The Torture Two-StepBush's new torture order and its loopholes.
Posted Monday, July 23, 2007, at 5:13 PM ET
In an executive order signed and published Friday afternoon, President Bush purported to end the reign of torture. The order clearly forbids "torture" and "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment." Except that it all depends on what the definition of torture is. The order does nothing to repudiate earlier interpretations of the Bush administration, which narrowed "torture's" scope to allow coercive interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, water boarding, and extraordinary rendition, among others. Instead of proscribing torture, it adds yet another layer to the legal regime supporting those earlier policies. And it further opens up new loopholes for creative lawyers in the CIA and Pentagon. The end result is a policy that misses a historic opportunity to correct the excesses of the last six years.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponSetting the tone for what's to come, President Bush starts by citing two of the most infamous legal documents of the past seven years—the January 2002 memo by then-White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales describing the Geneva Conventions as "quaint" and "obsolete," and the February 2002 directive declaring that Geneva didn't apply to terror detainees. These memos caricatured the Geneva Conventions as the product of old wars between old states on old-style battlefields, irrelevant in the 21st century. (Funny how so many people in uniform disagreed, including retired Gen. Colin Powell, the Navy general counsel, and all the military's top JAG officers.) Once it was decided that the entire class of detainees at Guantanamo didn't qualify for Geneva's protections, it became far easier for intelligence officials and their lawyers to up the ante with increasingly sadistic interrogation practices. In 2002, Bush lawyers went so far as to argue that interrogators only cross the line if they specifically intend to cause severe pain or suffering, such as organ failure or death. Friday's order rests atop this deeply flawed legal foundation.
The order also reaffirms the administration's broad view of the war against al-Qaida, the Taliban, and "associated forces" as a war that is unlimited with respect to time or geography. Al-Qaida fighters captured in Afghanistan may be subject to this order, and so, too, might suspects detained in Chicago or New York. It's not clear what limits apply. The order seems to restrict itself to the famous "ticking bomb" hypothetical, but there's nothing restricting its application to high-ranking al-Qaida operatives. The order does restrict itself to detainees who might know about terrorist attacks against the United States and its armed forces abroad, or about "locating the senior leadership of al Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces." But that, too, is an incredibly broad category, and an interrogator can't know whether or not a suspect falls into it before the interrogation begins. And so this document represents Justice Robert Jackson's proverbial loaded legal weapon, lying ready for use on any detainee connected to America's global war on terror.
The order does its damage by cleverly incorporating reasoning of the 2002 and 2003 torture memoranda. It defines "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment as treatment that violates the 5th, 8th, and 14th Amendments to the Constitution, mirroring the language of the United States diplomatic reservation to the Convention Against Torture. This sounds reasonable on its face. But it eviscerates Geneva's prohibitions by equating them with a permissive line of Supreme Court jurisprudence. In the context of domestic cases about police and prison guard misconduct, the court has ruled that only behavior that "shocks the conscience" is out of bounds. This frees field agents to implement techniques that sound innocuous, but aren't—like "fear up" and "futility"—in ways that stop just short of violating the law. And because it doesn't repudiate the administration's stance that interrogators torture only when they cause severe pain or suffering, the order will fuel suspicion around the world about our practices. Most of Europe and Asia think we use torture in our detention facilities, and they still will.
The policy also adds a few new ways for misconduct to occur. Take, for instance, the provisions on cruel treatment. Detainees aren't entitled to all the "necessities of life" or all medical care, but only the "basic" necessities and "essential" care. That means, for example, that interrogators remain free to deprive detainees of palliative care to relieve the pain of a combat injury. And as a Pentagon spokesman told the Washington Post, "basic" means only the rudiments most necessary to sustain life. Stress positions and other forms of maltreatment do not run afoul of this rule.
The order does require the director of Central Intelligence to obtain professional advice to certify that interrogation practices are "safe for use." This should be reassuring. But given the extensive involvement at Guantanamo of Defense Department psychologists on "Behavioral Science Consultation Teams," and the complicity of medical personnel in the care given to detainees, it's not altogether clear that the rule will mean much. One of the greatest system failures since Sept. 11 has been the failure of the military professionals—including lawyers, chaplains, and physicians—to successfully oppose or moderate interrogation practices.
In a brilliant essay on torture, philosopher Michael Walzer convincingly argues that it must not be legitimated through a system of warrants and executive authorization. In the extreme circumstances where torture is necessary nonetheless, Walzer writes, the head of state must personally authorize it, and then come before the public with "dirty hands," making the case for his decision. President Bush deserves some small credit for finally affixing his name to the CIA's coercive detention and interrogation policies. But not much. The larger strategic picture shows the folly of this move. In a generation, when historians write about America's first steps in the war on terrorism, they will likely conclude that we lost the early skirmishes because we adopted coercive practices that gave us little valuable intelligence and came at incalculable strategic cost. If the president's first duty is to secure the country, and to make decisions in accordance with its long-term strategic interest, then he has failed. If his main duty is to support and defend the Constitution, then he has betrayed its values for a pittance.
Hitchens: The "War on Terrorism" Didn't Cause the Fort Hood Shootings
Enter Slate's Write-Like-Sarah Palin Contest
Whoa! The House Health Care Bill Is Actually Less Expensive Than the Senate's.
Like Israel but Colder: The Jewish Autonomous Region of Russia
Why Everyone Should Read When Everything Changed
Spitzer: How Tim Geithner Was Fleeced by Wall Street
Remarks from the Fray:
Remarks from the Fray:
Sorry kids but this is an entirely mathematical fact. What you approve of for one side automatically makes it OK for the other side.
When Bush set the terms and protections for our enemy to not include the Geneva Convention or other basic international law elements he fails to realize that this will be seen a little differently on the other side. Now when a US soldier is totured to death and we try to be outraged, Al Qaeda will remind us that we made it OK to torture-and that what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
Of course it doesn't matter. Al Qaeda will torture people and this can be all but assured. But when the USA does it we demonstrate a willingness to forget our values. Who would Jesus torture?
But what needs to be CLEAR to all of you is this-it makes torture of our people OK since we have made it OK to torture their people. No amount of outrage will be justified when we get it back.
--RML Returns
(To reply, click here.)
Let's face it. The use of torture, like the use of, say, capital punishment, is ultimately a political question.
Bush has judged, correctly I think, that the American people will not care much one way or the other about the treatment--under torture or otherwise--of obscure foreigners with heavy accents, a strange religion, and dark skin.
And, he has further political cover from the "war on terror" which, however preposterous in substance, has certainly taken hold in the public mind and, especially the media (even NPR reporters say "war on terror" without irony or embarassment).
This finds its highest (or perhaps lowest) expression in the hypothetical of a prisoner known (how? it is never said) to have key information on an upcoming bombing known (how? well, no need to delve into that) to be about to occur. So, on the so-called liberal side, we have Alan Dershowitz, who has no problem with torture, in principle, because in his view such an eventuality might, after all arise. And, on the so-called right, we have Brit Hume actually asking such a question--as if it were a serious policy issue--of Republican presidential candidates (the Democrats did well to turn down Fox's offer of a debate).
So, although some of the chattering classes have been wringing their hands about torture and the like, the simple fact is that Bush has nothing to worry about on this front, at least not until a few middle-class white guys from the midwest are swept up and appear later with electricity burns on their genitals.
--lloyd667
(To reply, click here.)
Exactly what do you have against a commander in chief stating that sexual abuse is wrong? How is it that you are never satisfied? I fully support the admin's position in that sexual abuse to gain info is wrong. Exactly why is it that the opposition isn't applauding that? Oh, I know. It's because they have put the loud noise of partisanship and feudalism against the democracy called America.
--bluedanube555
(To reply, click here.)
The new executive order may apply to the CIA and other governmental agencies, and the U.S. military, Abu Ghraib notwithstanding, has always had restrictions on what can be done during an interrogation, BUT what about "contractors". My guess is that prisoners will somehow end up in the hands of those private-sector workers and that the Bush administration will again be able to avoid responsibility for torture and extraordinary rendition.
--ljriller
(To reply, click here.)
(7/26)