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.

Torturous Contradictions

By Marjorie Cohn, Jurist Legal News and Research. Posted October 12, 2007.


Bush's insistence that "we don't torture" rings hollow in light of recent Department of Justice memos supporting the harshest techniques the CIA has ever used.
Advertisement

The April 2004 publication of grotesque photographs of naked Iraqis piled on top of each other, forced to masturbate, and led around on leashes like dogs, sent shock waves around the world. George W. Bush declared, "I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated." Yet less than a year later, his Justice Department issued a secret opinion endorsing the harshest techniques the CIA has ever used, according to a report in the New York Times. These include head slapping, frigid temperatures, and water boarding, in which the subject is made to feel he is drowning. Water boarding is widely considered a torture technique. Once again, Bush is compelled to issue a denial. "This government does not torture people," he insisted.

This was not the first time the Bush administration had officially endorsed torture, however. John Yoo, writing for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, penned an August 2002 memorandum that rewrote the legal definition of torture to require the equivalent of organ failure. This memo violated the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, a treaty the United States ratified, and therefore part of U.S. law under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

In December 2002, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld approved interrogation methods that included the use of dogs, hooding, stress positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, deprivation of light and sound, and water boarding. U.S. Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora told William Haynes, the Pentagon's general counsel, that Rumsfeld's "authorized interrogation techniques could rise to the level of torture." As a result, Rumsfeld rescinded some methods but reserved the right to approve others, including water boarding, on a case-by-case basis.

When Bush maintained last week that his government doesn't torture prisoners, he stressed the necessity of interrogation to "protect the American people." Notwithstanding the myth perpetuated by shows like "24," however, torture doesn't work. Experts agree that people who are tortured will say anything to make the torture stop.

One of the first victims of the Bush administration's 2002 torture policy was Abu Zubaydah, whom they called "chief of operations" for al Qaeda and bin Laden's "number three man." He was repeatedly tortured at the secret CIA "black sites." They water boarded him, withheld his medication, threatened him with impending death, and bombarded him with continuous deafening noise and harsh lights.

But Zubaydah wasn't a top al Qaeda leader. Dan Coleman, one of the FBI's leading experts on al Qaeda, said of Zubaydah, "He knew very little about real operations, or strategy ... He was expendable, you know, the greeter ... Joe Louis in the lobby of Caeser's Palace, shaking hands." Moreover, Zubaydah was schizophrenic; according to Coleman, "This guy is insane, certifiable split personality." Coleman's views were echoed at the top levels of the CIA and were communicated to Bush and Cheney. But Bush scolded CIA director George Tenet, saying, "I said [Zubaydah] was important. You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?" Zubaydah's minor role in al Qaeda and his apparent insanity were kept secret.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: torture, michael mukasey, attorney general

Marjorie Cohn is a professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, president of the National Lawyers Guild, and the US representative to the executive committee of the American Association of Jurists.

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:
Try it.
Posted by: ahmlco on Oct 12, 2007 2:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If it's not torture then I see no reason why George or other members of the House or Senate shouldn't be required to undergo a few sessions so they can see what it's like. I mean, if it's not "really" torture, if it's all harmless, then what's the problem? It would be just like taking a good course on the subject and let them speak with authority on the issue.

I suspect, however, that each and every one of them would have to be dragged into the facility, kicking and screaming all the while.

And that each might have a slightly different viewpoint on the subject when they got out...

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

But Surely George Bush Would Never Lie
Posted by: Jbuuty on Oct 12, 2007 3:07 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Georgie Boy says God an awful lot when he speaks, so surely he doesn't tell any fibs. If he says that we don't torture, then he must be telling the truth. If he says the world is flat, then it must be. Don't ask me to think! Let Georgie Boy do it for me!

I often meet Americans, even ones with graduate degrees, who tell me that the American educational system teaches critical thinking, 'unlike the African one in which I now teach'. Then the same American will say that George Bush doesn't lie. Or that the theory of evolution is from the devil. Or that most Africans would like to live in America, because America is free. Or that Muslims don't like us (Are they really that monolithic?) because of our freedom and overall goodness.

Give me a break! When might the American educational system start teaching critical thinking? Then perhaps we won't be so taken in by demagogues.

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

Whats in a word
Posted by: rocketman on Oct 12, 2007 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
At what level does pain become bad enough that it's considered totrure?..Yes we do torture..maybe our methods are less severe than other nations but we do.. so, we do what other nations do..

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

» RE: Whats in a word Posted by: diarmaid
» RE: Whats in a word Posted by: donl51
The repressive administration
Posted by: Nugeman on Oct 12, 2007 6:54 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would think by now, most of you would know what this so called torture would feel like. After all, Darth Vader Cheney and monster Bush are so bad, all the subversives and dissenters should be jailed by now. Come on, they have been in power for 6 1/2 years. Why aren't most of you posting from Club Gitmo?

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

» Cindy Sheehan Posted by: BigGuy5000
torture is illegal, immoral, unconstitutional and doesn't work
Posted by: Suzon on Oct 12, 2007 9:50 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Suspects have a constitutional right to a trial by jury and, even if you are found guilty, the constitution forbids "cruel and unusual punishment".

It therefore must be unconstitutional to withhold the jury trial and use cruel and unusual punishment without any guilty verdict.

And how can "information" obtained in this way be reliable? After all these years, where are the success stories?

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

Here is their definition of torture
Posted by: drblack on Oct 12, 2007 11:16 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Bush administration has legally defined torture as that which does not cause Organ failure or death.
This means a raw nerve could be surgically exposed and tweaked, physically or with electricity, and cause unbelievable levels of pain and it would not be torture according to their own made up definition.
Interrogation experts all agree 100% that using one's wit and intellect is the ONLY way to get info.
Using physical force is almost guaranteed to extract false info.

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

tasers are also against the Constitution.
Posted by: drblack on Oct 12, 2007 11:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our police are guilty of betraying the Constitution because using a taser on someone who has not been convicted of a crime is cruel and unusual punishment. Especially since it is 99% overused .

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

That this is still even subject of comment ...,
Posted by: Moe Snodgrass on Oct 12, 2007 11:29 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
..., that the Executive Office, the Pentagon, the public and the media persist in volleying these crimes back and forth as in a game of doubles table tennis, is a sad commentary. Who is to blame?

*The exec? Yes and foremost.
*The Pentagon? To some extent, yes, but the tradition of the Military Code of Honor ensures that these methods have been continually questioned. Bravo. More blame to the CIA.
*The Media? Of all the underreported stories that the mainstream media are complicit in, this is not one of them. Coverage has been relatively wide. Brava.
*The public? The first and foremost rule of public relations is that one must never blame one's audience for fear of alienating and embittering it. It is never "our" fault.

So we see, the exec does not have an interest in mobilizing the public. Quite the contrary.

The Pentagon is never concerned with influencing public opinion. From its perspective, it is an matter internal.

An objective media must report the issues objectively, and in this case, it did report widely, with perhaps a slight prejudice against the continued use of torture. Brava.

That leaves we, the people. Does the volley continue until we the people bring in the "ringer," the Nader or Kucinich who can smash the volley home? Or do we reject that rule of public relations, bite the bullet, and recognize that it is we, the people, who have failed to bring this particular volley to an end? For shame.

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

It's all a sham
Posted by: snideelf on Oct 12, 2007 5:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Of course they're going to say anything to avoid being further tortured.
And it all plays right into the hands of the Worst Administration in the history of the U.S.A.
The repercussions of the Iraq war will haunt America for decades.

To start a war under false pretenses and then proceed to kill and torture innocent people.
I will never stop shaking my head in disgust over this.

I seriously doubt that anyone from the chimpy administration will ever do any kind of overseas traveling for the rest of their lives.
Because people will go after them the way that the Israelis went after the nazi war criminals and the Olympic terrorists.

That is both very sad and frightening for future innocent bystanders.

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

Bush Polcy Effectively Sanctions USA Citizens Being Tortured Overseas
Posted by: sofla100 on Oct 12, 2007 6:05 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
By not adhering to accepted treaties and human rights standards, Bush effectively guarantees that other countries will not do so. If the USA complains of other countries torturing even USA citizens, they will (and have) lectured America back about Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib (e.g., China and Russia). America has lost all moral standing and American Citizens are even more at risk. Thank you, President Bush.

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

» So everything was OK before? Posted by: BigGuy5000
» RE: So everything was OK before? Posted by: BigGuy5000
"Armagh" - Song by The Au Pairs
Posted by: esteph on Oct 15, 2007 1:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The name "Armagh" probably means little to Americans and probably not much more to contemporary Brits. It should ring loud.

The highly political post-punk band from Birmingham (England), The Au Pairs", recorded a song of that name on their first album "Playing With A Different Sex"

The song describes exactly the torture suffered by a group of women internees in a notorious "detention facility" in Armagh, Northern Irelend in the late 70s.
the song's refrain:

We don't torture, we're a civilized nation
We're avoiding any confrontation
We don't torture
We don't torture

They were better known for their deconstuction of sexual politics but this song, and many of their others, are still highly relevant today.

Esteph

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