I’m sorry to be blunt with the headline, but facts are facts and, as a quick scan of this morning’s Canadian newspaper front pages shows, denial is easy. One hardly knows where to begin. Here, maybe, with a memo from Steven Bradbury at the Office of the Legal Counsel. He points out that the State Department routinely decries as torture the very practices he and his colleagues are busy justifying, but only when other countries do it. And then he says it’s only torture if other countries do it.
Each year, in the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, the United States condemns coercive interrogation techniques and other practices employed by other countries. Certain of the techniques the United States has condemned appear to bear some resemblance to some of the CIA interrogation techniques. [A photo of the paragraph I'm quoting, with references to practices used in Indonesia, Egypt, Iran, Algeria and Syria, is here.]
We recognize that as a matter of diplomacy, the United States may for various reasons in various circumstances call another nation to account for practices that may in some respects resemble conduct in which the United States might in some circumstances engage, covertly or otherwise. Diplomatic relations with regard to foreign countries are not reliable evidence of United States executive practice and thus may be of only limited relevance here.
There is a lot of that sort of thing in these memos. It is not torture if it is not done by the right countries. It is not torture if done outside the U.S., which explains why the U.S. had to open black sites in Poland, Indonesia and a half-dozen other countries: because the UN Convention on Torture is limited to “territory under [U.S.] jurisdiction.” It is not torture if you take care to misread statutory interdictions against inflicting “pain or suffering” as “pain and suffering,” in an attempt to get yourself off the hook for treatment that “only” causes suffering.
No, it’s torture all right.
Barack Obama faced serious internal dissent over whether to release these memos and has taken care to exculpate CIA investigators who acted under their authority. But that does not begin to end this business. The next question is whether the lawyers who drafted these memos were living up to their profession’s standards or whether they were crackpots serving up a figleaf for settled policy. And the question after that is what to do to the people who settled the policy. People like Dick Cheney.
Barack Obama insists that his is a nation of laws, and as I wrote last month, if that’s so, then there are consequences, and even Obama has imperfect control over the legal and political proceedings that will produce those consequences.
Print
Comment
“I’m sorry to be blunt with the headline…”
Don’t apologize. One of the most astonishing aspects of this whole torture mess has been the banality with which the most senior American leaders have discussed – in detail – brutal techniques that are undeniably torture.
This topic demands some stark language.
Also good to call out the responsibility borne by the lawyers implicated in this – just because their failure was on the level of logic and argument doesn’t mean it’s not a gross failure in a professional context. Logic and argument are a lawyer’s stock in trade. Any doctor, engineer or scientist who practiced with such recklessness and disregard for professional standards would be disciplined. These men should be disbarred.
Obama should strike fast and strike hard. The penalties should be even worse than the guilty parties deserve. They should be a deterrent that will keep the fascists from trying this stuff the next time they get into power, for fear of the consequences in the ensuing Democrat cycle. Cheney should be sent to prison for a long time and his assets confiscated; his statues defaced and his laws annulled.
Not going to happen, no matter how much you feverishly masturbate to the thought. Remember the Fitzmas letdown?
What an amazingly stupid comparison.
You forgot to mention that they should salt all Cheney’s fields, slaughter his livestock, melt down the coins of the realm that bear his likeness, banish his descendants, and pepper his loathsome face with fragments of lead. Huzzah!
Exactly. Plus annual vilification à la Guy Fawkes. The whole nine yards.
By and large, the lawyers and officials who wrote the policies and legal opinions were in that tier of the US bureaucracy that is reserved for political appointments. They were some of the thousands who are replaced every time there is a new administration.
It is that aspect of the US system which makes the public service less independent than Canada’s. Arguably, it explains why senior bureaucrats were so willing to enable these policies of torture.
Little known fact: Jameel Jaffer, the lawyer who sought and obtained the memos on behalf of the ACLU, is a Canadian.
I suspect that most members of the Bush White House will be spending the rest of their days within the United States, for fear of a Pinochet-like fate. Hasn’t Spain already started legal proceedings against some of the people involved in approving torture?
Unfortunately Spain has decided against it: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090416/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_us_torture
Too bad. These people deserve international shame and such an investigation – which would bring the heft of the entire EU – would be the perfect way to accomplish that.
We had our chance to do the right thing when G.W. came to Calgary. Unfortunately our government refused to obey our own laws and let him come to town to rake in more money. To make it worse, we paid to protect him and arrested some of those protesting. Shame on Mr. Harper, shame on us.
Update: there is still a modicum of hope:
http://www.reuters.com/article/email/idUSTRE53G3V620090417
When we Canadians allowed G.W. Bush into the country we became complicit in his crimes. C. Rice is next up coming to Calgary May 12th. It is our duty under national and international law to arrest her and either prosecute or send her to the Hague for prosecution.
Only by respecting the rule of law will we break the vicious cycle of war around the world. Only by respecting the rule of law will we defeat terrorism. If Mr. Harper refuses to uphold our laws than he must be held accountable.
Why Calgary? Hmm.
Eh?
Have indictments or some sort of formal charges actually been laid against these people in some court somewhere for the crimes alleged?
If not, we’re not we have no legall grounds to take the action that is being described.
umm, we could, you know, ‘issue’ indictments and charges under universal jurisdiction; as signatories to the Torture Convention, it is actually our responsibility to do so.
Under Canadian and International Law we are obliged to bar from anyone from the country if there is a reasonable suspicion of crimes against humanity. If they do enter, we are obliged to prosecute or send them where they will be prosecuted:
Section 35(1) (a) states that a foreign national is inadmissible on grounds of violating human or international rights or for committing an act outside Canada that constitutes an offence referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act. Also inadmissible (s.35 (1)(b)) are persons who are, or were, senior officials “in the service of a government that, in the opinion of the Minister, engages or has engaged in gross human rights violations…”
Under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act:
“crimes against humanity” includes murder, enforced disappearance, deportation, imprisonment, torture, imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group. “war crime” includes wilfull killing, torture and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement, willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of fair trial rights, intentionally launching that the attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied. The Supreme Court of Canada says reasonable grounds are “something more than suspicion but less than…proof on the balance of probabilities.”
This is subtle, and in no way contradicts your point Mr. Wells, but I think I’d interpret the meaning of that quote slightly differently. You say “And then he says it’s only torture if other countries do it“. I’m not sure he’s saying that exactly. When he says “Diplomatic relations with regard to foreign countries are not reliable evidence of United States executive practice and thus may be of only limited relevance here” I don’t think he necessarily means “it’s only torture if other countries do it”, I think he means “just because we call it torture when other countries do it, doesn’t necessarily mean we really think it’s torture”. It’s convoluted, but in that sense he’s not saying “we’re lying when we say we don’t engage in torture” he’s saying “we’re lying when we condemn other countries for certain acts of ‘torture’ because we don’t really consider those acts torture”. It’s slightly less “it’s only torture if other countries do it” than “we only CALL it torture when other countries do it”.
I’m not at all saying that interpretation makes the statement any “better”, just, perhaps, different.
grrrr. close tag.
Preview option please, powers that be!
Now you’re just being greedy. ;-)
?!
Ummmmm, what was that about Mr. Bush suspending habeas corpus again?
Or the 30,000 in Immigration Detention Centres in 2007?
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/142861.php
And LFL, might we get a source for your statement?
… looks like one of the teabaggers decided to come on and spew.
By looking at the name he/she is hiding behind it is clear that there will be no rational discussion coming from this one.
Well said.
If President Obama doesn’t want to do anything, then perhaps the International Criminal Court at the Hague should be opening up investigations, because that’s where most of Bush’s administration that dealt with this matter should be right now.
Unfortunately, because the US isn’t a member state of the ICC, the Court cannot bring charges against its citizens.
Mr. Wells
For you to even discuss this matter does gross damage to national security.
Apparently, you want THEM to win.
How so, Big Dave? You mean that this episode will be exploited for propaganda purposes by Al Qaeda and its fellow travellers? Undoubtedly.
That is what is so stupid and counter-productive about what Cheney, Bybee, Yoo and the others did.
Joke.
Doh. Sarcasm detector running on empty today. Sorry.
Read one too many “Liberals Fail Liberally” posts, I guess. Hey, where’d he go?
Views abound ……
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/17/morning-skim-the-bush-torture-memos/
Incidentally, the Opinionator is almost always a really strong aggregation of blogs and other commentary. Weekend Opinionator is becoming a must-read for me. They really do cover the spread of U.S. political opinion.
I just checked out the Opinionator for the first time. Thanks for the tip, Sisyphus and Wells.
Seems to me that those defending waterboarding do not believe it to be torture, while those who oppose waterboarding DO believe it to be torture.
Why don’t the majority Democrats in Congress ban “waterboarding” specifically, instead of getting caught in the semantics of what does and doesn’t constitute torture?
I have my theories as to why they won’t….
Waterboarding is torture as defined by international law, so it doesn’t really matter whether Bush & Co. believed it to be torture. They broke international law by doing so, and we are all obliged to prosecute them.
I am not denying or affirming — I am just asking — where does it say that waterboarding specifically is against international law — is it part of a treaty to which the US has agreed?
A simple Wicki search turns up the following:
All nations that are signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture have agreed they are subject to the explicit prohibition on torture under any condition. This was affirmed by Saadi v. Italy in which the European Court of Human Rights, on February 28, 2008, upheld the absolute nature of the torture ban by ruling that international law permits no exceptions to it.[126] The treaty states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture”.[127] Additionally, signatories of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are bound to Article 5, which states, “No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.[128] Many signatories of the convention have made specific declarations and reservations regarding the interpretation of the term “torture” and restricted the jurisdiction of its enforcement.[129] However, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, stated on the subject “I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture”, and that violators of the UN Convention Against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of universal jurisdiction.[130]
Bent Sørensen, Senior Medical Consultant to the International Rehabilitation Council for Torture Victims and former member of the United Nations Committee Against Torture has said:
It’s a clear-cut case: Waterboarding can without any reservation be labeled as torture. It fulfils all of the four central criteria that according to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (UNCAT) defines an act of torture. First, when water is forced into your lungs in this fashion, in addition to the pain you are likely to experience an immediate and extreme fear of death. You may even suffer a heart attack from the stress or damage to the lungs and brain from inhalation of water and oxygen deprivation. In other words there is no doubt that waterboarding causes severe physical and/or mental suffering – one central element in the UNCAT’s definition of torture. In addition the CIA’s waterboarding clearly fulfills the three additional definition criteria stated in the Convention for a deed to be labeled torture, since it is 1) done intentionally, 2) for a specific purpose and 3) by a representative of a state – in this case the US.[131]
Thanks for the reference eddieo. I appreciate the info.
I see that the cited United Nations Convention Against Torture was signed by Cuba as well. Do you feel that the “obligation to prosecute” also applies to the multiples cases of Castro-sanctioned torture?
Claude: I DO believe so. My whole point is that the law MUST apply equally to all. We will never achieve absolute equality as far as status, means or even more so abilities among humans – and one can argue that we shouldn’t – but equality under the law should be the basis of civilization.
It should not matter if you are rich or powerful as far as the law is concerned. This is – possibly – the only case where our tendency to look at life in a binary fashion is just.
Barack Obama insists that his is a nation of laws, and as I wrote last month, if that’s so, then there are consequences, and even Obama has imperfect control over the legal and political proceedings that will produce those consequences.
But the “nation of laws” has democratically passed laws which permit them (according to themselves) to invade, occupy, harass and intimidate half of the globe, not to mention harassing their entire populace. I am talking about laws of exploitation and plunder rather than natural law. It is the inevitable result of passing such laws and then attempting to enforce them, that those who are subject to the laws will resist. If the nation of laws truly intends to enforce these laws, then killing and torture are necessary tools.
The tendency to exploit and plunder foreign countries is called Imperialism. Obama, like all his predecessors, is a fully paid-up member of the Emperor’s Club. The specific goals are to gain access to oil and other resources at a favorable price, and steer trading and banking business to one’s own cronies. It is therefore a requirement to remove hostile regimes and install “friendly” governments through the use of overt and covert force. No force, no plunder. This is the American Project.
Obama will not permit this project to be tripped up by the rules of procedure or by the natural laws which govern fundamental human rights. Harass political rivals by releasing documents, sure. Cripple the imperialist project by dismantling its ultimate tools of enforcement? No.
Your weekend reading: Bastiat, “The Law”.
The fact that this is even an issue, i.e. that there are many people who defend the use of torture, reminds me that there were lots of, say, Russians who had no problem with KGB control of their society. The danger of a right-wing police state is permanent and we should never take our basic liberty for granted.
LONG LIVE AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL !!!!
MAYBE SOME OF THE ABOVE SHOULD CONSIDER JOINING??
I am proud to say that we have done direct deposit with them on a monthly basis for years. I encourage all world citizens to do the same.
Paul,
You are wrong when you say it’s not torture if it’s performed outside of the US. In fact, it’s ONLY torture if its performed outside of the US.
18 USC Section 2340A makes it a criminal offense for any person “outside of the United States
[to] comrnit or attempt to commit torture.”, which is immediately thereafter defined as “an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to iniflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody of physical control.”
Basically what this guy is saying is that diplomacy doesn’t count as a legal opinion, so when the State Department decries an act of a foreign country as torture, it does not mean that such an act violates United States law.
If someone tried to do this inside of the US, then it would violate habeus corpus as well as a host of other laws. Personally I think that the problem is that the US statutory prohibition on torture is too narrow. One can make a legal argument (as the Justice Department did) that waterboarding does not violate that law because of accepted definitions of mental suffering given by Congress. Clearly Congress should revisit this statute and broaden it so that the Executive branch cannot slip through interrogation techniques that clearly are torture under a too-narrow statutory definition.
Say what you will about torture, as I’m sure it would suck to be on the receiving end, however………..
If I had a dude in the room with me who I knew planted a bomb in my city, ………I would personally pull out his fingernails with a pair of dull vice-grips to find out where it was. I’m sure some of those opposed to torture in public would feel the exactly same way if their families were in danger. Ask Michael Ignatieff…he’s as much as stated the same thing.
Call me names now……I can take it.
It has been proven time and time again that the information extracted through torture is not reliable. Furthermore in the case of “criminals” it makes their case untriable. Finally it is morally wrong AND as we all know illegal.
I one is willing to stoop so low what is it that we are defending?
I am always surprised by the “torture proven not to work’ argument. Really? That doesn’t even make sense to me…
It would work if I was the one being tortured!
your comments are working on me, i’ll say or do anything to make them stop ;-)
It works, but generally it is assumed that the state is scarier than terrorists if we don’t make it follow a strict set of laws, and put severe restrictions on the state’s ability to suspend our civil liberties.
The idea that the state should be allowed to compel me, or anyone, to reveal information that I don’t want to reveal is a civil right I don’t want to give up. It is my birthright as a citizen.
I should clarify it works if the person actually has the information that the torturer wants. Otherwise, he’ll give the information that he thinks the torturer wants to hear.
I’m sure that if such a scenario did happen, then you would be acquitted by any jury who heard the case.
But such scenarios are completely illogical. How would you *know* that a dude had planted a bomb, but not have any idea *where* he planted it? It sounds like a dopey comic book plot written by sixth graders.
When this lame excuse (“what if we knew that a terrorist had planted a nuclear bomb in Los Angeles!” LOL) was presented to the public by the likes of Rush, Hannity, etc. it demonstrated what utter morons they consider the public to be. Not that they’re wrong (about the public) mind you, but still.
If you allowed silly loopholes to exist which allow torture and secrecy then do you think that maybe – just maybe – the loopholes might be open to abuse by unscrupulous, lazy, vicious thugs who just happen to work in the government? And that the partisan cheerleaders who clapped their hands when their guy committed tyrannical acts might themselves be subject to the same bestial acts of cruelty when the other party gets in power? Look at the Republican Bushite warmongers now protesting against Obama. They’re getting fingered in official memos as “extremists” and “potential terrorists”. Those dudes will be the next ones to get their fingernails pulled.
They will be much less likely to be “the next ones to get their fingernails pulled” if we prosecute those who committed these crimes today. THAT is what the rule of law as it exists is based on.
Kudos to PW for taking a strong stand on this subject. Personally i feel Obama’s wrong to disclude operatives from possible prosecution, although i applaud him for Not including Bush era officials in any amnesty. Obama has been very astute in releasing these memos into the public domain – now it’s up to the American people themselves to decide on how to procede – smart political move, and the right thing to do.
On the question of prosecuting cia operatives – why on earth not? Didn’t Nuremberg settle all this? Just because higher authority says it’s ok to do something, doesn’t mean you can’t or shouldn’t say: no, i wont do that to another human being – even if they richly deserve it.
Eddieo wrote:
“It has been proven time and time again that the information extracted through torture is not reliable. Furthermore in the case of “criminals” it makes their case untriable. Finally it is morally wrong AND as we all know illegal.
I one is willing to stoop so low what is it that we are defending?”
Eddieo, you have been listening to too many “Human rights” lawyers. Torture does work……..on the guilty. If doesn’t work so well on the innocent. So you are wrong in the first instance, and correct on the second.
As for bringing people to trial and using info extracted by torture……who cares. We don’t pry information from people we suspect of being terrorists with the intention of taking them to trial. We want the information they have, such as locations and names. Easier to kill the bad guys than to try them.
As for torture being morally wrong……….you may have a point….to a degree. If Osama Bin Ladens right-hand man knew where the boss was hiding, you can be sure I’d find out where. Morality? I would only feel remorse if an innocent were hurt. Terrorists and their minions…..not so much. As for it being illegal………that’s not even a consideration when lives are at stake.
As for your comment about stooping low….relax. You can safely spout off from your soap-box while others do the dirty work required to keep you safe. As always, better men than you will do what is required. Now if you’ll excuse me…..I need to go find my Vice-Grips.
What were you going to do with your Vice-Grips, precisely? Tighten the screws on your chair so you can keep playing Jack Bauer, anonymously, in the comment section of a blog? Oooh. So tough.
We create the world we live in. I believe that the rule of law applies to everyone equally, and that every human deserves equal respect.
Have you ever looked in the mirror and asked why there are terrorists? Why are there suicide bombers?
What a sense of hopelessness one must feel if one is willing to stoop so low.
What kind of world do you want to live in?
I certainly hope that you do not have children.
Torture works only on the guilty huh?
Wow, I guess the Romans had it right then. Well hell, we should make sure everyone who is accused of a crime is tortured, particularly if they are shown to be of low moral character by being dissolute, poor, or merchants. That attitude worked in the 4th century A.D. and was revived several centuries later with the revival of Roman law among church and secular officials, and I don’t hear anybody passing judgment on the legal systems of either time period. Oh, and nobody ever faults the communist nations for their use of torture to extract information against enemies of the state either.
You know, I think you might know something. After all, you’re talking about doing something to terrorize someone with vice-grips. How about we torture you for awhile until we find out what you’re planning, or who you know who might be planning something? Then everyone will feel a little safer.
Instances of tortured to death by interogators is fact.
The charges should be Complicity to commit Murder or at the very least first degree Manslaughter.
Let’s not try to squeek that through as just following orders! The Nazi tortures and murders were chased to the ends of the earth and punished for their crimes. The US as a nation, not unlike Germany must come to grips with these atrocities.
Paul Wells wrote:
“What were you going to do with your Vice-Grips, precisely? Tighten the screws on your chair so you can keep playing Jack Bauer, anonymously, in the comment section of a blog? Oooh. So tough.”
Sorry Paul, but Jack Bauer is a fictional character. Osama Bin Laden, and thousands who think like him are a grim reality. I know that sitting in a chair writing about the real world is a lot easier than actually living in it, but perhaps you should get out more and see it for yourself.
As well, based on this comment of yours….I see that what I pointed out about you and Kady in a previous posting is still under your skin. Oh well, I’m sure the moderator will not let this one through either, knowing how upset you get when you don’t get the last word.
PS….you really should have taken my previous advice and read some Mark Steyn. He’ll really help you with your prose….however, humour doesn’t seem your strong point so take what you can from Steyn’s writing and improve what you can.
I love the idea of James Halifax sitting around trembling at the thought that all the big bad guys are going to come get him . . . Oh no, James, not the non-fictional characters! What a bunch of cowards the Steynettes are — the very possibility of death sends them into shaking sweats! And then they post about how we all have to toughen up. What a joke!
Actually, Jack, the joke would be your inability to express yourself in a semi-coherent fashion.
As for the bad guys…sorry, no trembling here, but that doesn’t mean you ignore reality….which seems to be your preferred method of operation.
Question for you. Of the thousands of Tamil protestors in Ottawa today….how many do you think support terrorism? How many do you think have already been involved in terrorism? How many have made a financial contribution to the Tamil Tigers’ cause?
One simply needs to remember the Tamil Flags marched around Pariliament Hill whenever one doubts the reality of today’s world. As well as the Tamils, we need to worry about Muslim etremists (some financed by tax-dollars) Sikh extremists, and every other nationalistic/religious/ethnic group that comes to Canada and brings their hatreds with them. Ignore them at your peril Jack, even if they are a good source of votes for the Liberal party.
Yes, I really do wish Jack would be less coherent….
Ahh…good catch.
OK, I’ll bite: if Steyn isn’t a “conservative”, then who would you classify as “conservative”? Could you name a few?
Whatever, dude, we could argue left/right/liberal/conservative all day long; those labels are way past their due date, the distinction now is between authoritarianism and freedom, between hysteria and rationality. The far left set up gulags in Russia, the far right set them up in Germany; Castro detained and tortured his enemies extrajudicially, and Cheney did the same thing. But you’re raving if you think there’s a danger of a left-wing police state in America: in that country it happens to be the right that worships violence, not the left (which is all too soft, IMHO).
This is a great example of why we desperately need electoral reform. We teeter back and forth between extremes, rarely spending time in the middle. No one, right or left has a monopoly on good ideas, but our parties have cornered themselves with certain positions.
Here in BC we are voting – again – on a single transferable vote system to replace the first past the post one. The hope is we will end up with a government that truly reflects the populous.
Don’t forget, Steyn’s a former theater reviewer, too. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
He kinda flamed out after trashing “Rent” and then suggesting that “Capeman” was the best Broadway Show thing ever.
I thought Conservatives liked the countryside
Big Dave S.
Just trying to help, LFL.
Okay back to the torture talk. Sorry for the tangent.
Well said, Jack. You always express so well what I hope I was thinking.
STVs are good in many ways. Especially if you buy into the idea that our legislatures should “look” like us. But in other ways, especially in a country with as many excuses to self-identify at the lowest common denominator level as we do, STVs are unproven in their ability to unify at a pan-national level. I really am conflicted on their value. Particularly in versions that include party lists.
That will only make matters worse. We keep to the middle road in Canada in general because of our brokerage parties and first past the post system. BC is a special case due to its political culture.