US Torture Programs: Obama's Mixed Progress

Since the signing of the Executive Orders in January 2009, the
record of the new administration on torture has been very
mixed. Important memos have been released that only add to the presure
for investigating the full scope of the previous administration's
torture programs. A Report of the International Committee of the Red
Cross was leaked in April 2009 depicting in horrid detail the forms of
torture--the word "torture" can no longer be evaded--to which terrorist
suspects were subjected by the U.S.

Yet as of
that time, the administration has resisted all calls for investigation
and prosecution, or only half-heartedly complied with them. Invoking
"state secrecy," it has attempted to shield illegal spying programs
from judicial review. It has argued that suspects abducted and rendered to Bagram have
no rights of any kind. The new director of the CIA has announced a
policy of blanket amnesty for those who have committed grave violations
of domestic and international law. Many officials implicated in the
now suspended torture programs still hold positions, notably in the
CIA, and elsewhere in high places. A fierce power struggle rages just
behind the scenes. Much still hangs in the balance.

Three
developments in August 2009 indicated the dimensions of this power
struggle. First, a heavily redacted report, written by the CIA's
Inspector General, was released. Although it revealed much that was
not previously known, roughly one-third was blacked out (35 out of 109
pages). Not formerly disclosed was that prisoners held in secret
detention were subjected -- in direct violation of domestic and
international law -- to mock executions and terrorized with electric
drills. Threats were made that their children would be tortured and
their mothers raped. (While still unclear, troubling evidence exists
that some of these these threats may not have been idle.) According to
a former intelligence official, one thing the redactions hid were
deaths and "lost" detainees. Despite highly publicized claims by former
Vice President Cheney that the report showed torture as having
"worked," he was contradicted by top Bush terrorism adviser, Frances
Townsend. The Inspector General expressed dismay that every one of his
recommendations -- about three pages -- was blacked out.[1]

Second,
Attorney General Holder appointed a special prosecutor. However, the
prosecutor's mandate appeared to be severely limited. Attention was
supposed to be directed down the chain of command and authority, but
not up. Whether the investigation could finally be restricted in this
way to protect those at the top remained unclear. On the apparent
regime of "semi-accountability," Dahlia Lithwick commented that the
door was left wide open for reinstating the torture programs in the
future. "Pretending we are investigating and curtailing a torture
program isn't all that different from pretending we didn't torture in
the first place."[2]

Finally,
the Special Task Force created by the president's Executive Orders
issued its report. The Task Force concluded that the Army Field Manual
provided adequate guidance for military and other interrogators. The
report failed to state that the Field Manual allows for certain abusive
techniques that are tantamount to torture, especially when used in
combination, as is not always uncommon. These techniques include
prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, partial sensory deprivation,
stress positions, and the use of drugs. The Task Force also endorsed
the use of "renditions" in a supposedly more regulated form than had
been known in recent years. As psychologist and anti-torture activist Jeffrey Kaye observed: "The Special Task Force recommendations are a
defeat for organizations ... which called for a rescission of Appendix
M of the Army Field Manual and an end to extraordinary renditions. It
is a victory for the version of Bush-lite that is being assembled in
the new, Democratic administration."[3]

One
last point. It is sad to see the mainstream media display so much
confusion about a heinous crime like torture Torture is immoral under
all circumstances. It represents an extreme and shocking form of
violating the human person. Like slavery, genocide and rape, it is
never justified.
It is false to suppose that torture is an
effective means of interrogation. The pragmatic question - even in an
emergency situation - is not whether torture "works" but whether it
produces reliable information. The overwhelming verdict of professional
interrogators is that it does not. The immoral and the illegal are
thus compounded by futility

What is
prohibited by domestic and international law is not just torture, but
also cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment. Even if waterboarding,
sleep deprivation, stress positions, threats to a suspect's children,
and so on were not torture (which they are), they would still be
unspeakable crimes.

A democratic society that systematically resorts
to torture descends to the level of the monstrous regimes it purports
to oppose.

[1] See Joanne Mariner, 'What the Inspector General Found," FindLaw (August 25, 2009) <https://writ.news.findlaw.com/mariner/20090825.html>;
Daphne Eviatar, "Former Intelligence Officer: CIA Report Redactions
Hide Deaths and 'L:ost' Detainees," Washington Independent (August 26,
2009) <https://washingtonindependent.com/56648/former-intelligence-official-cia-ig-report-redactions-hide-deaths-and-lost-detainees>.

[2] Dahlia Lithwick, "Halfway There," Slate (August 25, 2009).<https://www.slate.com/id/2226157>

[3] Jeffrey Kaye (Valtin). "Obama Task Force Recommends Army Field Manual Abuse and Rendition as New U.S. Policy," Invictus (August 24, 2009). <https://valtinsblog.blogspot.com/2009/08/obama-task-force-recommends-army-field.html>