US Torture Tactics Shame Us All
Thank goodness for whistle-blowers, those public servants who think Americans should know the harm that is being inflicted in our name.
Some of those high-minded officials recently revealed to The New York Times that the Bush administration has abandoned its 2004 legal opinion that torture is "abhorrent" and instead has resumed "brutal interrogations."
The Times said two subsequent Justice Department legal opinions -- implemented by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- gave the go-ahead for interrogators to resort to physical and psychological tactics that inflict pain.
The authorization endorsed use of the harshest techniques applied by the CIA, including head slapping, "waterboarding" that simulates drowning, holding detainees in frigid temperatures, manacling prisoners in stress positions for hours, sleep deprivation for days and nights and subjecting them to long hours of thundering rock music.
White House and Justice Department officials insist the opinions do not conflict with the administration's promise not to torture suspects. But the memos have never been released.
The Times said this was the first time in U.S. history that the federal government authorized such tactics.
There are arguments on the other side for more humane persuasion and less pain. And there has been some conscientious resistance to torture among top Justice Department officials and some military lawyers.
The new orders also renew the CIA's authority to hold prisoners in so-called overseas black sites.
The secret detention centers reportedly are located in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe, where brutal tactics can be employed out of sight. They apparently are secret only to Americans.
The Times reported "nervous" CIA interrogators from abroad sent inquiries back to agency lawyers at headquarters to ask: "Are we breaking the laws against torture?"
Obviously sensitive to such shameful reports, President Bush said twice: "We do not torture."
It may come down to what he means by "torture."
Unfortunately, his poor credibility in the run-up to the war against Iraq requires that he deliver more details rather than make simple assertions. Will he say it under oath? And will he define "torture"?
White House press secretary Dana Perino tells reporters repeatedly, "It is not our policy to torture." But policy is one thing, action is another.
Frances Fragos Townsend, White House homeland security adviser, justifies extreme interrogation, telling CNN that al-Qaida terrorists "are trained to resist harsh interrogations." Her premise is that Americans could get killed "if we failed to do the hard things."
So as long as there is doubt, the president should release all the guidelines for so-called enhanced interrogation. The details probably won't come as a surprise to potential terrorists.
Congress also would like to see the details because the lawmakers have outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners. This ban is consistent with the wording of the U.N.'s 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that U.S. prisoners are covered by the Geneva Conventions barring abusive treatment.
The Bush administration got off track starting with the infamous 2002 memo drafted by John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, who was then working at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
Yoo, a strong supporter of expanded presidential power, claimed that no interrogation practices were illegal unless they caused the equivalent of organ failure "or even death."
When did Bush begin to think that U.S. laws and treaty obligations did not apply to him or his team? How can he allow the perception that the U.S. tortures prisoners?
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Thank goodness for whistle-blowers, those public servants who think Americans should know the harm that is being inflicted in our name.
Some of those high-minded officials recently revealed to The New York Times that the Bush administration has abandoned its 2004 legal opinion that torture is "abhorrent" and instead has resumed "brutal interrogations."
The Times said two subsequent Justice Department legal opinions -- implemented by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- gave the go-ahead for interrogators to resort to physical and psychological tactics that inflict pain.
The authorization endorsed use of the harshest techniques applied by the CIA, including head slapping, "waterboarding" that simulates drowning, holding detainees in frigid temperatures, manacling prisoners in stress positions for hours, sleep deprivation for days and nights and subjecting them to long hours of thundering rock music.
White House and Justice Department officials insist the opinions do not conflict with the administration's promise not to torture suspects. But the memos have never been released.
The Times said this was the first time in U.S. history that the federal government authorized such tactics.
There are arguments on the other side for more humane persuasion and less pain. And there has been some conscientious resistance to torture among top Justice Department officials and some military lawyers.
The new orders also renew the CIA's authority to hold prisoners in so-called overseas black sites.
The secret detention centers reportedly are located in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe, where brutal tactics can be employed out of sight. They apparently are secret only to Americans.
The Times reported "nervous" CIA interrogators from abroad sent inquiries back to agency lawyers at headquarters to ask: "Are we breaking the laws against torture?"
Obviously sensitive to such shameful reports, President Bush said twice: "We do not torture."
It may come down to what he means by "torture."
Unfortunately, his poor credibility in the run-up to the war against Iraq requires that he deliver more details rather than make simple assertions. Will he say it under oath? And will he define "torture"?
White House press secretary Dana Perino tells reporters repeatedly, "It is not our policy to torture." But policy is one thing, action is another.
Frances Fragos Townsend, White House homeland security adviser, justifies extreme interrogation, telling CNN that al-Qaida terrorists "are trained to resist harsh interrogations." Her premise is that Americans could get killed "if we failed to do the hard things."
So as long as there is doubt, the president should release all the guidelines for so-called enhanced interrogation. The details probably won't come as a surprise to potential terrorists.
Congress also would like to see the details because the lawmakers have outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners. This ban is consistent with the wording of the U.N.'s 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that U.S. prisoners are covered by the Geneva Conventions barring abusive treatment.
The Bush administration got off track starting with the infamous 2002 memo drafted by John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, who was then working at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
Yoo, a strong supporter of expanded presidential power, claimed that no interrogation practices were illegal unless they caused the equivalent of organ failure "or even death."
When did Bush begin to think that U.S. laws and treaty obligations did not apply to him or his team? How can he allow the perception that the U.S. tortures prisoners?
Thank goodness for whistle-blowers, those public servants who think Americans should know the harm that is being inflicted in our name.
Some of those high-minded officials recently revealed to The New York Times that the Bush administration has abandoned its 2004 legal opinion that torture is "abhorrent" and instead has resumed "brutal interrogations."
The Times said two subsequent Justice Department legal opinions -- implemented by then-Attorney General Alberto Gonzales -- gave the go-ahead for interrogators to resort to physical and psychological tactics that inflict pain.
The authorization endorsed use of the harshest techniques applied by the CIA, including head slapping, "waterboarding" that simulates drowning, holding detainees in frigid temperatures, manacling prisoners in stress positions for hours, sleep deprivation for days and nights and subjecting them to long hours of thundering rock music.
White House and Justice Department officials insist the opinions do not conflict with the administration's promise not to torture suspects. But the memos have never been released.
The Times said this was the first time in U.S. history that the federal government authorized such tactics.
There are arguments on the other side for more humane persuasion and less pain. And there has been some conscientious resistance to torture among top Justice Department officials and some military lawyers.
The new orders also renew the CIA's authority to hold prisoners in so-called overseas black sites.
The secret detention centers reportedly are located in Afghanistan, Thailand and Eastern Europe, where brutal tactics can be employed out of sight. They apparently are secret only to Americans.
The Times reported "nervous" CIA interrogators from abroad sent inquiries back to agency lawyers at headquarters to ask: "Are we breaking the laws against torture?"
Obviously sensitive to such shameful reports, President Bush said twice: "We do not torture."
It may come down to what he means by "torture."
Unfortunately, his poor credibility in the run-up to the war against Iraq requires that he deliver more details rather than make simple assertions. Will he say it under oath? And will he define "torture"?
White House press secretary Dana Perino tells reporters repeatedly, "It is not our policy to torture." But policy is one thing, action is another.
Frances Fragos Townsend, White House homeland security adviser, justifies extreme interrogation, telling CNN that al-Qaida terrorists "are trained to resist harsh interrogations." Her premise is that Americans could get killed "if we failed to do the hard things."
So as long as there is doubt, the president should release all the guidelines for so-called enhanced interrogation. The details probably won't come as a surprise to potential terrorists.
Congress also would like to see the details because the lawmakers have outlawed "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" of prisoners. This ban is consistent with the wording of the U.N.'s 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2006 that U.S. prisoners are covered by the Geneva Conventions barring abusive treatment.
The Bush administration got off track starting with the infamous 2002 memo drafted by John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California-Berkeley, who was then working at the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department.
Yoo, a strong supporter of expanded presidential power, claimed that no interrogation practices were illegal unless they caused the equivalent of organ failure "or even death."
When did Bush begin to think that U.S. laws and treaty obligations did not apply to him or his team? How can he allow the perception that the U.S. tortures prisoners?