Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiBush's Legacy of Torture
I still find it hard to believe that George W. Bush, to his eternal shame and our nation's great discredit, made torture a matter of hair-splitting, legalistic debate at the highest levels of the United States government. But that's precisely what he did.
Three previously classified administration memos obtained last week by the American Civil Liberties Union add to our understanding of this disgraceful episode. The documents are attempts to justify the unjustifiable -- the use of brutal interrogation methods that international agreements define as torture -- and keep those who ordered and carried out this dirty business from being prosecuted and jailed.
The memos don't call it torture, of course. Heavily redacted before being surrendered to the ACLU under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the documents refer euphemistically to "enhanced techniques" of interrogation. Changing the name doesn't change the act, however. One memo, written in 2004, specifically makes clear the administration's view that "the waterboard" is an acceptable way to extract information.
Waterboarding, a technique of simulated drowning, is considered torture virtually everywhere on earth except in the Bush administration's archive of self-exculpatory memos, directives and opinions.
The most stunning of the memos -- written in August 2002 by Jay Bybee, who was head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel -- makes the incredible claim that unless a torturer has the "specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," no violation of U.S. laws against torture has occurred. Bybee, since appointed to the federal bench, wrote that the torturer needed only the "honest belief" that he was not actually committing torture in order to avoid legal jeopardy. Oh, and Bybee added that it wasn't even necessary for that belief to be "reasonable."
The memo notes that U.S. torture statutes outlaw the infliction of severe mental pain, as well as physical pain. It acknowledges that "the threat of imminent death" is one of the specific acts that can constitute torture. Somehow, though, the administration pretends not to understand that strapping a prisoner down and pouring water into his nose until he can't breathe constitutes a death threat -- regardless of whether the interrogator intended to stop before the prisoner actually drowned.
Perhaps that question was dealt with in the nine-tenths of the memo that was redacted before the administration handed it over to the ACLU. The memo never would have been released at all if the government hadn't been ordered to do so by a federal judge.
The whole thing would be laughable if it were not such a rank abomination. No government obeying the law needs a paper trail to absolve its interrogators of committing torture. Conversely, a government that produces such a paper trail has something monstrous to hide.
It is not difficult to avoid violating federal laws and international agreements that prohibit torture. Just don't torture people, period. The idea that there exists some acceptable middle ground -- a kind of "torture lite" -- is a hideous affront to this nation's honor and values. This, perhaps above all, is how George Bush should be remembered: as the president who embraced torture.
I wouldn't be surprised if, as he left office, Bush issued some sort of pardon clearing those who authorized or carried out "enhanced techniques" of interrogations from any jeopardy under U.S. law. International law is something else entirely, however, and I imagine that some of those involved in this sordid interlude might want to be careful in choosing their vacation spots. I'd avoid The Hague, for example.
Barack Obama has stood consistently against torture. John McCain, who was tortured himself as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, has denounced torture as well -- and, although he voted against restraining the CIA with the same no-exceptions policy that now applies to military interrogators, he has been forthright in saying that waterboarding is torture, and thus illegal. On Inauguration Day, whoever wins, this awful interlude will end.
The clear and urgent duty of the next president will be to investigate the Bush administration's torture policy and give Americans a full accounting of what was done in our name. It's astounding that we need some kind of truth commission in the United States of America, but we do. Only when we learn the full story of what happened will we be able to confidently promise, to ourselves and to a world that looks to this country for moral leadership: Never again.
--Eugene Robinson
© 2008, Washington Post Writers Group
11 Comments so far
Show Allwe've gone from bombing brown people to torturing them.
so we're seeing some progressive progress here.
Waterboarding is not "simulated drowning." Waterboarding is controlled drowning. Drowning is asphyxiation with water. Waterboarding is asphyxiation with water, but conditions are controlled enough that the person who is being drowned is revived before they die, usually. Unless We the People (including the AP, Reuters, WSJ, and the rest of the media) stop sugar coating the nomenclature of torture we will never have an honest debate about its use.
Alas, the Frost Giants and Cheney's Dark Side have won.
I'll always recall the first time I saw torture discussed as if it's not completely antithetical to American principle. It was on MSNBC's Hardball and at the bottom of the screen it said 'Is Torture Ever OK?' It was as if you could actually hear the death knell on the United States of America. If the 24-hour news stations had been around 100 years ago, I wonder if they have debated 'Is Lynching Ever OK?'
With all the nonsense about "is Obama a Muslim", one thing the last 8 years have proven unequivocally to me is that I will NEVER vote for a born-again Christian to any office in the United States! It was under a born-again Christian (not a Muslim, Jew, or Atheist) that America became officially - on the books - as a morally bankrupt nation!
After the Korean war veterans used to talk about the "Chinese water torture." It was the same thing our people have been doing under Bush.
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits forced self incrimination. That's because the Founders understood that if you allow testimony which is forced from the defendant as evidence, torture will follow close behind.
The 5th Amendment states: "No person shall . . . be be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . ."
Defying the Constitution as grossly as Bush and his cronies have can't be anything but a high crime. Nancy Pelosi makes me sick!
wsws - Never noticed Obama's suits. But I do know that Nader will not be president.
Barack Obama wear nice suits, doesn't he?
Well, that being the case, here's how Barack Obama can win the election in a landslide. ...
Barack Obama should display two things on the lapels of his suit. On one lapel he should have affixed a little notepad (you know, one of those small notepad, like a detective would carry),and in that little notepad should be a list of the names of every prisoner tortured as a result of US foreign policy. … Just the names.
And wherever he goes, Barack Obama shouldn't say a word, not a single word, but instead he should simply *point* to the list of tortured prisoners affixed to one of his lapels.
And each time he does, he should hand out a card to whomever is present, the card stating: "If I'm elected, on January 20, 2009, torture stops, renditioning stops. Americans don't torture. Civilized people don't torture."
No words, no speech, just the list of people being tortured, affixed to one of his lapel; along with the little cards (the promissory notes) he would give out, over and over and over and over, to everyone and anyone he meets.
And on the other lapel? … On the other lapel of the real nice suits Barack Obama wears, there should be electronic-counter that reflects the numbers at this site — http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home This is the running total of how much the Iraq War is costing US taxpayers — roughly $15 billion per month -- the total cost now more than $540 billion.
And all Barack Obama would do is *point* to this electronic-counter, as it flips out the billions of dollars being spent by American taxpayer to murder innocent people; while, at the same time, making rich those who profit from America's military-industrial complex.
No words, no speech. He just points to the counter.
So that, first debate — Obama doesn't say a word. He just points to one lapel and then to the other. And when he points to the lapel with the list of tortured prisoners, he walks over to Charlie Gibson or George Stephanopolis or whatever Harry or Harriet Hairspray is moderating the debates and gives then his little "calling card" on torture.
Second debate — same thing.
Third debate — same thing.
30 second commercials — same thing.
Press conferences — same thing.
Barbara Walters interview — same thing.
Diane Sawyer — same thing.
Boy Scouts of America "speech" — same thing.
Now, if Barack Obama were to outfit his lapels with those two items, silent as a lamb, he would:
a.) Win the election in a landslide. (In fact, he'd be so far ahead in the polls John McCain would quit the race and take up chicken farming);
b.) Win the respect and the support of the overwhelming majority of people throughout the world; and
c.) No one would be able to accuse him of being "an empty suit."
But, then again, I'm obviously *not* talking about Barack Obama. I'm talking about a candidate with political and moral principles. And Barack Obama, the con man who posed as a peace candidate in the primaries -- the "peace candidate" who supports two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) and has indicated a clear-cut willingness to engage in two *more* wars (Iran and Pakistan) -- has no principles.
Challenge the political duopoly -- vote Green, vote Nader -- whatever you do vote against another phony "choice" -- a choice betwen two war candidates: John McCain and Barack Obama.
I always considered the fact that the merits of torture was being discussed in "polite,civilized society" was an oxymoron.
Democratic bloggers love to talk about "Bush's legacy of torture," but it's also Nancy Pelosi's legacy of torture, and Jay Rockefeller's legacy of torture, and Jane Harman's legacy of torture...
The Democratic leadership was in the loop from the beginning, and torture was just about as bipartisan a policy as Washington will ever see.
Both the Democratic and Republican Parties are parties of torture, both parties are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and if the United States is ever going to regain a trace of dignity or honor, both these parties must be abolished.
"he has now brought, front and center, torture into the mainstream"
I agree with that.
One of the "good" things about Bush is that he has done loudly and brazenly what the US government has been doing in secret for years and years. The biggest mistake activists can make is to buy into the notion that Bush is an aberration, that his use of torture is unique.
The KUBARK (CIA) Interrogation Manual from 1963 spells out all of the techniques that are still being used in Guantanamo and Iraq. Nothing new. What's new is that Bush does it loudly. And because of that more than half of Americans think (realize) that their government uses torture, and two-thirds find that unacceptable. People have to know about it before it can be challenged and stopped, and Bush has "aided" that effort with his shamelessness.
ah!
the whole torture thing
the author writes:
"I still find it hard to believe that George W. Bush, to his eternal shame and our nation's great discredit, made torture a matter of hair-splitting, legalistic debate at the highest levels of the United States government. But that's precisely what he did."
wrong. that is not what he did
he has now brought, front and center, torture into the mainstream
he has committed the faux pas of actually making the american public take ownership of the ugly realities of empire - that is you may have to rip off someone's testicle's every now and then
this has been the imperial modus operandi for centuries but it has always been done, more or less, in secret
now when telling little tommy or susie about apple pie, betsy ross and how god especially likes the stars and stripes, in fairness, there should be at least a nod to torture
it is now a patch on the american quilt - not so much a sign of bush's depravity, which knows no end, but rather a testament to the moral decline of the average american
quite an achievement
we now have the spectacle of grade 7 students in new zealand who raised us 7 thousand dollars as a bounty to anyone who would arrest condi rice as a war criminal
amazing - children now have to take into their own hands the adult task of detaining the criminals among us
she was there on some kind of speaking tour
charles taylor is on trial in the hague, as he should be
radovan karadžić is on his way as you read this
when will bush, cheney, powell, rice, perle, and co be there
how about clinton - who bombed a pharmaceutical plant in sudan and a village in kosovo to deflect attention from his hand job impeachment
how about nixon and kissinger for the secret war in cambodia
chavez said it best when he stated at the un that it was an affront to have such an important world institution located in the world's biggest terrorist nation
so put the torture patch on the quilt - right next to he genocide of the first nations, the enslavement of the blacks and the destruction of the world - maybe right on top of the betsy ross apple pie thing
you broke it -you bought it - and you own it
no squealing out of this one