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
Rejecting the Obama-Cheney Alliance Against Torture Prosecutions
Jan 26, 2015
A decade ago, amid early reports of detainee abuse at CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay, defenders of U.S. detention and interrogation operations promoted a flawed distinction between torture and "torture-lite." They argued that, to our nation's credit, rather than resorting to brutal and violent maiming and mutilation, we employed less cruel techniques - techniques like sleep deprivation, extended isolation, stress positions, sensory bombardment, forced nudity, freezing temperatures, sexual and cultural humiliation, confinement in coffin-like boxes, and threats of harm to family members. This favorable assessment, however, does not withstand scientific scrutiny; these hands-off psychological methods are at least as devastating and debilitating in their long-term and often permanent effects. Yet the notion of "torture-lite" helped to encourage the public to accept the inhuman treatment of detainees.
Now, following last month's release of the Senate report on the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program," we are drawn to another deceptive distinction: the difference between "torture tolerance" on the one hand and what might be called "torture tolerance-lite" on the other. To nobody's surprise, torture tolerance found its go-to spokesperson years ago in Dick Cheney. The former vice-president predictably returned to center stage to defend the CIA's methods. His strident message has ranged from "I would do it again in a minute" to "It absolutely did work" to "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective." Indeed, Cheney and other Bush Administration officials who instituted the program apparently believe our torturers deserve to be decorated, not indicted.
Torture tolerance-lite has its own equally high-profile advocate: Barack Obama. As he began his first term in January 2009, the President stated, "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" when asked about possible consequences for our war-on-terror purveyors of torture. His opposition to accountability has not softened over the six years since. This past summer, anticipating the Senate report findings, Obama dismissively acknowledged, "We tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values" - and then he cautioned us against being "too sanctimonious" about it. And in December, when some of the gruesome details of CIA torture - including the significant involvement of psychologists as designers and implementers - finally became public, Obama recommended that we not "refight old arguments."
Cheney and Obama are unlikely allies but they have regrettably linked arms here. In their joint discounting of government-sponsored brutality, Cheney's torture tolerance and Obama's torture tolerance-lite represent a formidable front against calls for criminal prosecutions and justice. With such unity, perhaps it is unsurprising that national polls throughout the past decade - from one administration to the next - have consistently shown that many Americans support the use of torture.
To a troubling degree, it seems we have grown comfortable with a worldview that defends and excuses the barbaric treatment of other human beings: we torture because our country is in grave danger; those we torture are monstrous wrongdoers; we torture for the greater good; only torture can keep us safe; and those who criticize our stance on torture cannot be trusted. This perspective flourishes despite compelling evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have been ineffective in producing actionable intelligence and that our use of torture has badly damaged the moral authority of the United States around the world.
Torture, regardless of whether it relies on physical pain or psychological torment, is cruel, immoral, misguided, and illegal. As a profound affront and threat to both human dignity and the rule of law, torture degrades and diminishes not only its direct victims but also the society that tolerates it without accountability. That is why, in the long run, the adverse effects of torture tolerance-lite may be nearly indistinguishable from torture tolerance itself. In a different context, shortly after the attacks of 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that certain choices "give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil." Tragically, by forgoing criminal prosecutions, that's exactly what the embrace of torture tolerance-lite does today.
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 |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Roy Eidelson
Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and the author of Doing Harm: How the World’s Largest Psychological Association Lost Its Way in the War on Terror (McGill-Queen’s University Press).
A decade ago, amid early reports of detainee abuse at CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay, defenders of U.S. detention and interrogation operations promoted a flawed distinction between torture and "torture-lite." They argued that, to our nation's credit, rather than resorting to brutal and violent maiming and mutilation, we employed less cruel techniques - techniques like sleep deprivation, extended isolation, stress positions, sensory bombardment, forced nudity, freezing temperatures, sexual and cultural humiliation, confinement in coffin-like boxes, and threats of harm to family members. This favorable assessment, however, does not withstand scientific scrutiny; these hands-off psychological methods are at least as devastating and debilitating in their long-term and often permanent effects. Yet the notion of "torture-lite" helped to encourage the public to accept the inhuman treatment of detainees.
Now, following last month's release of the Senate report on the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program," we are drawn to another deceptive distinction: the difference between "torture tolerance" on the one hand and what might be called "torture tolerance-lite" on the other. To nobody's surprise, torture tolerance found its go-to spokesperson years ago in Dick Cheney. The former vice-president predictably returned to center stage to defend the CIA's methods. His strident message has ranged from "I would do it again in a minute" to "It absolutely did work" to "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective." Indeed, Cheney and other Bush Administration officials who instituted the program apparently believe our torturers deserve to be decorated, not indicted.
Torture tolerance-lite has its own equally high-profile advocate: Barack Obama. As he began his first term in January 2009, the President stated, "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" when asked about possible consequences for our war-on-terror purveyors of torture. His opposition to accountability has not softened over the six years since. This past summer, anticipating the Senate report findings, Obama dismissively acknowledged, "We tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values" - and then he cautioned us against being "too sanctimonious" about it. And in December, when some of the gruesome details of CIA torture - including the significant involvement of psychologists as designers and implementers - finally became public, Obama recommended that we not "refight old arguments."
Cheney and Obama are unlikely allies but they have regrettably linked arms here. In their joint discounting of government-sponsored brutality, Cheney's torture tolerance and Obama's torture tolerance-lite represent a formidable front against calls for criminal prosecutions and justice. With such unity, perhaps it is unsurprising that national polls throughout the past decade - from one administration to the next - have consistently shown that many Americans support the use of torture.
To a troubling degree, it seems we have grown comfortable with a worldview that defends and excuses the barbaric treatment of other human beings: we torture because our country is in grave danger; those we torture are monstrous wrongdoers; we torture for the greater good; only torture can keep us safe; and those who criticize our stance on torture cannot be trusted. This perspective flourishes despite compelling evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have been ineffective in producing actionable intelligence and that our use of torture has badly damaged the moral authority of the United States around the world.
Torture, regardless of whether it relies on physical pain or psychological torment, is cruel, immoral, misguided, and illegal. As a profound affront and threat to both human dignity and the rule of law, torture degrades and diminishes not only its direct victims but also the society that tolerates it without accountability. That is why, in the long run, the adverse effects of torture tolerance-lite may be nearly indistinguishable from torture tolerance itself. In a different context, shortly after the attacks of 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that certain choices "give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil." Tragically, by forgoing criminal prosecutions, that's exactly what the embrace of torture tolerance-lite does today.
Roy Eidelson
Roy Eidelson, PhD, is a member of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, a past president of Psychologists for Social Responsibility, and the author of Doing Harm: How the World’s Largest Psychological Association Lost Its Way in the War on Terror (McGill-Queen’s University Press).
A decade ago, amid early reports of detainee abuse at CIA black sites and Guantanamo Bay, defenders of U.S. detention and interrogation operations promoted a flawed distinction between torture and "torture-lite." They argued that, to our nation's credit, rather than resorting to brutal and violent maiming and mutilation, we employed less cruel techniques - techniques like sleep deprivation, extended isolation, stress positions, sensory bombardment, forced nudity, freezing temperatures, sexual and cultural humiliation, confinement in coffin-like boxes, and threats of harm to family members. This favorable assessment, however, does not withstand scientific scrutiny; these hands-off psychological methods are at least as devastating and debilitating in their long-term and often permanent effects. Yet the notion of "torture-lite" helped to encourage the public to accept the inhuman treatment of detainees.
Now, following last month's release of the Senate report on the CIA's "enhanced interrogation program," we are drawn to another deceptive distinction: the difference between "torture tolerance" on the one hand and what might be called "torture tolerance-lite" on the other. To nobody's surprise, torture tolerance found its go-to spokesperson years ago in Dick Cheney. The former vice-president predictably returned to center stage to defend the CIA's methods. His strident message has ranged from "I would do it again in a minute" to "It absolutely did work" to "I have no problem as long as we achieve our objective." Indeed, Cheney and other Bush Administration officials who instituted the program apparently believe our torturers deserve to be decorated, not indicted.
Torture tolerance-lite has its own equally high-profile advocate: Barack Obama. As he began his first term in January 2009, the President stated, "We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards" when asked about possible consequences for our war-on-terror purveyors of torture. His opposition to accountability has not softened over the six years since. This past summer, anticipating the Senate report findings, Obama dismissively acknowledged, "We tortured some folks. We did some things that were contrary to our values" - and then he cautioned us against being "too sanctimonious" about it. And in December, when some of the gruesome details of CIA torture - including the significant involvement of psychologists as designers and implementers - finally became public, Obama recommended that we not "refight old arguments."
Cheney and Obama are unlikely allies but they have regrettably linked arms here. In their joint discounting of government-sponsored brutality, Cheney's torture tolerance and Obama's torture tolerance-lite represent a formidable front against calls for criminal prosecutions and justice. With such unity, perhaps it is unsurprising that national polls throughout the past decade - from one administration to the next - have consistently shown that many Americans support the use of torture.
To a troubling degree, it seems we have grown comfortable with a worldview that defends and excuses the barbaric treatment of other human beings: we torture because our country is in grave danger; those we torture are monstrous wrongdoers; we torture for the greater good; only torture can keep us safe; and those who criticize our stance on torture cannot be trusted. This perspective flourishes despite compelling evidence that "enhanced interrogation techniques" have been ineffective in producing actionable intelligence and that our use of torture has badly damaged the moral authority of the United States around the world.
Torture, regardless of whether it relies on physical pain or psychological torment, is cruel, immoral, misguided, and illegal. As a profound affront and threat to both human dignity and the rule of law, torture degrades and diminishes not only its direct victims but also the society that tolerates it without accountability. That is why, in the long run, the adverse effects of torture tolerance-lite may be nearly indistinguishable from torture tolerance itself. In a different context, shortly after the attacks of 9/11, Attorney General John Ashcroft warned that certain choices "give ammunition to America's enemies, and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil." Tragically, by forgoing criminal prosecutions, that's exactly what the embrace of torture tolerance-lite does today.
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.