by Deb Cupples | Recently, I was reminded of the following paragraph from a February New York Times story:
"The court papers describe horrific treatment in secret prisons. Mr. Mohamed claimed that during his detention in Morocco, 'he was routinely beaten, suffering broken bones and, on occasion, loss of consciousness. His clothes were cut off with a scalpel and the same scalpel was then used to make incisions on his body, including his penis. A hot stinging liquid was then poured into open wounds on his penis where he had been cut. He was frequently threatened with rape, electrocution and death.'"
I was also recently reminded of journalist Seymour Hersh's reports on torture at Abu Ghraib prison, committed by U.S. personnel, which included the sodomizing of boys (yes, children):
"The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling, and the worst part is the soundtrack, of the boys shrieking. And this is your government at war," he [Hersh] said. (UPI)
What reminded me of such horrifying stories? The Obama Administration's releasing of four memos written by senior Bush Administration lawyers who supported interrogation tactics that may constitute "torture" (which violates federal law).
Not surprisingly, the folks at Fox (and some still-Bush-friendly Republicans) claim the memos actually show that the Bush administration did not engage in or promote "torture." Let's look at some relevant U.S. law:
One key question: what does "torture" mean? Well, 18 U.S. Code 2340 has definitions that may be helpful:
Now, let's check various "enhanced interrogation techniques" (i.e., some that certain Bush Administration officials approved via memo) against definitions in 18 U.S.C. 2340.
Consider waterboarding, which Mr. Jay Bybee (an ex-assistant attorney general) describes as follows in a memo from August 2002:
"In this procedure, the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual' s feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes.
"Water is then applied to the cloth in a wmrolJed [sic] manner. As this is done, the cloth is lowered until it covers both the nose and mouth. Once the cloth is saturated and completely covers the mouth and nose, air now is slightly restricted for 20 to 40 seconds due to the presence of the cloth. This causes an increase in carbon dioxide level in the individual's blood. This increase in the carbon dioxide level stimulates increased effort t o breathe. This action plus the cloth produces the perception of "suffocation and incipient panic," i.e.,the perception of drowning...." (errors are in the pdf)
In other words, the victim is convinced that he (or she) will suffocate or drown because of the waterboarder's actions -- even if suffocation or drowning results from an unintended error on the water-boarder's part (like the waterboarder's pouring water for 30 seconds too long).
Definitions in 18 USC 2340 indicate that "torture" (1) includes an act "specifically intended to inflict severe ... mental pain or suffering," which includes (2) "prolonged mental harm caused by or resulting from --" (C) "the threat of imminent death."
That said, does water boarding qualify as "torture"? That depends. Mr. Bybee's memo seems to indicate that the water-boarder's purpose is to produce in the victim a "perception of suffocation... or drowning" -- in order to compel a victim to answer questions that he is committed to not answering. This suggests that there is an intention to produce the perception of suffocation or drowning.
Given that people do die from suffocation and drowning, it certainly could be argued that a waterboarder's convincing a victim that he's about to suffocate or drown constitutes a "threat of imminent death."
Now consider "Walling," a technique that Mr. Bybee's memo describes as follows:
"For walling, a flexible false wall will be constructed. The individual is placed with his heels touching the wall. The interrogator pulls the individual forward and then quickly and firmly pushes the individual into the wall. It is the individual's shoulder blades that hit the wall....
Does walling qualify as "torture"? That depends on whether bones' crashing into a wall qualifies as severe physical pain or suffering (18 USC 2340(1)).
Wait a minute: no it doesn't. The language of 18 USC 2340 does not require actions that actually inflict severe pain or suffering for a violation to be found: it requires only actions intended to inflict severe pain or suffering (mental or physical).
Actually, the language of 18 USC 2340(a) doesn't even require that one actually commit an act of torture to violate the statute -- only that one attempts to commit such an act.
It seems that slamming someone into a wall is intended to inflict severe-enough pain (or suffering) that a victim committed to silence would start talking. I don't know whether the courts think that walling is intended to inflict a level of pain (or suffering) that qualifies as "severe" for purposes of the statute. Let the verbal gymnastics begin.
Waterboarding and Walling are just two of ten techniques for which Bush Administration officials sought approval from Mr. Bybee in 2002.
Some other techniques mentioned in the memo are days of sleep deprivation; cramped confinement (i.e., being held in a small crate for hours); face slapping; and stress positions (I'm not sure of what those are). And that's just from the August 2002 memo.
A memo from May 10, 2005 seems to approve other techniques that were not described in the 2002 memo. One is abdominal slapping. Another is water dousing, which could involve being doused with 41-degree water for up to 20 minutes straight.
I hope that you'll review the statutory definitions of "torture" as you contemplate each interrogation technique that Bush Administration lawyers had given a seal of approval.
In the language approving various techniques (i.e., language stating that said techniques do not constitute "torture" and are, therefore, legal), one clause is repeatedly repeated: "authorized use by a qualified interrogator."
And that brings another issue to mind: who monitors interrogators to make sure they are qualified and are using techniques only in the "authorized" manner?
Who checks the flexibility of the walls against which victims bones are slammed? Who monitors how long victims are stuck in small crates or deprived of sleep or food? Who checks the water temperature used in dousing? Who makes sure that interrogators don't go beyond the prescribed dousing time?
Under the Bush Administration, supervising interrogators did not seem a top priority -- as evinced by the sadistic (even perverted) field day that interrogators had with detainees at Abu-Ghraib.
It was U.S. personnel that reportedly inflicted on detainees such things as anal rape, electrical shocks, cigarette burns, beatings.... (See Seymour Hersh's 2007 report for more chilling details.)
This, of course, begs the question: what sort of people are working for our government who would even consider sodomizing fellow human beings -- in or out of a war zone? Isn't that against the moral code of Christian Americans?
And what sort of higher-up government officials would encourage (or even turn a blind eye to) subordinates who were doing such things?
An United Nations investigator criticized President Obama for not wanting to hold interrogators accountable for torture. Suzie at Crooks and Liars asks: "Is there any other legitimate legal position to take on this?
Personally, I'm not sure where I stand on holding accountable the low-level people who truly were following orders. (Yes, the Nazi argument does bother me, but I'm still withholding judgment for now.)
Here's what I am firm about: given that we taxpayers pay government officials' salaries, we have a right to know which higher-level officials signaled approval for activities that likely violated the law -- especially given that said officials have a duty to follow our nation's laws.
Update: as I wrote this post yesterday, I thought about the doctors and psychologists that watched the (alleged) interrogation sessions and helped the interrogators argue that the harsh techniques did not qualify as "torture" under U.S. law.
"First do no harm," right? Isn't that a tenet that doctors are supposed to live by?
Anyway, in the wee hours this morning, I saw a piece in the Washington Post that addresses the issue of medical and psychological officials' participation in the Bush Administration's harsh-interrogation scandal. Apparently, even being present when torture is used or threatened is against the policies of both the American Medical Association and the American Psychological Association.
Some of the folks concerned with medical ethics are outraged. I imagine that the Nazis had doctors present while they beat, mutilated, killed and experimented on holocaust victims. Given that part of our world's recent history, I'm astonished that any present-day medical professional would willingly play a role in torturing anyone.
Memeorandum has commentary.
Other Buck Naked Politics Posts:
* Real Executive Bonuses Based on Fake Profits
* Ex-Police Chief Sentenced for Stomping a Man's Head
* "Focus on Family" Employee Sought Sex with Teenager
* Eleven Arrested for Exporting Munitions to Iran
* Drug Company Exec Pleads Guilty to Dishonest Dealings
* Lobbyist Gets Wrist Slapped for Destroying Evidence
* Panel Head Wants Execs Fired from Bailed Out Banks
* Contractor Northrop to Settle Fraud Suit for $325 Million
.
The American people as a whole are guilty of these crimes. As one who questioned the humanity of the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo from the first moment I heard the size of their enclosures, and was told that I was a terrorist-sympathizer for doing so; as one who helped in a small way to fund the legal resistance to the criminal regime that did these things, I do not hold myself any less accountable.
Nor have the crimes stopped. On Friday, DemocracyNow reported that "Another Guantanamo Bay prisoner has come forward to back accounts of worsening torture since President Obama took office."
We need to face facts. The United States has become completely corrupt, with no regard for law or constitutionality. Under Bush, it became an outlaw regime. Obama has yet to show that he has the stomach to clean the stable.
Posted by: Charles | April 20, 2009 at 01:08 AM