By publishing the so-called “torture memos” and indicating a willingness to release photographs of detainee abuse, US President Barack Obama has split public opinion. There are those who believe torture not only denigrates the tortured but also the torturer, while others are prepared to shred their moral compass in the name of potentially saving their own skin.
In the center of these extremes are people who, while acknowledging that torture is immoral, believe there are occasions when it should be used “to save lives” as in the hypothetical “dirty bomb in Manhattan” scenario. Many more agree that the Bush administration erred in its use of torture but would prefer to put a lid on the past rather than hand ammunition to America’s enemies. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center found that 25 percent of Americans are adamant that torture is unacceptable in any circumstance, 15 percent say torture is often justifiable, while 34 percent believe it is necessary at times. Unsurprisingly, perhaps, many more Republicans approve of torture than Democrats.
Naturally, the right-wing Fox News is on the rampage rolling out commentator after commentator keen to characterize their new commander in chief as either a feeble apologist or, worse, as having endangered the US. This raw anger reached a crescendo when Obama opened the door to prosecutions at the highest level depending on his attorney general’s legal advice.
Obama’s critics argue that if Bush administration officials were to be prosecuted, this would leave all past, present and future administrations similarly vulnerable. “Does this mean that President Harry Truman should be investigated as a war criminal for nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” asked one. Others vehemently defend George W. Bush on the basis that following the Sept. 11 attacks he kept America safe. Eager to protect his own back, no doubt, former Vice President Dick Cheney has gone on the attack concerned that the torture paper trail leads right to his office. He has described Obama as “weak” and has made lurid claims that the country is now increasingly vulnerable to a terrorist attack. One might suppose that if, God forbid, his prophecy were to transpire, he would be dancing a jig.
Cheney has also hinted that “enhanced interrogations” actually prevented an attack on tall buildings in Los Angeles and wants the declassification of part of a document that supports this amounting to eight pages. But this chronically secretive individual does not want the entire document released to the public. It should, indeed, be published but not in a cherry-picking manner to suit Cheney’s case.
At the other end of the spectrum are those, of which I am one, for whom torture is an abomination that degrades human values. If a state practices torture what message does this send to our children? If it’s OK to use any means to justify a desired end, then what’s to stop playground bullies from beating up kids to grab their lunch money or mobile phone? Moreover, if we are willing to sink to such depths of depravity why should we expect our enemies not to do the same in the event our own soldiers are captured?
Torture also injures its practitioners. If someone is given the green light and a pat on the back to inflict cruelty on others, how can they be expected to ever extinguish this acquired sadism or to forget the horrors that resulted from their own hands? One tragic example is that of a Mormon military interpreter Alyssa Peterson who saw too much. In 2003, she turned a gun on herself just days after refusing to participate in torture sessions.
Even more to the point is that torture is universally illegal and any nation that practices it breaches international law as well as the United Nations Convention against Torture or other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It also contravenes the United States Code as well as the cherished US Constitution.
Furthermore, torture rarely achieves its aim as people in pain who believe they are on the brink of death will say anything they believe the torturer wants to hear just to survive. This is the reason why evidence gleaned via the use of torture is not accepted by most courts worldwide.
Lastly, there is the argument that torture and abuse spawns terrorism. Writing in the Independent Patrick Cockburn quotes Maj. Matthew Alexander who “personally conducted 300 interrogations of prisoners in Iraq” as saying, “The reason why foreign fighters joined Al-Qaeda in Iraq was overwhelmingly because of abuses in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib and not Islamic ideology.” Alexander opted not to use torture during his interrogations. He says it plays into the hands of Al-Qaeda “because it shows us up as hypocrites when we talk about human rights”.
There is no doubt in my mind that Obama did the right thing by exposing the misguided policy of his predecessor and reversing it. But how far is he prepared to go to ensure this will never happen again? It seems he has already backtracked on his proposal for a bipartisan truth commission and he has now told lawmakers that he doesn’t want to litigate the past. This reluctance is due to his fear of splitting the country down the middle as well as alienating Republicans in Congress that would severely hamper his political agenda.
But now that he has opened a Pandora’s box, he should go the whole way rather than settle for half measures. Indeed, a UN Special Rapporteur Manfred Novak says Washington is obligated to prosecute those US Justice Department officials who drafted the legal advice given to the CIA in the “torture memos”. But with the risk of high-ranking former administration figures being implicated during such prosecutions, my guess is it will never happen. Rather than stir up a hornet’s nest it’s likely that Obama would prefer to wish it all away.
