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
Obama's Bulwark against Torture: Will It Stop Trump?
Just after President Trump's Inauguration, a draft of an executive order was leaked which indicated his intent to seek a formal review on whether to resume ill-treatment.
Apr 01, 2017
Just after President Trump's Inauguration, a draft of an executive order was leaked which indicated his intent to seek a formal review on whether to resume ill-treatment. Of course, we know that during his campaign he famously stated that he would authorize waterboarding and "a hell of a lot worse." But shortly after the leak, reports emerged of a pull-back from that policy. Though the president explained that this shift was due to the position of his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, it is necessary to also look at former President Obama's efforts to turn the page on America's sordid chapter of torture. A barricade was indeed constructed to help guard against its return, and it is well worth noting this as a contributing factor.
After 9/11 Bush administration lawyers issued opinions stating that certain abusive treatment did not meet the legal definition of torture. Yet their interpretation of federal statutes and international law was considered erroneousfar and wide once the memos were disclosed by an unauthorized leaker.
To relegate these distorted readings to the dustbin of history, Obama signed an executive order on his second day in office restricting all interrogations -- by the military, the C.I.A. and private contractors -- to only the techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual. Seven years later, the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act then codified that order into federal law.
The weight of this change was oddly overlooked during the presidential campaign when President Trump called for brutalizing terror suspects. The attention was on whether he would reinstate torture, not whether he could. Following a program of torment that twisted the law to authorize its use, this is somewhat understandable. But now Mr. Trump postures with proposed orders and statements that do nothing to overcome the statutory constraints that have been erected.
The army manual that newly regulates interrogation expressly prohibits the grossest harms, including waterboarding, beatings and sexual humiliation. This is significant since the Bush administration felt free to institute practices that were determined (behind closed doors) to not involve severe pain and suffering. But toying with what constitutes torture has become meaningless. Authorized techniques are clearly listed in the manual, otherwise they are illegal.
Under the new law, any modifications to the manual must be made public 30 days before taking effect. In addition, changes need to comply with "legal obligations" and the practices must "not involve the use or threat of force." It is worth noting that the requirement that changes remain freely available is a lesson learned from experience in the Bush era as the memos on torture only survived while they were kept hidden from the public.
Today, this means that Secretary of Defense James Mattis (in consultation with the Attorney General, Director of the FBI and Director of National Intelligence) would need to stand behind the introduction of any additional techniques and their legality since the process is forced into the open by law. This raises a daunting barrier and from what Mattis said in his confirmation hearings, ill-treatment is off the table.
Yet President Trump appears to have no compunction about calling for abhorrent practices and may well see a political benefit.
Could more have been done to prevent a reconsideration of torture? Yes. The failure to prosecute those involved or provide redress to victims is a real missed opportunity to establish a firm deterrent, not to mention serve justice found in the laws on torture. Additionally, there is one technique in the manual (Appendix M) that has caused concern as it could open the door to sleep deprivation. This needs revision or removal.
International law is exceptionally clear on torture's illegality, and notions of effectiveness are irrelevant. Nonetheless, the idea that "torture works" remains a useful argument for its proponents.
Aware of this, the Obama administration established the first federally funded scientific research program in decades to study the most effective interrogation methods. Behavioral scientists working in that program have compiled research that confirms what many experienced interrogators have been claiming for years -- building rapport with a suspect draws out more reliable information, and faster, than harsh methods.
This project was led by the Research Committee of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group which commissioned numerous independent investigations (all legal and ethical) and integrated the results into training and practice. The group was assembled from various government agencies and created by Obama's original executive order. It authorized scientists to explore a vital research question that has languished unstudied for over a half century.
For scholars who have investigated the utility of torture, this is particularly meaningful since historians have yet to uncover any government inquiries into its efficacy; that is, supporters have zero researched proof of its advantage. For this reason, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the C.I.A.'s use of torture, which found no evidence of its usefulness, is a document of historic proportions that should be fully published without delay.
Fundamentally, the Obama administration's two-pronged approach of closing legal gaps and studying effective means of interrogation, in fact, helps illuminate the moral point at stake. Simply put, the relevant question has become:
How could an act that is manifestly prohibited and scientifically shown to lessen our chances of saving lives--all while destroying a person's dignity--possibly be considered moral?
All of this will loom over the new president, and act as a bulwark against torture's return. Let us hope it is enough.
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.
Steven Barela
Steven J. Barela is an assistant professor at the University of Geneva in the Global Studies Institute and a member of the law faculty. Born and raised in the US, he was a flight attendant for United Airlines on 9/11 and turned to academia in its wake. He published a monograph on counterterrorism with Routledge in 2014 and an edited volume on armed drones with Ashgate in 2015. For an overview and excerpts of these books, please visit his website: Legitimacy as a Target.
Just after President Trump's Inauguration, a draft of an executive order was leaked which indicated his intent to seek a formal review on whether to resume ill-treatment. Of course, we know that during his campaign he famously stated that he would authorize waterboarding and "a hell of a lot worse." But shortly after the leak, reports emerged of a pull-back from that policy. Though the president explained that this shift was due to the position of his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, it is necessary to also look at former President Obama's efforts to turn the page on America's sordid chapter of torture. A barricade was indeed constructed to help guard against its return, and it is well worth noting this as a contributing factor.
After 9/11 Bush administration lawyers issued opinions stating that certain abusive treatment did not meet the legal definition of torture. Yet their interpretation of federal statutes and international law was considered erroneousfar and wide once the memos were disclosed by an unauthorized leaker.
To relegate these distorted readings to the dustbin of history, Obama signed an executive order on his second day in office restricting all interrogations -- by the military, the C.I.A. and private contractors -- to only the techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual. Seven years later, the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act then codified that order into federal law.
The weight of this change was oddly overlooked during the presidential campaign when President Trump called for brutalizing terror suspects. The attention was on whether he would reinstate torture, not whether he could. Following a program of torment that twisted the law to authorize its use, this is somewhat understandable. But now Mr. Trump postures with proposed orders and statements that do nothing to overcome the statutory constraints that have been erected.
The army manual that newly regulates interrogation expressly prohibits the grossest harms, including waterboarding, beatings and sexual humiliation. This is significant since the Bush administration felt free to institute practices that were determined (behind closed doors) to not involve severe pain and suffering. But toying with what constitutes torture has become meaningless. Authorized techniques are clearly listed in the manual, otherwise they are illegal.
Under the new law, any modifications to the manual must be made public 30 days before taking effect. In addition, changes need to comply with "legal obligations" and the practices must "not involve the use or threat of force." It is worth noting that the requirement that changes remain freely available is a lesson learned from experience in the Bush era as the memos on torture only survived while they were kept hidden from the public.
Today, this means that Secretary of Defense James Mattis (in consultation with the Attorney General, Director of the FBI and Director of National Intelligence) would need to stand behind the introduction of any additional techniques and their legality since the process is forced into the open by law. This raises a daunting barrier and from what Mattis said in his confirmation hearings, ill-treatment is off the table.
Yet President Trump appears to have no compunction about calling for abhorrent practices and may well see a political benefit.
Could more have been done to prevent a reconsideration of torture? Yes. The failure to prosecute those involved or provide redress to victims is a real missed opportunity to establish a firm deterrent, not to mention serve justice found in the laws on torture. Additionally, there is one technique in the manual (Appendix M) that has caused concern as it could open the door to sleep deprivation. This needs revision or removal.
International law is exceptionally clear on torture's illegality, and notions of effectiveness are irrelevant. Nonetheless, the idea that "torture works" remains a useful argument for its proponents.
Aware of this, the Obama administration established the first federally funded scientific research program in decades to study the most effective interrogation methods. Behavioral scientists working in that program have compiled research that confirms what many experienced interrogators have been claiming for years -- building rapport with a suspect draws out more reliable information, and faster, than harsh methods.
This project was led by the Research Committee of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group which commissioned numerous independent investigations (all legal and ethical) and integrated the results into training and practice. The group was assembled from various government agencies and created by Obama's original executive order. It authorized scientists to explore a vital research question that has languished unstudied for over a half century.
For scholars who have investigated the utility of torture, this is particularly meaningful since historians have yet to uncover any government inquiries into its efficacy; that is, supporters have zero researched proof of its advantage. For this reason, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the C.I.A.'s use of torture, which found no evidence of its usefulness, is a document of historic proportions that should be fully published without delay.
Fundamentally, the Obama administration's two-pronged approach of closing legal gaps and studying effective means of interrogation, in fact, helps illuminate the moral point at stake. Simply put, the relevant question has become:
How could an act that is manifestly prohibited and scientifically shown to lessen our chances of saving lives--all while destroying a person's dignity--possibly be considered moral?
All of this will loom over the new president, and act as a bulwark against torture's return. Let us hope it is enough.
Steven Barela
Steven J. Barela is an assistant professor at the University of Geneva in the Global Studies Institute and a member of the law faculty. Born and raised in the US, he was a flight attendant for United Airlines on 9/11 and turned to academia in its wake. He published a monograph on counterterrorism with Routledge in 2014 and an edited volume on armed drones with Ashgate in 2015. For an overview and excerpts of these books, please visit his website: Legitimacy as a Target.
Just after President Trump's Inauguration, a draft of an executive order was leaked which indicated his intent to seek a formal review on whether to resume ill-treatment. Of course, we know that during his campaign he famously stated that he would authorize waterboarding and "a hell of a lot worse." But shortly after the leak, reports emerged of a pull-back from that policy. Though the president explained that this shift was due to the position of his Secretary of Defense, General Mattis, it is necessary to also look at former President Obama's efforts to turn the page on America's sordid chapter of torture. A barricade was indeed constructed to help guard against its return, and it is well worth noting this as a contributing factor.
After 9/11 Bush administration lawyers issued opinions stating that certain abusive treatment did not meet the legal definition of torture. Yet their interpretation of federal statutes and international law was considered erroneousfar and wide once the memos were disclosed by an unauthorized leaker.
To relegate these distorted readings to the dustbin of history, Obama signed an executive order on his second day in office restricting all interrogations -- by the military, the C.I.A. and private contractors -- to only the techniques outlined in the Army Field Manual. Seven years later, the 2016 National Defense Authorization Act then codified that order into federal law.
The weight of this change was oddly overlooked during the presidential campaign when President Trump called for brutalizing terror suspects. The attention was on whether he would reinstate torture, not whether he could. Following a program of torment that twisted the law to authorize its use, this is somewhat understandable. But now Mr. Trump postures with proposed orders and statements that do nothing to overcome the statutory constraints that have been erected.
The army manual that newly regulates interrogation expressly prohibits the grossest harms, including waterboarding, beatings and sexual humiliation. This is significant since the Bush administration felt free to institute practices that were determined (behind closed doors) to not involve severe pain and suffering. But toying with what constitutes torture has become meaningless. Authorized techniques are clearly listed in the manual, otherwise they are illegal.
Under the new law, any modifications to the manual must be made public 30 days before taking effect. In addition, changes need to comply with "legal obligations" and the practices must "not involve the use or threat of force." It is worth noting that the requirement that changes remain freely available is a lesson learned from experience in the Bush era as the memos on torture only survived while they were kept hidden from the public.
Today, this means that Secretary of Defense James Mattis (in consultation with the Attorney General, Director of the FBI and Director of National Intelligence) would need to stand behind the introduction of any additional techniques and their legality since the process is forced into the open by law. This raises a daunting barrier and from what Mattis said in his confirmation hearings, ill-treatment is off the table.
Yet President Trump appears to have no compunction about calling for abhorrent practices and may well see a political benefit.
Could more have been done to prevent a reconsideration of torture? Yes. The failure to prosecute those involved or provide redress to victims is a real missed opportunity to establish a firm deterrent, not to mention serve justice found in the laws on torture. Additionally, there is one technique in the manual (Appendix M) that has caused concern as it could open the door to sleep deprivation. This needs revision or removal.
International law is exceptionally clear on torture's illegality, and notions of effectiveness are irrelevant. Nonetheless, the idea that "torture works" remains a useful argument for its proponents.
Aware of this, the Obama administration established the first federally funded scientific research program in decades to study the most effective interrogation methods. Behavioral scientists working in that program have compiled research that confirms what many experienced interrogators have been claiming for years -- building rapport with a suspect draws out more reliable information, and faster, than harsh methods.
This project was led by the Research Committee of the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group which commissioned numerous independent investigations (all legal and ethical) and integrated the results into training and practice. The group was assembled from various government agencies and created by Obama's original executive order. It authorized scientists to explore a vital research question that has languished unstudied for over a half century.
For scholars who have investigated the utility of torture, this is particularly meaningful since historians have yet to uncover any government inquiries into its efficacy; that is, supporters have zero researched proof of its advantage. For this reason, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the C.I.A.'s use of torture, which found no evidence of its usefulness, is a document of historic proportions that should be fully published without delay.
Fundamentally, the Obama administration's two-pronged approach of closing legal gaps and studying effective means of interrogation, in fact, helps illuminate the moral point at stake. Simply put, the relevant question has become:
How could an act that is manifestly prohibited and scientifically shown to lessen our chances of saving lives--all while destroying a person's dignity--possibly be considered moral?
All of this will loom over the new president, and act as a bulwark against torture's return. Let us hope it is enough.
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.