human-grounded morality) doesn't originate in intellectualized social abstractions or in the doctrinal metaphysics of organized religions. It originates, and is grounded in, only and alone, what we objectively have in common -- and share in common -- as identically designed Creatures.
We don't need to know Who or What designed us, or Why, in order to know that all of us shun pain, or that all of us are also contradictively designed; contradictively, because as we can see, all of us all-too-readily cause pain for one another -- Even Without Consciously Meaning To.
But to intend to cause pain, especially through conscious torture of another's body and mind, for whatever reason, shows the uncanny duality of our creaturely design (or, as I would argue, the uncanny duality of our partial MIS-design.)
Uncanny maybe, but not uncontrollable if illuminated by developed human conscience.
Torture reduces us humans to the pith of our partial misdesign: The displacement of Conscience. It shunts the less painful, provably dominant and better part what we know ourselves to be as Creatures, into an existential apostasy where, in the name of Life, we all openly become conscience-less Self murderers.
It is beyond any standard comprehension how a nation like the USA could come to be governed and pre-fatally transformed so quickly, by such a numerically small segment of existentially ill, Self murderers.
But it HAS happened. And we need to remember that as we fight this darker-than-dark force, we can't vanquish it by allowing a similar darkness to rise up in ourselves. Human moral rage at what has happened is only useful if it brings needed light into us, and then guides that light toward actions that integrate moral Ends with Means. Otherwise, such rage becomes self-defeating: it opens itself to easy co-optation by the illness, by the darkness.
Robert Wexler for Attorney General! If Obama wins the general election, there must be an impartial, fair, thorough investigation and prosecution of the guilty. And if the US courts refuse to act, Obama should use the Bill Clinton-created tool of Bush's assault on human rights, extraordinary rendition, to send the perpetrators to a country with a functioning judiciary for trial.
I've experienced unbelievable torture this year and part of the last. And it was carried out by America. Compulsively, I've watched the Presidential Elections!
I don't know how much more I can endure before madness takes over. Please, have pity on us non-Americans and nominate someone, anyone, anything, animal, vegetable or mineral, won't you...please.
P.S. How heavy is your heart? Check my blog for details!
How far have we as americans fallen that torture is considered legal and acceptable, under any circumstances, by policymakers.
To her utter shame and discredit, Hillary Clinton thought it should be legal for the PRESIDENT to have the power to order torture, when THE PRESIDENT
and an agreeable judge decided that circumstances called for it.
This was not Bush or Cheney; this was Hillary Clinton, along with husband Bill who advocated the same thing. Hillary Clinton on torture:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2006/10/16/2006-10-16_mccain_team_mocks_hil_torture_loophole.html
Both Hillary and Bill have since said they retract their former views on acceptable presidential torture. Hillary now says she takes an absolutist
no-torture position. Bill also revised his position (as expressed in an interview 9/30/07 on Meet the Press). Bill's revised position is that when torture is needed he is persuaded the way it should be done is for low-level government operatives to do it illegally, take responsibility for it, and then the outcome would determine what (if any) sanctions the lower-level operatives would receive.
Unlike Bush, both Hillary and Bill did not deny they were speaking of torture.
No other Democratic presidential candidate in this cycle to my knowledge held these positions on
torture.
Obama has a completely clean and principled no-torture, no-loopholes, no prevarication, on this issue. Both Obama and Sen. Clinton are in stated agreement NOW about having no torture. The difference is Obama never was for allowing it before he was against allowing it, as is the case with Hillary.
How could Hillary have held for two years until well after her campaign for the nomination had started that presidents should have the ability to order torture "if necessary"?
Why could she not see that this is just, plain, flat, wrong?
Last fall she said she had changed her mind to being against all torture.
Some things are just deal-breakers. I earnestly hope that someone who as senator, and as recently as mid-2007, advocated legal provision for presidential TORTURE (!), will not be on any Democratic presidential ticket either as presidential nominee or vice-president.
The issue of torture is just too horrible for words. Hillary Clinton, and Bill too, should be ashamed.
I am ashamed as an American that america has fallen to this.
Whatever other faults Obama may have, his principled and consistent pledge to end torture, "enhanced interrogation tactics" and all the other euphemisms, from the beginning and now, not only because it is ineffective but because it is just flat wrong, is not a minor, but a major point in favor of electing Obama to me.
This shit has got to end . . .
And Robert Scheer, if you're reading this, please keep up your courageous reporting, day in and day out, over these many years, and thank you.
When President Ford said that he was pardoning his friend Richard Nixon, because the nation had suffered enough, people didn't believe it, but they said,"Best to accept it and move on." When the treasonous scoundrels involved in the Iran Contra scandal were let off the hook, we didn't like it, but we said, "Best to accept it and move on." When the election was stolen, Al Gore said, "I disagree with the Supreme Court decision, but I except it." We have all been excepting crap for much to long. We have been fed lies about 9/11, the war, the elections, and most everyone has been aware of this. Many have been protesting. Most have been doing nothings.
The United States of America is torturing people and its being done with our Presidents approval. We have hit bottom. Wake up America and do something about it. Has anybody wondered why Halliburton is building concentration camps all over the country? I think that some people are so stupid, and apathetic, that they won't think about what those detention camps are for, until they are sitting in one.
I served In Northern Ireland and at that time the Tory government ordered the torture of Catholic prisoners, it didn't work, it never does simply because the prisoner will say anything you want to hear to stop the endless nightmare.
Here's a new book out:- Torture Team-- Phillip Sands.
http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/politicsphilosophyandsociety/0,,2277823,00.html
J COGHLAN: Funny that you use the word EXCEPT when you mean ACCEPT. To except is to take exception and it generally means to exclude, whereas to ACCEPT means something is widely embraced. Freudian slip and/or double entendre? All idioms spoken here, in this forum.
The truth is we all know what is torture and what it is not. There is no excuse for it. Not ever. Under any circumstances.
As pointed out above, torture someone and they may tell you anything to stop it. You get no reliable information from it.
But even if you did, its not excusable. Sorry, but the President of the United States doesn't have that power nor does anyone else in our country.
It demeans us all, but this Presidency has made a practice of that.
By the way....
"Whatever other faults Obama may have, his principled and consistent pledge to end torture, "enhanced interrogation tactics" and all the other euphemisms, from the beginning and now, not only because it is ineffective but because it is just flat wrong, is not a minor, but a major point in favor of electing Obama to me."
Good point, I hadn't seen it.