June 28, 2004

The tortured torture debate
Posted by Jon Henke

Well, like so many other issues that screamed "scandal!" for awhile--in a suspiciously partisan-sounding voice--, the torture issues seems to have died down with the release of documents and internal memos related to the topic. The WaPo, and other media majors, led with the Justice Departments repudiation of the memo and forthcoming review of all legal advice from the Office of Legal Counsel.

The Washington Times, on the other hand, put the relevant matter up-front...

President Bush decided shortly after the September 11 attacks that terrorism detainees would be treated in accord with the Geneva Conventions, despite legal advice that this was not required, to adhere to "our values as a nation," according to a memo he wrote himself.
And really, when the question is whether torture was authorized by the Bush administration, shouldn't that--rather than Justice Department wrangling--be front and center?

Another point I find interesting: the press often--often necessarily--treats the government as more of an opponent, a wall to be torn down, than a factual entity with legitimate interests. The Times make a point I've seen made nowhere else...

The White House released the documents reluctantly, fearing that public disclosure of interrogation guidelines would make it easier for terrorism suspects to resist the techniques used to gain valuable intelligence.
The release was the right thing to do, under the circumstances, but it's worth remembering that the release of this kind of information gives our opponents an upper hand...an insight into exactly what we will - and will not - do. Specifically, they learned that we will go this far....
The memos showed that the Pentagon considered using four "aggressive tactics" to get information out of detainees that could save American lives:
•Convincing a detainee that severe pain or death were imminent for him or his family.
•Exposure to cold weather or water.
•Use of a wet towel or dripping water to induce a perception of suffocating.
•Mild, noninjurious physical contact, such as grabbing the arm, poking in the chest, or light shoving.

Only the last of the tactics was approved by Mr. Rumsfeld, and, after its use for a few weeks, he decided to end it, said a senior administration official.

...but no farther. And the willingness of, for example, Leahy and Kennedy to give too much weight--but no context--to memos merely considering the legal options, including torture, doesn't help.

So, do those measures constitute torture? The Geneva Convention doesn't really define torture. With a strict interpretation, they would seem to violate Article 17, though, which says:

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever."
Of course, using that strict interpretation, virtually anything, including normal daily conditions in your average US prison, would qualify as torture. So, it appears we - and the international community - need to define "torture" more specifically.

However, it also appears that the Bush administration stayed in the clear.

TrackBack

Comments