Below is my column today in USA Today on the torture report. This is the slightly longer version that ran on the Internet.
—————————————–
As Shakespeare wrote in the Merchant of Venice, “truth will out.” The release of the report of the Senate Intelligence Committee was the long-awaited truth about one of this country’s most shameful chapters. Like water, truth has a way of finding its way out even against the determined obstruction. However, the question is what truth came out this week in the hundreds of pages of highly disturbing, and often disgusting, details of the “enhanced interrogation” program.
There are obvious “truths” about waterboarding being a crime and how torture is a poor vehicle for obtaining intelligence.
Then there are truths that are less obvious but equally clear in the pages of this report. Here are three such inconvenient truths that emerge from the Torture Report:
Truth #1: The CIA proved it is immune from legal restraints
As damaging as this report is to the reputation of the Agency, it reaffirms the underlying assumption that made the torture program possible: CIA officials enjoy effective immunity from the law.
The report details crimes that run gamut of the criminal code. It starts with torture itself that is not just a crime but a war crime. However, the report also details – and names some of those responsible – for destroying evidence, lying to Congress and obstructing investigations into the torture program. Former Director Michael V. Hayden is cited for actively telling employees to lie and for personally giving false information to Congress . CIA Deputy Director John McLaughlin was expressly called on the Senate floor by Sen. Dianne Feinstein for giving false information to Congress. CIA General Counsel Scott Muller in 2003 is quoted as lying to the White House about the existence of videotapes on the interrogations. The report details false statement after false statement given by past directors and high-ranking officials to Congress, to the White House and to the American people. It also details how, after CIA were told about inquiries into the legality of the torture program, officials promptly ordered the destruction of video tapes to get rid of the evidence.
Yet, what did all of that prove? It proved that the CIA could commit all of these crimes, even war crimes, and not face a single federal charge. Not one. The only thing more chilling than the torture carried out in our name was the fact that it was carried out with utter impunity.
Truth #2: The Justice Department First Facilitated Torture And Then Obstructed Its Prosecution
One of the least discussed “truths” in this study is the ignoble role played by the Justice Department. During the Bush Administration, figures like Jay Bybee and John Yoo issued the infamous “torture memos” that gave legal cover for the programs. The only thing more tortured than the subjects was the legal authority used to justify their abuse. However, the report also details how the Bush and Obama administrations obstructed the investigation at every turn. Six months after Congress began to investigate the program and was demanding to interview key players, Attorney General Eric Holder suddenly announced the Justice Department’s own investigation under John Durham. As soon as the Justice Department investigation was announced, virtually every key player refused to speak with congressional investigators in light of the internal investigation. As expected, Durham later found that not a single crime could be found. Not in the destruction of evidence. Not in the false statements. Certainly not in the torture itself.
Holder and the Justice Department proved as much enablers as did their predecessors in the Bush administration. Soon after taking office, President Obama shocked many by going to the CIA and assuring employees that, despite his recognition of the torture, no one would be prosecuted. Holder and the Justice Department played as great a role in fulfilling that pledge as Justice did in facilitating the program itself.
Truth #3: Torture remains a question of effectiveness for many in government
Perhaps the most chilling truth is that the CIA and key American leaders continue to deny the very premise of both international and domestic laws. The key response of the CIA was to insist that the program was “effective” – the very rationale that is expressly rejected in the Convention Against Torture and other laws. It does not matter if torture was useful or productive. It is a war crime. We should know. We wrote that language saying that no nation can justify torture due to “exceptional circumstances” or effectiveness. Yet, the very agency that committed these crimes has continued to argue that those crimes were productive exercises.
The current debate over whether torture works reveals how far we have fallen as a nation in our view of this war crime. Not only does our embrace of torture threaten our own soldiers and citizens abroad, we have lost the moral high ground internationally. The truth is that torture could easily return to the United States so long as it is viewed as a practical question instead of a moral one.
Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, is a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors.
Whereas some people call it RAPE…
… Others prefer to call it a sexually enhanced experience.
1984 doubleplus good
@davidm2575:
In case you are interested, the United States has signed but not ratified Protocol II, one of three non-ratifying signatories, the other two being Iran and Pakistan. In contrast, 167 nations have ratified the protocol, including quite a number of our coalition partners.
OMFG
Some people throw Ronald Reagun under their Conservative bus whe it is the most convenient times…
https://mobile.twitter.com/ColMorrisDavis/media/grid?idx=1&tid=543084480869986304
davidm2575,
“One big question is whether enemy combatants in custody have the same rights as our citizens.”
I suspect our Founders would have thought so.
“According to natural rights theory, as described by philosophers such as John Locke, everyone is born with an equality of certain rights, regardless of their nationality. Since they come from nature or from God, natural rights cannot be justly taken away without consent. As the Declaration of Independence asserts, natural (or “inalienable”) rights include “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Other natural rights are protected in the Bill of Rights, including freedom of speech, religion, and press.”
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/natural-rights/
Olly: The terms “suspect” and “person of interest” (lower standard) mean doubt, not certainty. Most terror “suspects” were not captured on any battlefield or had any evidence linking them to terrorism.
The American court system is the greatest truth finding system ever created, more accurate than any intelligence agency.
We have convicted over 400 terrorists in the court system and none through torture. Allegation is not proof without a real trial to test the facts.
Ross:
The truth is that millions of Christians do support torture. A Pew Research Center study in 2009 concluded that while 49% of the population as a whole found torture justifiable sometimes or often, that support among white evangelical Protestants jumped to 62%. In fact, I am of the opinion that a principal reason for Republican objections to the findings in the Senate torture report is that they conflict with the views of a majority of the Republican base. The Pew story can be found here: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/29/the-religious-dimensions-of-the-torture-debate/
IF/THEN
IF America is better than this
THEN why isn’t She?
Max-1, America will always be great. Because you can criticize her all you want and no one will stop you. I listened to a man from the UK discussing the glory of our Constitution. When someone from another country, a fairly similar country, tells me how much better America is because of our Constitution I sit up and listen.
Olly
When we refer to what are enemies say and do as being evil, we better make damn well sure we aren’t walking I their footsteps.
Saddam was a bad guy cause he tortured some folks…
ISIS are bad guys cause they torture folks…
And then there is America.
Turning the other cheek had nothing to do with our response to acts of war or criminal offenses.
Mike A. I have to disagree with you again. I know that you have called for the prosecutions. But you have consistently, on this blog, said that you thought Obama refused to prosecute because it would tear this nation apart.
You must know that is an untrue statement, even as speculation, for the reasons I outlined above–namely, candidate Obama was against torture and people supported him on that stance, Republicans and Democrats alike. It was the popular opinion and that’s why he used it so frequently in his speeches.
You are engaging in a speculation which relieves Obama of the responsibility he has to the rule of law. You must know that the majority of Americans wanted those prosecutions, so how can it be that they would have torn our nation apart?
This kind of speculation began after those of you who elected Obama in 2008 saw that he wasn’t doing what he said he was going to do. Instead of holding his feet to the fire (to use a common phrase of that time) you guys kept making up excuses for his actions (or lack thereof). This excuse making must stop. You were lied to, you fell for it. After that, many of you started making up stories to cope with Obama’s many lies and horrifying actions.
Had his 2008 voters actually held Obama to his promises instead of excusing him with every lame excuse possible, we would not have gone down the road we have taken. I find myself almost unable to forgive those of you who let this happen.
@Max-1 ~ “Along side of their buybull and gunz.”
Damned right! Got a problem with that, come to Texas and say it to my face!
@Max-1 ~ “I think the correct question isn’t who is more afraid…
… The correct question is: what differentiates your Nation from the bad nations when your nation adopts the terrorist mindset as a defense?”
“After all – Charlie Manson only murdered some folks… NO?”
Manson never murdered anyone. He wasn’t even at the crime scene.
While opposed to theocratic governments, heard a great perspective from a real Christian:
Christians “turn the other cheek”, our enemies have an unChristian view of an “eye for an eye” value system.
If you support torture can you still consider yourself Christian?
Good post Sandi.
@davidm2575:
“Are we allowed to interrogate prisoners of war at all?”
Not really.
You should read the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 75 U.N.T.S. 135, entered into force Oct. 21, 1950. (The Third Geneva Convention) http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/y3gctpw.htm
Article 17 provides:
“Every prisoner of war, when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information.”
It also provides”
“No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind. ”
Article 13 provides:
“Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
The question is whether the Geneva Convention applies to the detainees at all. The argument is that they do not meet the prisoner of war criteria of Article 4, and therefore do not qualify for the protections of this particular convention.
If not, then one has to look at the subsequently adopted protocols. As I understand it, anyone not protected by another provision in either a convention or a protocol has the protections of Article 75 of Protocol II:
“Art 75. Fundamental guarantees
1. In so far as they are affected by a situation referred to in Article 1 of this Protocol, persons who are in the power of a Party to the conflict and who do not benefit from more favourable treatment under the Conventions or under this Protocol shall be treated humanely in all circumstances and shall enjoy, as a minimum, the protection provided by this Article without any adverse distinction based upon race, colour, sex, language, religion or belief, political or other opinion, national or social origin, wealth, birth or other status, or on any other similar criteria. Each Party shall respect the person, honour, convictions and religious practices of all such persons.
2. The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever, whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(i) murder;
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(iii) corporal punishment; and
(iv) mutilation;
(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, enforced prostitution and any form of indecent assault;
(c) the taking of hostages;
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.”
https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/7c4d08d9b287a42141256739003e636b/f6c8b9fee14a77fdc125641e0052b079
Porkchop, that is the most rational perspective I have heard yet on this. If we agree that the humane treatment of prisoners is that we are not allowed to interrogate them for any information beyond name, rank, serial number, date of birth, then that is a position that I could accept. No waterboarding, no enhanced interrogation, no coercive interrogation as well as no torture. Sounds good to me.
Ticking time bombs logic is but a Hollywood fantasy some Americans cling too… Along side of their buybull and gunz.
Mike,
I agree; it’s not the quantity but the quality. Same argument for the use of executive orders.
davidm:
Regarding your comment on “reputable” news sources:
1. At one time the National Inquirer had a paid circulation of over 6,000,000, dwarfing every other newspaper in the country. People who followed that paper didn’t have anywhere else to go for anything comparable.
2. Fox viewers likewise don’t have anywhere else to go.
By your standards, one could argue that the National Inquirer is the most reputable newspaper in the country. But I doubt that.
Mike Appleton wrote: “By your standards, one could argue that the National Inquirer is the most reputable newspaper in the country. But I doubt that.”
Actually, it is the National Enquirer, not Inquirer. Not really fair to compare apples and oranges. Compare it with other tabloid papers, and yes, it is a reputable tabloid based upon its circulation. It too is maligned unjustly just like Fox News. Didn’t the National Enquirer break the John Edwards affair story in the face of the incredulous mainstream news outlets?
Here is one story where Fox News set the record straight. The New York Times reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. Many media outlets like CNN eagerly reported this to their viewers. Fox News came along and corrected the story. There were only 5 sessions of waterboarding. The 183 came from the number of times water was poured, each of which lasted only a few seconds.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/28/despite-reports-khalid-sheikh-mohammed-waterboarded-times/
There are numerous instances like this where the New York Times or CNN misreported news, and Fox News corrected their errors and misleading reports.
That would be “Victor”.
Msjettexas
I think the correct question isn’t who is more afraid…
… The correct question is: what differentiates your Nation from the bad nations when your nation adopts the terrorist mindset as a defense?
After all
Charlie Manson only murdered some folks… NO?