Torture: will our past dictate our future?
Regarding torture, the Bush administration made its position clear. At least as early as 2002, suspected terrorists were tortured using what is called “enhanced interrogation techniques.” Despite the former president’s assertion in 2006 that “[T]he United States does not torture,” several key figures from within his own administration have refuted that claim. The most recent of these was Susan Crawford, a retired military judge from the days of the Reagan administration. Today, Crawford serves as the convening authority of military commissions, which is responsible for deciding whether to bring Guatanamo Bay detainees to trial.
In a January interview with The Washington Post, Crawford explained her May 2008 decision to dismiss war crimes charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, the suspected “20th hijacker” in the 9/11 attacks. The evidence showed that he was tortured. “[Mohammed al-Qahtani]’s treatment met the legal definition of torture,” Crawford told the WP. “And that’s why I did not refer [al-Qahtani's] case” for trial. In November, military prosecutors said they would seek to re-file charges against al-Qahtani, but since he recanted his coerced confession, it is doubtful he will ever be brought to trial.
Let’s think about the implications for a minute. All American citizens, especially those related to the victims of 9/11, were counting on our government to bring the guilty to justice. However, rather than using legal, appropriate means to discover what happened, our leaders exercised inhumanity. They broke U.S. and international laws, and allowed our honor to be tarnished due to their actions. Many of us would consider those actions sufficient to warrant removal.
However, for those who believe that this behavior was warranted by the situation, consider this question. Even if you hate terrorists, and you want to see them rot in prison for the rest of their lives, what have we accomplished? In an ironic twist of justice, our weakness in choosing anger over restraint has virtually assured that men like al-Qahtani will never be tried. Our leaders are responsible for preventing our justice system from prosecuting the criminals being held there. And that, by any account, is inexcusable.
The conditions at Guantanamo are by no means the lone example of torture. Indeed, the Bush administration amassed a large number of incidents, such as the shocking conditions at Abu Ghraib, or the hundreds of complaints received by the office of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in regard to the practice of torture.
Perhaps the most telling example, however, is not an incident but a series of internal memos nicknamed the “torture memos.” In essence, these documents advocate the use of “enhanced interrogation.” This comes as little surprise, given the number of episodes we’ve already seen. What might come as a shock, though, is that the Bush administration actually re-defined torture in order to legalize their actions. That’s right: upon receiving legal advice that the Geneva Conventions would not support its policies, the American government advocated for a new definition with only the most severe violations qualifying as torture, like killing someone or inducing a heart attack. Sleep deprivation, water boarding, 20-hour daily investigations, freezing temperatures, were not considered torturous. According to the memo, “physical pain amounting to torture must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.”
As a proud American citizen, I find these facts genuinely disheartening. Especially difficult to reconcile is the notion that our country’s standing among the world has suffered because of the actions of its government. The America I know, the land of diversity and opportunity, would not embrace the torture of other human beings. Regardless of ideology, as a nation, we must pay more attention to what our government is doing in our name.
Category: U.S.
