Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

The Tortured Law on Torture

By Robert Scheer, Truthdig. Posted May 14, 2008.


How has our government managed to justify one of the most egregious assaults on the rule of law?

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Robert Scheer

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Ah, yes, those torture confessions have proved so useful. That, at least, was the claim of our president in justifying one of the most egregious assaults ever on this nation's commitment to the rule of law. But now comes news that charges have been dropped against the so-called Sept. 11 attacks' 20th hijacker, one of dozens so identified, because the "evidence" he supplied under torture and later recanted is not credible enough to go to trial.

That fact, of course, will not compel President Bush to cut the tortured prisoner loose. After all, Saudi citizen Mohammed al-Qahtani has only been held in confinement for more than six years without being charged with a crime, and without being allowed to confront his accusers in a court of law.

The fact that the information produced is worthless -- as evidenced by Qahtani, once driven insane, naming everyone around him in the camp as a major al-Qaida operative -- will not deter those who condone torture. But others expert in these matters, including presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, will recoil from such tactics.

It was the treatment of Qahtani and other prisoners, as witnessed by horrified U.S. Navy Department investigators at Guantanamo, that got the attention of the Navy's then-General Counsel Alberto J. Mora. In one of those all too rare examples of true heroism that makes one proud to be an American, Mora challenged the Bush administration to practice the human rights standards that America proclaims to the world. But Bush would stay true to his own values: "Any activity we conduct is within the law," Bush stated in November 2005, adding, "We do not torture."

What was it then? As the New Yorker's Jane Mayer reported in 2006, citing the Army's own interrogation logs, Qahtani, in addition to being subjected to documented beatings and other physical abuse, was put through an S&M routine calculated to drive him mad, which it accomplished:

"Qahtani had been subjected to 160 days of isolation in a pen perpetually flooded with artificial light. He was interrogated on 48 of 54 days, for 18 to 20 hours at a stretch. He had been stripped naked; straddled by taunting female guards, in an exercise called 'invasion of space by a female;' forced to wear women's underwear on his head, and to put on a bra; threatened by dogs; placed on a leash and told that his mother was a whore."

Quite an advertisement for the American way of life. Should we expect the rest of the world to boycott the Olympics when we next get to host the Games? Others might question why the Third 1949 Geneva Convention's prohibition against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment," doesn't apply to the United States.

The failure to elicit any usable incriminating information from Qahtani once again supports the view of most experts that torture is not only morally repugnant, it is in fact counterproductive to getting at the truth.

But this didn't trouble John Yoo, then the Justice Department lawyer who wrote the infamous Bybee memo on torture, named after Yoo's boss, Jay S. Bybee, who was rewarded for his leadership with a judgeship on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Los Angeles. Yoo, the best recent example of what the great anti-Nazi writer Hannah Arendt once referred to as the "banality of evil," teaches law at UC Berkeley when not touring the country to argue that if an action does not produce death through organ failure it can't be torture. Audiences tend to clap politely and observe that while they don't agree with him, he is, as I was told by a UCLA professor after such an appearance, "a very bright fellow."

On Feb. 6, 2003, as Qahtani was being led around on a leash, Yoo visited Mora in his Pentagon office. Mora later told the New Yorker writer Mayer that he asked Yoo, "Are you saying the president has the authority to order torture?" Yoo answered with a clear "yes." Following that stellar legal advice, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, with Yoo's encouragement, officially approved "hooding," "exploitation of phobias," "stress positions," "deprivations of light and auditory stimuli" and the other horrors that the scandals of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo would burn into the legacy of the United States.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: guantanamo, torture, yoo, bush, mora

Robert Scheer is the co-author of The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told Us About Iraq. See more of Robert Scheer at TruthDig.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Fascist America, in 10 Easy Steps
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on May 15, 2008 5:39 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By Naomi Wolf, Chelsea Green Publishing. Posted April 28,
2007. Downloaded from:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/51150/

There are some things common to every state that's made the
transition to fascism. Author Naomi Wolf argues that all of them
are present in America today.

Editor's note: This is adapted from Wolf's forthcoming book "The
End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot."

Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of
the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they
had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days,
democracy had been closed down -- the coup leaders declared
martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over
radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened
some limits on travel and took certain activists into custody.

They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you
look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for
turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has
been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less
terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and
arduous to create and sustain a democracy, but history shows that
closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing
to take the 10 steps.

As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing
to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated in
the United States by the Bush administration.
......The article continues.........

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

He crushed our moral compass...if we had one
Posted by: JohnJlws on May 15, 2008 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We have a war without end, without a defined goal, without an exit strategy (if these sound familiar these are the Bush talking points during debates criticizing the Clinton/Gore Administration’s use of our military). And, a war, that is, allegedly, not supported by the vast majority of Americans.

We have a President with the lowest approval rating ever witnessed in the history of monitoring such things?

We have a President and Administration that took the greatest opportunity for a unified world (immediately post 9-1-1) and squandered it to invade a sovereign nation because, as it turned out and apparently, “he tried to kill my daddy.”

We have an economy that has been further married to the military/industrial complex and as such is producing non-revenue-generating weapons of mass destruction, adding to our growing problem of a warming globe and adding to our problem of a vastly depleted moral reserve.

We have a President and Administration who advocate “water boarding” amongst many other morally reprehensible acts and has suspended the basic rights not of Americans, but of humans.

Why are there not protests in the streets? Where is the moral outrage? Where are the Christians I hear so much about, and from, in our country? When did our country become so afraid that we would let go our humanity...if we ever had it?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Rice and Cheney are still . . .
Posted by: covalentbonded on May 15, 2008 8:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
running around on the loose. And where is the "loyal opposition"? Why running on a platform of "change". Isn't torture a crime? And since when did we allow criminals to remain in office? Why since the "loyal opposition" became the Me2 Party sometimes known as the other wing of the National WarParty.

Strike/Boycott 08!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The Irony of It All
Posted by: Walks-in-Storms on May 15, 2008 9:04 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The irony of all this is that when persons like Professor Ward Churchill, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other before them - including me - pointed out the cruelty and total disregard for morality and law of the U.S. Government, they were viciously attacked. Now that the "Justice of Roosting Chickens" (apologies to Professor Churchill) has become apparent, including the blatant war crimes of our president for just one example, we are caught with the proverbial egg on our face. The president is a criminal - he's always been in one degree or another a criminal (check the anti-social detachment of his lastest vomit inducement, his having given up golf in deference to our troops) - and the nation he "leads" is a criminal (complicity - "misprision" or "subornation" - in a crime IS a crime).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I know one thing...
Posted by: Quannah on May 15, 2008 11:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
that if this nauseating assault on our laws, this grave affront to our moral sensibilities as a nation is allowed to go unpunished, we're through.

And if we're through because of this - it will be well deserved.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Mukasey has suspened the Constitution..and must be Impeached..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on May 16, 2008 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As long as Mukasey is Attorney General then the Constitution is in jeopardy and for the most part suspended..

We see this with Mukasey's failure to honor Congressional Subpoenas which is a Constitutional violation and grounds or his Impeachment..

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

how?
Posted by: e rice on May 16, 2008 11:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
because too many americans don't think laws apply to them, so why should the geneva conventions apply to them.

because too many americans favor torture. just look at the statistics of abuse in this country.

because this country allowed the theft of two presidential elections.

because americans allowed the moral compass to be tossed out in favor of fundamentalist sign posts pointing one way--to fascistic dictatorship in the name of god.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: how? Posted by: Dboy
Hello, Late Middle Ages
Posted by: talkville on May 22, 2008 3:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With Great Hope, "The West" convened, following the events of the two great wars -- 1914 - 1945-- and drew up documents articulating limitations on the treatment of human beings by other human beings, a question lingering since the days of the Inquisition. Documents invalidated and put in question now, courtesy of the USA in policy, deed and articulation. Great Hopes dashed and now made Illusion.

I don't know if it's available, but it's instructive to observe closely the demeanor and expression of a certain Justice Antonin Scalia in his CBS interview a few days ago. Here we have a Big Little Boy, Proud and Beaming and displaying his impressive skills in hermeneutics and casuistry, disclaiming constitutional protection of torture under the phrase "cruel and unusual punishment'. The goal of torture is not to punish, he tells us, and happily concludes: "I'm Correct" at the end of the segment. Casuistry of sublime medieval proportions!! Two words and Philology, set beside each other and interpreted in relation to a text which has the purpose of revealing to us the divine inspiration of the Founding Fathers and what they REALLY meant. But both these terms refer to DEEDS enacted upon particular, flesh and blood, human (or other) Bodies. Punish to Make Behave, or Punish to Make Tell. The desires of the Master rule in both cases. And both can be cruel and unusual. Both are limited, not limit-less. Both sub-ordinate the Body being 'treated' in absolute Subjection. All Scalia sees is one Word and not the Other, and in relation to the Whole Text itself ( a sacred text, to be sure!). He ignores the Real Body and the Real Deed and the Real Time and Space. This is Now, not the 1400's or the 18th Century.

This Big Little Boy, Antonin Scalia still seems to want to impress his Father with all his impressive exegetical and hermeneutic 'lawyerly' casuistics. He belongs in a Monastery poring over texts and biblical documents, not on the Supreme Court of the USA where his words and verbal gymnastics and hermeneutical and exegetical skills apply to real life and where, finally, the supreme law of the land is expressed. "Strict constitutionalist" indeed!

In a few short years, the Bush II Regime has invalidated the achievements of Geneva and the UN with respect to humans and social living.

Are ALL our Lawyers and Attorneys wannabe Priests? It is historical, actual DEEDS which prompted the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other such documents expressing the limits of human behavior towards one another.

Perhaps Mr Scalia might himself be subjected to water-boarding or other 'interrogation techniques' in order to experience for himself those fine distinctions between the words 'torture' and 'punishment'. One can anxiously await his disquisitions from this specific point-of-view.

It's tragic. We've once again entered a world where deeds such as torture can be normalized and discussed (in coffee rooms, salons and around water coolers) and calmly dissected as to what is and what is not permissible in regards to actions of men, in war or peace, upon other men -- captive and by now Outside the processes of Law, Constitution and Accords and Conventions of the recent past, thanks to such as Scalia, Bush II and Cheney et al. Right here in the USA the question of what man can do to man may soon be decided by a Zogby Poll or two... including the utter destruction of Body and Psyche of a Captive to satisfy the Desires of the Master. Can we even invoke the concept of human civilization??

Justice Scalia: 'contradictio in adjecto'.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]