SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Torture: Immoral, Illegal, Counterproductive, and Un-American
If the law is discarded in the fight against terror, terrorists can rack up a win.
May 09, 2011
Osama bin Laden's death has laid to rest the mystery of his whereabouts. His body lies under the ocean. But now his death raises another increasingly popular question. Was he tracked down thanks to tips elicited through the torture of captured al-Qaeda operatives?
The answer should be clear: no, torture doesn't "work." The damage done by systematically resorting to torture far outweighs the benefits obtained from the very rare instances where reliable information is obtained from torture.
Defenders of the Bush-Cheney policies that gave us rampant human rights abuses at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons claim, on flimsy evidence, that waterboarding and other forms of torture produced information that eventually led the Navy SEALs to bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.
Defenders of Obama's policy of ending torture, such as White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, tell us that the trail to bin Laden's compound was assembled over a decade, from a multitude of bits and pieces of intelligence. As New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Charlie Savage explained, "harsh techniques played a small role at most" in leading the Navy SEALs to Osama Bin Laden.
Professional interrogators, like Air Force Major Matthew Alexander, insist that torture is the wrong way to go because it tends to produce unreliable or deliberately deceptive information. In addition, torture creates more terrorists than it unmasks.
It's also unnecessary, as I learned first-hand many years ago. I did part of my army service in World War II at an interrogation center for high-level German POWs. We got a lot of valuable intelligence without ever laying a hand on them.
But it's not necessary to deny that torture ever works in order to come to the conclusion that it should never be used. People who believe in morality -- and not everyone does -- will oppose torture because they consider it deeply immoral. People who believe in the rule of law will refuse to employ it because it is illegal. And people who are proud to be Americans should reject it because it is profoundly un-American. The U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, a German immigrant law professor at Columbia University, Francis Lieber, drafted "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," which President Abraham Lincoln subsequently promulgated. The Lieber Code, as it came to be known, is the fountainhead of all subsequent documents dealing with what is prohibited in warfare, both in this country and throughout the world.
At its core is this sentence: "The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith...offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers." The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which spell out the law of war in detail, and, as of 1994, to the Convention against Torture.
In 1980, in a case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, "The torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."
Another reason to obey the injunction against torture, one that military officers frequently cite, is the blowback effect. If the United States tortures foreign detainees as a matter of policy, as it did during George W. Bush's administration, what is to prevent other countries from using torture on American detainees, as the North Koreans did during the Korean War?
Finally, there's something about a slippery slope. If the law can be broken because doing so "works," where will that stop? How about convicting Guantanamo detainees on secret evidence? Or locking up "really bad people" -- that's what Dick Cheney called the ones in Gitmo -- for life without trying them at all, as the government is getting ready to do? Or doing away with the presumption of innocence, as President Barack Obama did the other day when he declared that Private Bradley Manning "broke the law," despite the fact that the alleged WikiLeaker hasn't even been tried yet?
If the law is discarded in the fight against terror, terrorists can rack up a win.
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 |
This column was distributed by OtherWords.
abu ghraibbarack obamablowbackcenter for constitutional rightschelsea manningdick cheneygeorge w. bushguantanamoosama bin ladenpakistanwikileaks
Osama bin Laden's death has laid to rest the mystery of his whereabouts. His body lies under the ocean. But now his death raises another increasingly popular question. Was he tracked down thanks to tips elicited through the torture of captured al-Qaeda operatives?
The answer should be clear: no, torture doesn't "work." The damage done by systematically resorting to torture far outweighs the benefits obtained from the very rare instances where reliable information is obtained from torture.
Defenders of the Bush-Cheney policies that gave us rampant human rights abuses at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons claim, on flimsy evidence, that waterboarding and other forms of torture produced information that eventually led the Navy SEALs to bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.
Defenders of Obama's policy of ending torture, such as White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, tell us that the trail to bin Laden's compound was assembled over a decade, from a multitude of bits and pieces of intelligence. As New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Charlie Savage explained, "harsh techniques played a small role at most" in leading the Navy SEALs to Osama Bin Laden.
Professional interrogators, like Air Force Major Matthew Alexander, insist that torture is the wrong way to go because it tends to produce unreliable or deliberately deceptive information. In addition, torture creates more terrorists than it unmasks.
It's also unnecessary, as I learned first-hand many years ago. I did part of my army service in World War II at an interrogation center for high-level German POWs. We got a lot of valuable intelligence without ever laying a hand on them.
But it's not necessary to deny that torture ever works in order to come to the conclusion that it should never be used. People who believe in morality -- and not everyone does -- will oppose torture because they consider it deeply immoral. People who believe in the rule of law will refuse to employ it because it is illegal. And people who are proud to be Americans should reject it because it is profoundly un-American. The U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, a German immigrant law professor at Columbia University, Francis Lieber, drafted "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," which President Abraham Lincoln subsequently promulgated. The Lieber Code, as it came to be known, is the fountainhead of all subsequent documents dealing with what is prohibited in warfare, both in this country and throughout the world.
At its core is this sentence: "The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith...offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers." The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which spell out the law of war in detail, and, as of 1994, to the Convention against Torture.
In 1980, in a case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, "The torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."
Another reason to obey the injunction against torture, one that military officers frequently cite, is the blowback effect. If the United States tortures foreign detainees as a matter of policy, as it did during George W. Bush's administration, what is to prevent other countries from using torture on American detainees, as the North Koreans did during the Korean War?
Finally, there's something about a slippery slope. If the law can be broken because doing so "works," where will that stop? How about convicting Guantanamo detainees on secret evidence? Or locking up "really bad people" -- that's what Dick Cheney called the ones in Gitmo -- for life without trying them at all, as the government is getting ready to do? Or doing away with the presumption of innocence, as President Barack Obama did the other day when he declared that Private Bradley Manning "broke the law," despite the fact that the alleged WikiLeaker hasn't even been tried yet?
If the law is discarded in the fight against terror, terrorists can rack up a win.
Osama bin Laden's death has laid to rest the mystery of his whereabouts. His body lies under the ocean. But now his death raises another increasingly popular question. Was he tracked down thanks to tips elicited through the torture of captured al-Qaeda operatives?
The answer should be clear: no, torture doesn't "work." The damage done by systematically resorting to torture far outweighs the benefits obtained from the very rare instances where reliable information is obtained from torture.
Defenders of the Bush-Cheney policies that gave us rampant human rights abuses at the Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo prisons claim, on flimsy evidence, that waterboarding and other forms of torture produced information that eventually led the Navy SEALs to bin Laden's hideout in Pakistan.
Defenders of Obama's policy of ending torture, such as White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, tell us that the trail to bin Laden's compound was assembled over a decade, from a multitude of bits and pieces of intelligence. As New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Charlie Savage explained, "harsh techniques played a small role at most" in leading the Navy SEALs to Osama Bin Laden.
Professional interrogators, like Air Force Major Matthew Alexander, insist that torture is the wrong way to go because it tends to produce unreliable or deliberately deceptive information. In addition, torture creates more terrorists than it unmasks.
It's also unnecessary, as I learned first-hand many years ago. I did part of my army service in World War II at an interrogation center for high-level German POWs. We got a lot of valuable intelligence without ever laying a hand on them.
But it's not necessary to deny that torture ever works in order to come to the conclusion that it should never be used. People who believe in morality -- and not everyone does -- will oppose torture because they consider it deeply immoral. People who believe in the rule of law will refuse to employ it because it is illegal. And people who are proud to be Americans should reject it because it is profoundly un-American. The U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.
In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, a German immigrant law professor at Columbia University, Francis Lieber, drafted "Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field," which President Abraham Lincoln subsequently promulgated. The Lieber Code, as it came to be known, is the fountainhead of all subsequent documents dealing with what is prohibited in warfare, both in this country and throughout the world.
At its core is this sentence: "The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith...offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers." The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which spell out the law of war in detail, and, as of 1994, to the Convention against Torture.
In 1980, in a case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, "The torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind."
Another reason to obey the injunction against torture, one that military officers frequently cite, is the blowback effect. If the United States tortures foreign detainees as a matter of policy, as it did during George W. Bush's administration, what is to prevent other countries from using torture on American detainees, as the North Koreans did during the Korean War?
Finally, there's something about a slippery slope. If the law can be broken because doing so "works," where will that stop? How about convicting Guantanamo detainees on secret evidence? Or locking up "really bad people" -- that's what Dick Cheney called the ones in Gitmo -- for life without trying them at all, as the government is getting ready to do? Or doing away with the presumption of innocence, as President Barack Obama did the other day when he declared that Private Bradley Manning "broke the law," despite the fact that the alleged WikiLeaker hasn't even been tried yet?
If the law is discarded in the fight against terror, terrorists can rack up a win.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.