Trump Says He Would Violate The Law And Torture People

(This caricature of GOP candidate Donald Trump is by DonkeyHotey.)

There has been a lot in the media about Donald Trump's bigoted proposals to register all muslims and to bar all muslims from entering this country, and that's a good thing. The American people need to know about his bigotry. But something else he wants to do seems to have flown under the media's radar -- and it shouldn't have, because it is just as troubling as his bigotry. Trump says he would re-instate the use of torture if elected. Here is what he said last month at an Ohio rally:

"Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would — in a heartbeat. And I would approve more than that. Don't kid yourself, folks. It works, okay? It works. Only a stupid person would say it doesn't work."

"Believe me, it works. And you know what? If it doesn't work, they deserve it anyway, for what they're doing. It works."

Is this what we really want? Torture is not just morally reprehensible and a violation of both American and international law, it doesn't work. Trump is simply wrong about it. Here is what Professor Carl Elliott has to say about the efficacy of using torture in New Scientist:

“IF YOU torture the data long enough,” the saying goes, “it will confess to anything.” Although this is a problem for scientists, the stakes are higher for torturers. If tortured people really will tell you anything, how do you know when they are telling the truth?

Why Torture Doesn’t Work has a specific origin, says its author Shane O’Mara, professor of experimental brain research at Trinity College Dublin in Ireland. In 2009, he read an article about the release of the “Torture Memos”, legal documents prepared for the US federal authorities on the use of waterboarding, sleep deprivation, binding in stress positions, and other “enhanced interrogation” techniques.

Morality aside, O’Mara wanted to know if there was credible science that showed torture worked. The answer, it turns out, is no. The reality is that “the intelligence obtained through torture is so paltry, the signal-to-noise ratio so low, that proponents of torture are left with an indefensible case”. Advocates defend torture with an “ad hoc mixture of anecdote, cherry-picked stories and entirely counterfactual scenarios”, he says.

Controlled studies on the effectiveness of torture would be morally abhorrent. But there is a lot of information on the psychological and physiological effects of severe pain, fear, extreme cold, sleep deprivation, confinement and near-drowning. Some studies, such as those on the effects of sensory deprivation, used healthy volunteers. Others were conducted during the training of combat soldiers.

There is also a small amount of literature on the severe, long-term effects of torture on those who survive it, and work on the efficacy of police-interrogation techniques, which has produced insights into the psychology of false confessions – alarmingly easy to produce.

As O’Mara emphasises, torture does not produce reliable information largely because of the severity with which it impairs the ability to think. Extreme pain, cold, sleep deprivation and fear of torture itself all damage memory, mood and cognition. Torture does not persuade people to make a reasoned decision to cooperate, but produces panic, dissociation, unconsciousness and long-term neurological damage. It also produces an intense desire to keep talking to prevent further torture.

O’Mara quotes an intelligence officer’s story about a 60-year-old torture survivor in Cambodia: “He told his interrogators everything they wanted to know, including the truth. In torture, he confessed to being everything from a hermaphrodite, and a CIA spy to a Catholic bishop and the King of Cambodia’s son. He was actually just a school teacher whose crime was that he once spoke French.”

Interrogators often escalate torture when they think a suspect is withholding information or lying, but there is no good evidence that interrogators are better than the rest of us at detecting lies. In fact, there is evidence that when people are trained as interrogators, they become more likely to think others are lying to them. This belief can lead to alarming errors, whereby people are tortured because their torturer wrongly believes they are lying. New technologies to detect lies do not work either, says O’Mara.

Why Torture Doesn’t Work is a valuable book. O’Mara builds his case like a prosecutor, citing scientific studies and relentlessly poking holes in absurdities and inconsistencies in documents such as the “Torture Memos”. Whether science matters to those who defend torture is another matter, as O’Mara knows: their motivation is often punitive, not practical. But once torture is imposed, the consequences, he says, are that it will be “ineffective, pointless, morally appalling, and unpredictable in its outcomes”.

Robert Redford On "American Democracy And Torture"

Robert Redford is one of America's best actors and directors, but those of us who live and breath politics know he is much more than that. He is a proud liberal, who has fought long and hard for equality and justice for all Americans. He wrote the following post (on readersupportednews.org.) after the Senate Intelligence Committee released its report on the use of torture by the United States. I thought it was excellent.

 am conscious of my good fortune to have been born into a democratic society. As messy as it can get -- and messy it is these days -- there is nothing more precious than a healthy democracy. As this tumultuous year closes we would all be served well to stop for a minute and reflect on how much we need to cherish it, exercise the rights inherent in it and for heaven's sake, not take it for granted.

When U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein recently released the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the U.S. use of torture, like many, I was both moved by her tenacity and shocked by the picture it painted of American democracy. America tortured people after 9/11 and here was the proof. You can debate whether or not it "worked" but it appears in most cases we never tried anything else so we'll never know. You can't debate what a hit this is on the moral imperative inherent in American democracy.

It's no secret that former Vice President Dick Cheney has never been one of my favorites. And I will admit that when I saw him rise again on the Sunday morning shows and other television outlets around this torture report a few weeks back, my first reaction was "Why are they talking to him? Shouldn't he be on trial for violating international law?" So, of course he should have been there. We live in a democracy! And, as he sits square in the middle of this whole controversy I had to admit I was curious as to his reaction.

There he was in all his glory, in all his arrogance, defending torture, or rather enhanced interrogation techniques, such as waterboarding and rectal feeding -- which he said he believed was done for medical reasons. Really? He defended it all. I couldn't help but think that maybe it's time Vice President Cheney move from defending his actions on Fox News and Meet the Press, and be asked to defend it in a court of law.

Let's face it, turning this kind of microscope on our own actions brings with it a lot of controversy, calls that we are endangering or damaging the CIA, or opening a can of worms that is best left closed. The dilemmas of a free society are many, and this is one of them. And the dilemmas of a free society are messy. But we should never walk away from them because of that.

Green Party Says The Torturers Should Be Prosecuted

There can be no debate anymore. The United States government did use torture methods in a failed attempt to get information. It was done both by CIA interrogators, and by outsourcing the torture to other countries -- and it was approved and directed from the highest level of our government, the White House. The Green Party says the U.S. guilt is continuing, because we have failed to prosecute those who authorized the torture and those who carried out that torture. I agree with them.

Here is an article on the subject written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Kevin Zeese on December 11th. It worth reading.

The United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence’s report on torture has finally been made public. After months of negotiation with the White House and CIA, the senate released a heavily redacted report with the names of torturers and torture enablers redacted.

The nearly 500 page redacted summary of a much larger 6,000 page report documented that the torture used by the United States was much more brutal than had been previously acknowledged. In addition, it was much less effective at uncovering terrorist plots or preventing acts of terrorism. For example, claims that torture was a key to finding Osama Bin Laden turned out to be a lie put out by the CIA. Torture resulted in torture victims repeatedly making up false information to justify their violation of the law. The CIA lied to the media, public and Congress. The number of people subjected to torture was 119 and at least 26 of the prisoners, about 21%, should never have been arrested but some of these victims were held for months before being released.

The New York Times, which summarized seven key findings of the report, editorialized that the “report raises again, with renewed power, the question of why no one has ever been held accountable for these seeming crimes — not the top officials who set them in motion, the lower-level officials who committed the torture, or those who covered it up, including by destroying videotapes of the abuse and by trying to block the Senate Intelligence Committee’s investigation of their acts.” The Times pointed the finger at President Barak Obama for the decision not to prosecute anyone for torture which violated US and international law, writing:

“The litany of brutality, lawlessness and lack of accountability serves as a reminder of what a horrible decision President Obama made at the outset of his administration to close the books on this chapter in our history, even as he repudiated the use of torture. The C.I.A. officials who destroyed videotapes of waterboarding were left unpunished, and all attempts at bringing these acts into a courtroom were blocked by claims of national secrets.”

We agree with The New York Times, people should be held accountable for these crimes and that is why we are publishing the statement of the UN Special Rapporteur responsible for torture in full. A summary from The Guardian on some of the most egregious examples in the report including: rectal feeding of meals put in a blender and forced into the rectum of victims, rectal dehydration, forcing people to stand on broken limbs for a lengthy time, forced nudity, threats of raping the mothers of victims and kidnapping their children. Prisoners were held in what the head of interrogations for the CIA called “the dudgeon” where prisoners were kept in complete darkness, shackled to the walls with only a bucket for human waste. Prisoners would have their clothes cut off, be tied up with tape, screamed at and dragged down a hallway while being hit and kicked by other officers.

One prisoners, Gul Rahman was subjected to “48 hours of sleep deprivation, auditory overload, total darkness, isolation, a cold shower and rough treatment.” He was “shackled to the wall of his cell in a position that required the detainee to rest on the bare concrete floor.” He was found dead 48 hours later from hypothermia. Another prisoner was held in the dungeon, shackled to a wall for 17 days before being checked on by CIA torturers. Another was forced to spend 22 hours each day with one or both wrists chained to an overhead bar, for two consecutive days, while wearing a diaper. His incarceration was concealed from the International Committee of the Red Cross. Sleep deprivation could last as long as 180 hours as part of the torture program. Prisoners cowered when the door to their cell was open in fear of the torturers.

As the UN Special Rapporteur on counter terrorism and human rights, Ben Emmerson wrote that accountability is required for these crimes:

“The individuals responsible for the criminal conspiracy revealed in today’s report must be brought to justice, and must face criminal penalties commensurate with the gravity of their crimes. The fact that the policies revealed in this report were authorized at a high level within the US government provides no excuse whatsoever. Indeed, it reinforces the need for criminal accountability.”

Indeed, the redacted summary of the senate report describes horrific, macabre crimes. People need to be held accountable for these abuses from the lowest CIA agent who carried them out to the president of the United States who admitted torture in his presidential biography as well as the lawyers at the CIA and Department of Justice that provided legal cover for the torture program. 

The first step President Obama should take is to immediately pardon John Kiriakou who exposed the torture program, who is the only person who has been imprisoned regarding the torture program.

Kiriakou said 

“I believe I was prosecuted not for what I did but for who I am: a CIA officer who said torture was wrong and ineffective and went against the grain.”

Kiriakou remains imprisoned; President Obama can immediately change that and pardon him. Every day he is imprisoned compounds the crime committed against him by the US government.

President Obama needs to direct the attorney general to investigate and prosecute everyone involved in the torture program. He is required to do so under international law, but sadly in his first statement since the report was released the president has said there will be no further investigation or prosecution. Obama used the rhetoric that we are a nation of laws that lives by the rule of law, but when it comes to torture he has not lived up to that rhetoric. 

While Kiriakou remains imprisoned, Obama is saying that torture “should remain in the past.” Obama described the torture as “horrific” but used the language of American exceptionalism to justify ignoring the law saying:

“one of the strengths that makes America exceptional is our willingness to openly confront our past, face our imperfections, make changes and do better.”

The doubletalk of the president on the issue of torture is a grave error and a continuation of the injustice of the torture program.

President Obama is now violating the law by not prosecuting the people involved in the torture progam.

As the UN special rapporteur wrote: “States are not free to maintain or permit impunity for these grave crimes.” The Obama administration has a legal responsibility to enforce the law and prosecute those involved in torture from former President Bush and former Vice President Cheney to the lawyers who justified it and those who ordered it and carried torture out.  

The chapter on torture is not complete. Indeed, there is a long history of US torture going back for decades, indeed to the treatment of the indigenous peoples of North America. The government and the people of the United States have still not faced the reality of the behavior of the US government and the failure to prosecute ensures that we will not do so. The crime of torture is one of universal jurisdiction, any government can bring charges.  The US will not enforce the law against itself, I suspect foreign governments in the end will do so.

Read the full report here.

Green Party Says Torture Ended U.S. "Exceptionalism"

Many Americans like to think the United States is unique among nations -- a beacon of democracy, justice and human rights that gives it an exceptional place in the world. That may have been true at one time (although I doubt it, since we are still struggling to assure equal rights to our own citizens), but by using torture we have surely given up any claim to be exceptional. We are now just another of many nations that talk about human rights, but don't really respect those rights.

The following was written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member Ajamu Baraka on December 10th:

It could be fortuitous or just another example of the utter contempt for international sensibilities that just a day before International Human Rights Day, the U.S. Senate released, its long suppressed report on the systematic violations of the human rights of hundreds of people it captured and tortured as part of its ‘war on terror’. However, in light of the behavior of the U.S. government since 9/11, I suspect that government officials did not consider the timing of the report. Especially since the limited summary of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) report on the torture methods employed by the Bush Administration did not suggest an end to the impunity of government officials involved in the illegal program, but a continuation of it.  

The fact that top officials in the Obama Administration and the leadership of the democratically-controlled Senate were aware of the criminal acts being perpetrated, yet chose to prevent the release of the report and not prosecute officials responsible for those acts, demonstrates a bi-partisan cover-up and contempt for the law.

It is important to note that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is not a rogue operation. The actions it took were in response to directives from Bush officials to produce “actionable” intelligence, like the “intelligence” it was under pressure to produce to justify attacking Iraq. That is the role the CIA plays in service of the Executive Branch, the branch of the U.S. Government most responsible for advancing the interests of the capitalist class as a whole.

With that mandate, the Obama Administration was an active collaborator in a bi-partisan effort to cover up these crimes. We know this for this simple reason: although members of Congress and the Justice Department were in possession of evidence that human rights violations and transgressions of U.S. law had taken place, the only government officials who were prosecuted were those who brought information about governmental criminality to the attention of the public.   

The bi-partisan claim that national security trumps U.S. and international law and all standards of human decency was the rationale that drove the decision by the Obama Administration to close out investigations into criminal activity during the Bush period.

Waterboarding, anal rape with a feeding tube, beatings, sleep deprivation, mock executions – these acts were all carried out on people who were ‘disappeared’ from their communities, families and nations with no regard for rights and humanity. Yet attempts by victims and their families to secure accountability and reparations for their abuse were systematically blocked by officials in the Obama Administration on the grounds of ”national security.”

That is why the sanctimonious posturing by Democrat members of the Senate Committee who are pretending to be outraged by the findings of the report is particularly galling in light of the fact that the conspiracy to cover up these crimes involved both parties. And the crimes continue. The Obama Administration continues to contract out torture through the program of “extraordinary rendition” that is buttressed with state murder in the form of its drone kill program. The criteria for who lives and dies on Pres. Obama’s ‘Tuesday morning kill list’ remain a mystery – though  Attorney General Eric Holder ‘assures’ us that U.S. citizens are given their “due process” before the U.S. Government murders them. .

U.S. officials don’t operate from the same set of standards as other states. As Pres. Obama repeats, over and over again, the U.S. is “exceptional.” And indeed it appears so. Successive administrations have engaged in the most egregious human rights abuses imaginable - illegal wars that kill hundreds of thousands, torture, arming of terrorists, overthrowing of governments, incarcerating more of its citizens than any other state on earth – yet still claims to be the world’s leader of human rights.

Today, the entire country – and the world – is being confronted with the glaring evidence of the systematic violation of the human rights of working class and poor black, Latinos and whites by a brutal and militarized police apparatus in the U.S. and the extent of torture perpetrated by agents of the U.S. government, with the approval of its elected ‘leaders’. I hope that on this Human Rights Day, the people of the world finally reject once and for all the lie that is U.S. exceptionalism.   

Nearly Half In U.S. Ready To Discard Law And Morality

We now know the results of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into the use of torture by this country -- and it's worse than we expected. The United States not only used torture, the use of torture was more widespread and involved more vicious techniques than was thought. And it is obvious now that the American people were lied to by their government.

But perhaps the most important thing that the report revealed was that all that torture did no good at all. It produced no actionable intelligence, and in fact, probably impeded the war on terror by using inaccurate information (and outright lies) gotten through the use of torture. Knowing this, and understanding that decent people find torture morally repugnant, and that every civilized nation (including us) has made the use of torture illegal, it would make sense for the public to be outraged.

But that is not the case. In fact, as the chart above shows, nearly half (47%) of Americans support the use of torture -- while only 33% opposes it (and another 20% isn't sure whether they support it or not). Those numbers are shocking to me. How can half the population of a nation that holds itself out as a beacon of democracy and justice, be so willing to toss morality and law out the window (especially in light of the fact that torture doesn't even work)?

Has this nation lost its way? Has our bloodlust and desire for revenge at any cost overcome our common sense and moral center? Do we even deserve the respect of the rest of the world anymore?

The chart above was made from a recent Rasmussen Poll -- done on December 9th and 10th of a random national sample of 1,000 likely voters, with a 3 point margin of error.

John McCain Stands Up Against The Use Of Torture

(This caricature of Senator John McCain is by DonkeyHotey.)

Let me preface this post by saying I am not a fan of Senator John McCain (R-Arizona). I did not support him when he ran for president or when he ran for re-election to the United States Senate -- and I oppose most of the policies he supports and votes he has made while serving in the Senate. 

But if there's one thing Senator McCain knows about, it's torture. He suffered years of torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese while a prisoner in that country. While I don't agree with him politically, I honor Senator McCain for his military service during wartime, and the courage he showed during his years in captivity as a prisoner of war. 

The entry below is a speech Senator McCain gave on the Senate floor regarding the release of the torture report compiled by the Senate Intelligence Committee. He displays both moral and political courage in his speech -- and I agree with what he said. Senator McCain said:

THE C.I.A. THEY ARE OUT THERE EVERY DAY DEFENDING OUR NATION. I HAVE READ THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND I ALSO HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ON THE ENTIRETY OF THIS REPORT. I RISE IN SUPPORT OF THE RELEASE, THE LONG-DELAYED RELEASE OF THE SENATE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE'S SUMMARIZED, UNCLASSIFIED REVIEW OF THE SO-CALLED ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES THAT WERE EMPLOYED BY THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION TO EXTRACT INFORMATION FROM CAPTURED TERRORISTS.

 IT'S A THOROUGH AND THOUGHTFUL STUDY OF PRACTICES THAT I BELIEVE NOT ONLY FAILED THEIR PURPOSE TO SECURE ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE TO PREVENT FURTHER ATTACKS ON THE U.S. AND OUR ALLIES BUT ACTUALLY DAMAGED OUR SECURITY INTERESTS AS WELL AS OUR REPUTATION AS A FORCE FOR GOOD IN THE WORLD. I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT -- INDEED, RESPONSIBILITY -- TO KNOW WHAT WAS DONE IN THEIR NAME, HOW THESE PRACTICES DID OR DID NOT SERVE OUR INTERESTS, AND HOW THEY COMPORTED WITH OUR MOST IMPORTANT VALUES. 

I COMMEND CHAIRWOMAN FEINSTEIN AND HER STAFF FOR THEIR DILIGENCE IN SEEKING A TRUTHFUL ACCOUNTING OF POLICIES I HOPE WE WILL NEVER RESORT TO AGAIN. I THANK THEM FOR PERSEVERING AGAINST PERSISTENT OPPOSITION FROM MANY MEMBERS OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY, FROM OFFICIALS IN TWO ADMINISTRATIONS, AND FROM SOME OF OUR COLLEAGUES. 

THE TRUTH IS SOMETIMES A HARD PILL TO SWALLOW. IT SOMETIMES CAUSES US DIFFICULTIES AT HOME AND ABROAD. IT IS SOMETIMES USED BY OUR ENEMIES IN ATTEMPTS TO HURT US. BUT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO IT, NONETHELESS. THEY MUST KNOW WHEN THE VALUES THAT DEFINE OUR NATION ARE INTENTIONALLY DISREGARDED BY OUR SECURITY POLICIES, EVEN THOSE POLICIES THAT ARE CONDUCTED IN SECRET. THEY MUST BE ABLE TO MAKE INFORMED JUDGMENTS ABOUT WHETHER THOSE POLICIES AND THE PERSONNEL WHO SUPPORTED THEM WERE JUSTIFIED IN COMPROMISING OUR VALUES, WHETHER THEY SERVED A GREATER GOOD, OR WHETHER, AS I BELIEVE, THEY STAINED OUR NATIONAL HONOR, DID MUCH HARM AND LITTLE PRACTICAL GOOD. 

WHAT WERE THE POLICIES? WHAT WAS THEIR PURPOSE? DID THEY ACHIEVE IT? DID THEY MAKE US SAFER? LESS SAFE? OR DID THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE? WHAT DID THEY GAIN US? WHAT DID THEY COST US? THE AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. YES, SOME THINGS MUST BE KEPT FROM PUBLIC DISCLOSURE TO PROTECT CON DESTINE OPERATIONS, SOURCES AND METHODS, BUT NOT THE ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS. BY PROVIDING THEM, THE COMMITTEE HAS EMPOWERED THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO COME TO THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE EMPLOYED SUCH PRACTICES IN THE PAST AND WHETHER WE SHOULD CONSIDER PERMITTING THEM IN THE FUTURE. 

THIS REPORT STRENGTHENS SELF-GOVERNMENT AND ULTIMATELY, I BELIEVE, AMERICA'S SECURITY AND STATURE IN THE WORLD AND I THANK THE COMMITTEE FOR THEIR VALUABLE PUBLIC SERVICE. I HAVE LONG BELIEVED SOME OF THESE PRACTICES AMOUNTED TO TORTURE AS A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD DEFINE IT, ESPECIALLY, BUT NOT ONLY THE PRACTICE OF WATERBOARDING, WHICH IS A MOCK EXECUTION AND AN EXQUISITE FORM OF TORTURE. ITS USE WAS SHAMEFUL AND UNNECESSARY, AND CONTRARY TO ASSERTIONS MADE BY SOME OF ITS DEFENDERS, AND AS THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT MAKES CLEAR, IT PRODUCED LITTLE USEFUL INTELLIGENCE TO HELP US TRACK DOWN THE PERPETRATORS OF 9/11 OR PREVENT NEW ATTACKS AND ATROCITIES. 

I KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE THAT THE ABUSE OF PRISONERS WILL PRODUCE MORE BAD THAN GOOD INTELLIGENCE. I KNOW THAT VICTIMS OF TORTURE WILL OFFER INTENTIONALLY MISLEADING INFORMATION IF THEY THINK THEIR CAPTORS WILL BELIEVE IT. I KNOW THEY WILL SAY WHATEVER THEY THINK THEIR TORTURERS WANT THEM TO SAY IF THEY BELIEVE IT WILL STOP THEIR SUFFERING. MOST OF ALL, I KNOW THE USE OF TORTURE COMPROMISES THAT WHICH MOST DISTINGUISHES US FROM OUR ENEMIES, OUR BELIEF THAT ALL PEOPLE, EVEN CAPTURED ENEMIES, POSSESS BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS WHICH ARE PROTECTED BY INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS THE UNITED STATES NOT ONLY JOINED BUT FOR THE MOST PART AUTHORED. 

I WILL, TOO, THAT BAD THINGS HAPPEN IN WAR. I KNOW IN WAR GOOD PEOPLE CAN FEEL OBLIGED FOR GOOD REASONS TO DO THINGS THEY WOULD NORMALLY OBJECT TO AND RECOIL FROM. I UNDERSTAND THE REASONS THAT GOVERNED THE DECISION TO RESORT TO THESE INTERROGATION METHODS, AND I KNOW THAT THOSE WHO APPROVED THEM AND THOSE WHO USED THEM WERE DEDICATED TO SECURING JUSTICE FOR THE VICTIMS OF TERRORIST ATTACKS AND TO PROTECT AMERICANS FROM FURTHER HARM. 

I KNOW THEIR RESPONSIBILITIES WERE GRAVE AND URGENT, AND THE STRAIN OF THEIR DUTY WAS ONEROUS. I RESPECT THEIR DEDICATION AND APPRECIATE THEIR DILEMMA, BUT I DISPUTE WHOLEHEARTEDLY THAT IT WAS RIGHT FOR THEM TO USE THESE METHODS WHICH THIS REPORT MAKES CLEAR WERE NEITHER IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF JUSTICE NOR OUR SECURITY NOR THE IDEALS WE HAVE SACRIFICED SO MUCH BLOOD AND TREASURE TO DEFEND. 

THE KNOWLEDGE OF TORTURE'S DUBIOUS EFFICACY AND MY MORAL OBJECTION TO THE ABUSE OF PRISONERS MOTIVATED BY SPONSORSHIP OF THE DETAINEE TREATMENT ACT OF 2005, WHICH PROHIBITS -- QUOTE -- "CRUEL, INHUMAN OR DEGRADING TREATMENT OF CAPTURED COMBATANTS WHETHER THEY WEAR A NATION'S UNIFORM OR NOT AND WHICH PASSED THE SENATE BY THE VOTE OF 90-9. SUBSEQUENTLY, I SUCCESSFULLY OFFERED AMENDMENTS TO THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS ACT OF 2006 WHICH AMONG OTHER THINGS PREVENTED THE ATTEMPT TO WEAKEN COMMON ARTICLE 3 OF THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND BROADENED DEFINITIONS IN THE WAR CRIMES ACT TO MAKE THE FUTURE USE OF WATERBOARDING AND OTHER -- QUOTE -- "ENHANCED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES" PUNISHABLE AS WAR CRIMES. THERE WAS CONSIDERABLE MISINFORMATION DISSEMINATED THEN ABOUT WHAT WAS AND WASN'T ACHIEVED USING THESE METHODS IN AN EFFORT TO ENCOURAGE SUPPORT FOR THE LEGISLATION. 

THERE WAS A GOOD AMOUNT OF MISINFORMATION USED IN 2011 TO CREDIT THE USE OF THESE METHODS WITH THE DEATH OF OSAMA BIN LADEN AND THERE IS, I FEAR, MISINFORMATION BEING USED TODAY TO PREVENT THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT DISPUTING ITS FINDINGS AND WARNING ABOUT THE SECURITY CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR PUBLIC DISCLOSURE. WITH THE REPORT'S RELEASE, WILL -- WILL THE REPORT'S RELEASE CAUSE OUTRAGE THAT LEADS TO VIOLENCE IN SOME PARTS OF THE MUSLIM WORLD? YES, I SUPPOSE THAT'S POSSIBLE. PERHAPS LIKELY. SADLY, VIOLENCE NEEDS LITTLE INCENTIVE IN SOME QUARTERS OF THE WORLD TODAY. 

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE WILL BE TELLING THE WORLD SOMETHING IT WILL BE SHOCKED TO LEARN. THE ENTIRE WORLD ALREADY KNOWS THAT WE WATER BOARDED PRISONERS. IT KNOWS THAT WE SUBJECTED PRISONERS VARIOUS OTHER TYPES OF DEGRADING TREATMENT. IT KNOWS WE USED BLACK SITES, SECRET PRISONS. THOSE PRACTICES HAVEN'T BEEN A SECRET FOR A DECADE. 

TERRORISTS MIGHT USE THE REPORT'S REIDENTIFICATION OF THE PRACTICES AS AN EXCUSE TO ATTACK AMERICANS, BUT THEY HARDLY NEED AN EXCUSE FOR THAT. THAT HAS BEEN THEIR LIFE'S CALLING FOR A WHILE NOW. 

WHAT MIGHT COME AS A SURPRISE NOT JUST TO OUR ENEMIES BUT TO MANY AMERICANS IS HOW LITTLE THESE PRACTICES DID TO AID OUR EFFORTS TO BRING 9/11 CULPRITS TO JUSTICE AND TO FIND AND PREVENT TERRORIST ATTACKS TODAY AND TOMORROW. THAT COULD BE A REAL SURPRISE, SINCE IT CONTRADICTS THE MANY ASSURANCES PROVIDED BY INTELLIGENCE OFFICIALS ON THE RECORD AND IN PRIVATE THAT ENHANCEED INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES WERE INDISPENSABLE IN THE WAR AGAINST TERRORISM. 

AND I SUSPECT THE OBJECTION OF THOSE SAME OFFICIALS TO THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THAT DISCLOSURE, TORTURE'S INEFFECTIVENESS. BECAUSE WE GAVE UP MUCH IN THE EXPECTATION THAT TORTURE WOULD MAKE US SAFER. TOO MUCH. OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED INTELLIGENCE TO DEFEAT OUR ENEMIES BUT WE NEED RELIABLE INTELLIGENCE. TORTURE PRODUCES MORE MISLEADING INFORMATION THAN ACTIONABLE INTELLIGENCE. AND WHAT THE ADVOCATES OF HARSH AND INTERROGATION METHODS HAVE NEVER ESTABLISHED IS THAT WE COULDN'T HAVE GATHERED AS GOOD OR MORE RELIABLE INTELLIGENCE FROM USING HUMANE METHODS. 

THE MOST IMPORTANT -- THE MOST IMPORTANT LEAD WE GOT CAME FROM USING CONVENTIONAL INTERROGATION METHODS AND I THINK IT'S AN INSULT TO THE MANY INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS WHO HAVE ACQUIRED GOOD INTELLIGENCE WITHOUT HURTING OR DEGRADING PRISONERS TO ASSERT WE CAN'T WIN THIS WAR WITHOUT SUCH METHODS. YES, WE CAN AND WE WILL. 

BUT IN THE END, TORTURE'S FAILURE TO SERVE ITS INTENDED PURPOSE ISN'T THE MAIN REASON TO OPPOSE ITS USE. I HAVE OFTEN SAID AND WILL ALWAYS MAINTAIN THAT THIS QUESTION ISN'T ABOUT OUR NAMES, IT'S ABOUT US. IT'S ABOUT HOW WE WERE, WHO WE ARE, AND WHO WE ASPIRE TO BE. IT'S ABOUT HOW WE REPRESENT OURSELVES TO THE WORLD. WE HAVE MADE OUR WAY IN THIS OFTEN DANGEROUS AND CRUEL WORLD NOT BY JUST STRICTLY PURSUING OUR GEOPOLITICAL INTERESTS BUT BY EXEMPLIFYING OUR POLITICAL VALUES AND INFLUENCING OTHER NATIONS TO EMBRACE THEM. 

WHEN WE FIGHT TO DEFEND OUR SECURITY, WE FIGHT ALSO FOR AN IDEA, NOT FOR A TRIBE OR A TWISTED INTERPRETATION OF AONIAN GENT RELIGION OR A KING BUT FOR AN IDEA THAT ALL MEN ARE ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR WITH INALIENABLE RIGHTS. HOW MUCH SAFER THE WORLD WOULD BE IF ALL NATIONS BELIEVES THE SAME. HOW MUCH MORE DANGEROUS IT CAN BECOME WHEN WE FORGET IT OURSELVES, EVEN MOMENTARILY. 

OUR ENEMIES ACT WITHOUT CONSCIENCE. WE MUST NOT. THIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE COMMITTEE'S REPORT MAKES CLEAR THAT ACTING WITHOUT CONSCIENCE ISN'T NECESSARY. IT ISN'T EVEN HELPFUL IN WINNING THIS STRANGE AND LONG WAR WE'RE FIGHTING. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL TO HAVE THAT TRUTH AFFIRMED. 

NOW LET US REASSERT THE TEMPORARY PROPOSITION THAT IT IS ESSENTIAL TO OUR SUCCESS IN THIS WAR THAT WE ASK THOSE WHO FIGHT IT FOR US TO REMEMBER AT ALL TIMES THAT THEY ARE DEFENDING A SACRED IDEAL OF HOW NATIONS SHOULD BE GOVERNED AND CONDUCT THEIR RELATIONS WITH OTHERS, EVEN OUR ENEMIES. THOSE OF US WHO GIVE THEM THIS DUTY ARE OBLIGED BY HISTORY, BY OUR NATION'S HIGHEST IDEALS AND THE MANY TERRIBLE SACRIFICES MADE TO PROTECT THEM BY OUR RESPECT FOR HUMAN DIGNITY, TO MAKE CLEAR WE NEED BE RISK OUR NATIONAL HONOR TO PREVAIL IN THIS OR ANY WAR. 

WE NEED ONLY REMEMBER IN THE WORST OF TIMES THROUGH THE CHAOS AND TERROR OF WAR, WHEN FACING CRUELTY, SUFFERING, AND LOSS, THAT WE ARE ALWAYS AMERICANS AND DIFFERENT, STRONGER, AND BETTER THAN THOSE WHO WOULD DESTROY US. 

The U.S. Used Torture -- And Then Lied About It

The Senate Intelligence Committee is finally releasing its report on the inexcusable actions committed by the federal government in its "war on terrorism". Put bluntly -- we used torture, that torture used was much worse than we were told, our government lied about it (to us and the rest of the world), and it accomplished nothing (but actually hindered efforts to fight terrorism). And by doing that, we violated both our own law and international law.

Here is the Washington Post's list of things the report shows:

1 “not an effective means of acquiring intelligence” 

2 “rested on inaccurate claims of their effectiveness” 

3 “brutal and far worse than the CIA represented” 

4 “conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher” 

5 “repeatedly provided inaccurate information” 

6“actively avoided or impeded congressional oversight” 

7 “impeded effective White House oversight” 

8 “complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missions” 

9 “impeded oversight by the CIA’s Office of Inspector General” 

10 “coordinated the release of classified information to the media” 

11 “unprepared as it began operating” 

12 “deeply flawed throughout the program's duration”

13 “overwhelmingly outsourced operations” 

14 “coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved” 

15 “did not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained” 

16 “failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness” 

17 “rarely reprimanded or held personnel accountable”

18 “ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections”

19 “inherently unsustainable” 

20 “damaged the United States' standing in the world”

And here is succinct and right on target summation of the report by Mother Jones:

In plain English: The torture was far more brutal than we thought, and the CIA lied about that. It didn't work, and they lied about that too. It produced so much bad intel that it most likely impaired our national security, and of course they lied about that as well. They lied to Congress, they lied to the president, and they lied to the media. Despite this, they are still defending their actions.

The rest of the report is just 600 pages of supporting evidence. But the core narrative that describes a barbarous, calculated, and sustained corruption of both our national values and our most fundamental moral principles is simple. We tortured prisoners, and then we lied about it. That's it.

The U.S. Is A Pretty Blood-Thirsty Nation

A recent Gallup Poll showed that support for the death penalty has declined recently, but is sit supported by a majority of Americans. Now two new polls show the same thing. According to the Rasmussen Poll, about 57% of Americans support the death penalty -- and a new YouGov Poll had the approval even higher, at about 65%.

This support remains high even though most of the civilized world no longer puts people to death, and it puts us in the company of such countries as Iran, China, Iraq, Sudan, and Saudi Arabia (company I'm not at all comfortable with being compared to). And the fact that dozens of people on death row have been found to have been innocent (and innocent people have undoubtably been executed) seems to have had no effect on support for the death penalty in this country.

Frankly, that sounds like a pretty blood-thirsty country to me. And if you don't agree, just look at the chart below -- when people were asked if they would still support the death penalty if the person being executed gasped for breath for 20 minutes and was in severe pain before finally succumbing to death (as has happened a couple of times recently). Amazingly, about half of Americans would still support the death penalty (49%).

And if that's not blood-thirsty enough for you, the You Gov Poll also asked about water boarding -- and even though 66% of Americans said they thought water boarding was torture, more than one out of four Americans (27%) said they would be willing to personally water board someone suspected of being a terrorist. Note that says suspected terrorist, and not someone proven to have committed a terrorist act.

Is it any wonder that most of the rest of the world is afraid of this country?

Green Party Says "Torture Is Mainstream Now"

Many of us in this country had hoped that the use of torture against human beings was a practice that was no longer tolerated -- and had been dispensed with in the developed (civilized?) nations of the world. And the hope was that these nations would use their moral and financial power to eliminate it in other nations.

But then George Bush and Dick Cheney came to power -- and they created an irrational fear of terrorism to justify their return to a use of torture. Unfortunately, that torture continues to this day and many people mistakenly believe that using torture can save lives. That is just not true, because an individual being tortured will tell the torturer what he wants to hear (which probably has no relation to the truth). They will do that because telling the truth will probably just result in more torture, since the torturer already knows what he/she wants to hear.

Here is an important article on how torture has now again become mainstream and accepted. It was written by Green Party Shadow Cabinet member David Swanson (Pictured). Mr. Swanson says:

As Rebecca Gordon notes in her new book, Mainstreaming Torture, polls find greater support in the United States for torture now than when Bush was president. And it's not hard to see why that would be the case.

Fifteen years ago, it was possible to pretend the U.S. government opposed torture. Then it became widely known that the government tortured. And it was believed (with whatever accuracy) that officials had tried to keep the torturing secret. Next it became clear that nobody would be punished, that in fact top officials responsible for torture would be permitted to openly defend what they had done as good and noble. 

The idea was spread around that the torture was stopping, but the cynical could imagine it must be continuing in secret, the partisan could suppose the halt was only temporary, the trusting could assume torture would be brought back as needed, and the attentive could be and have been aware that the government has gone right on torturing to this day with no end in sight. 

Anyone who bases their morality on what their government does (or how Hollywood supports it) might be predicted to have moved in the direction of supporting torture.

Gordon's book, like most others, speaks of torture as being largely in the past -- even while admitting that it isn't really. "Bush administration-era policies" are acknowledged to be ongoing, and yet somehow they retain the name "Bush administration-era policies," and discussion of their possible prosecution in a court of law does not consider the control that the current chief perpetrator has over law enforcement and his obvious preference not to see a predecessor prosecuted for something he's doing. 

President Elect Obama made clear in January 2009 that he would not allow torturers to be prosecuted and would be "looking forward" instead of (what all law enforcement outside of science fiction requires) backward.  By February 2009, reports were coming in that torture at Guantanamo was worsening rather than ceasing, and included: "beatings, the dislocation of limbs, spraying of pepper spray into closed cells, applying pepper spray to toilet paper and over-forcefeeding detainees who are on hunger strike."  In April 2009 a Guantanamo prisoner phoneda media outlet to report being tortured.  As time went by the reports keptcoming, as the military's written policywould lead one to expect.

In May 2009, former vice president Dick Cheney forced into the news the fact that, even though Obama had "banned torture" by executive order (torture being a felony and a treaty violation before and after the "banning") Obama maintained the power to use torture as needed. Cheney saidthat Obama's continued claim of the power to torture vindicated his own (Cheney's) authorization of torture.  David Axelrod, White House Senior Advisor, refused repeatedly, to dispute Cheney's assertion -- also supported by Leon Panetta's confirmation hearing for CIA director, at which he said the president had the power to torture and noted that rendition would continue.  In fact, it did.  The New York Times quickly reportedthat the U.S. was now outsourcing more torture to other countries.  The Obama administration announced a new policy on renditions that kept them in place, and a new policy on lawless permanent imprisonment that kept it in place but formalized it, mainstreamed it.  Before long Obama-era rendition victims were alleging torture.

As the Obama White House continued and sought to extend the occupation of Iraq, torture continued to be an Iraqi policy, as it has post-occupation. It has alsoremained a U.S. and Afghan policy in Afghanistan, with no end in sight. The U.S. military has continued to use the same personnel as part of its torture infrastructure. And secret CIA torture prisons have continued to pop into the news even though the CIA was falsely said to have abandoned that practice.  While the Obama administration has claimed unprecedented powers to block civil suits against torturers, it has also used, in court, testimony produced by torture, something that used to be illegal (and still is if you go by written laws). 

"Look at the current situation," Obama said in 2013, "where we are force-feeding detainees who are being held on a hunger strike... Is this who we are?" Well, it is certainly who some of us have become, including Obama, the senior authority in charge of the soldiers doing the force-feeding, and a human chameleon able to express outrage at his own policies, a trick that is perhaps more central to the mainstreaming of vicious and sadistic practices than we always care to acknowledge. 

The mainstreaming of torture in U.S. policy and entertainment has stimulated a burst of torture use around the globe, even as the U.S. State Department has never stopped claiming to oppose torture when it's engaged in by anyone other than the U.S. government. If "Bush-era policies" is taken to refer to public relations policies, then there really is something to discuss. The U.S. government tortured before, during, and after Bush and Cheney ran the show.  But it was during those years that people talked about it, and it is with regard to those years that people still talk about it.

As Rebecca Gordon's book, Mainstreaming Torture: Ethical Approaches in the Post-9/11 United States, recounts well, torture has been around. Native Americans and enslaved African Americans were tortured. The CIA has always tortured. The School of the Americas has long trained torturers. The war on Vietnam was a war of mass-murder and mass-torture.  Torture is standard practice in U.S. prisons, where the torture of Muslims began post-9-11, where some techniques originated and some prison guards came from via the National Guard who brought their torturing to an international set of victims for the Bush-Obama era.

One of Gordon's central points, and an important one, is that torture is not an isolated incident. Rather it is an institution, a practice, a collective endeavor that requires planning and organization. Defenders of torture often defend a widespread practice of purely vicious evil by reference to a single imaginary incident in which it would make sense to torture someone.  Imagine, they say, that you knew for certain (as of course you would not) that many people were about to be killed unless a particular person revealed something.  Imagine you were certain (as of course you would not be) that you had found that person. Imagine that contrary to accumulated wisdom you believed the best way to elicit the information was through torture, and that you were sure (as of course you would not be) that the information would be revealed, that it would be accurate (nobody EVER lies under torture), and that it would prevent the greater tragedy (and not just delay it or move it), with no horrible side-effects or lasting results.  Then, in that impossible scenario, wouldn't you agree to torture the person?

And doesn't that fantasy justify having thousands of people prepared to engage in torture even though they'll inevitably torture in all sorts of other situations that actually exist, and even though many thousands of people will be driven to hate the nation responsible? And doesn't it justify training a whole culture to support the maintenance of an apparatus of torture, even though uses of torture outside the fantasized scenario will spread like wildfire through local police and individual vigilantes and allied governments?

Of course not. And that's why I'm glad Gordon has tackled torture as a matter of ethics, although her books seems a bit weighed down by academic jargon. I come at this as someone who got a master's degree in philosophy, focusing on ethics, back before 9-11, back when torture was used as an example of something evil in philosophy classes.  Even then, people sometimes referred to "recreational torture," although I never imagined they meant that any other type of torture was good, only that it was slightly less evil.  Even today, the polls that show rising -- still minority -- support for torture, show stronger -- majority -- support for murder, that is for a president going through a list of men, women, and children, picking which ones to have murdered, and having them murdered, usually with a missile from a drone -- as long as nobody tortures them. 

While many people would rather be tortured than killed, few people oppose the killing of others as strongly as they oppose torturing them.  In part this may be because of the difficulty of torturing for the torturers. If foreigners or enemies are valued at little or nothing, and if killing them is easier than torturing them, then why not think of killing as "cleaner" just as the Obama administration does? That's one ethical question I'd like to see taken up even more than that of torture alone.  Another is the question of whether we don't have a duty to put everything we have into opposing the evil of the whole -- that being the Nuremberg phrase for war, an institution that brings with it murder, imprisonment, torture, rape, injury, trauma, hatred, and deceit. 

If you are going to take on the ethics of torture alone, Mainstreaming Torture provides an excellent summary of how philosophy departments now talk about it.  First they try to decide whether to be consequentialist or deontological or virtue-based.  This is where the jargon takes over.  A consequentialist ethics is one that decides on the propriety of actions based on what their likely consequences will be.  A deontological ethics declares certain actions good or bad apart from their consequences.  And an ethics of virtues looks at the type of life created by someone who behaves in various ways, and whether that person is made more virtuous in terms of any of a long list of possible virtues. 

A competition between these types of ethics quickly becomes silly, while an appreciation of them as a collection of insights proves valuable.  A consequentialist or utilitarian ethics is easily parodied and denounced, in particular because supporters of torture volunteer such arguments.  Would you torture one person to save the lives of two people?  Say yes, and you're a simple-minded consequentialist with no soul. But say no and you're demonstrably evil.  The correct answer is of course that it's a bad question.  You'll never face such a situation, and fantasizing about it is no guide to whether your government should fund an ongoing torture program the real aim and results of which is to generate war propaganda, scare people, and consolidate power. 

A careful consideration of all consequences, short- and long-term, structural and subtle, is harder to parody and tends to encompass much of what is imagined to lie outside the purview of the utilitarian simpleton (or corporate columnist).  The idea of an ethics that is not based on consequences appeals to people who want to base their ethics on obedience to a god or other such delusion, but the discussions of deontological ethicists are quite helpful nonetheless. In identifying exactly how and why torture is as incredibly offensive as it is, these writers clarify the problem and move people against any support for torture.

The idea of an ethics based entirely on how actions impact the character of the actor is self-indulgent and arbitrary, and yet the discussion of virtues (and their opposite) is terrifically illuminating -- in particular as to the level of cowardice being promoted by the policy of employing torture and any other evil practice in hopes of being kept safe. 

I think these last two types of ethics, deontological and virtue -- that is, ongoing discussion in their terms -- have good consequences. And I think that consequentialism and principled integrity are virtues, while engaging in consequentialism and virtue ethics lead to better deontological talk as well as fulfillment of the better imperatives declared by the deontologists. So, the question should not be finding the proper ethical theory but finding the proper ethical behavior.  How do you get someone who opposes torturing Americans to oppose torturing human beings?  How do you get someone who wants desperately to believe that torture has in fact saved lives to look at the facts?  How do you get someone who believes that anyone who is tortured deserves it to consider the evidence, and to face the possibility that the torture is used in part to make us see certain people as evil, rather than their evilness actually preceding and justifying the torture?  How do you get Republicans loyal to Bush or Democrats loyal to Obama to put human rights above their loyalty?

As Gordon recounts, torture in reality has generated desired falsehoods to support wars, created lots of enemies rather than eliminating them, encouraged and directly trained more torturers, promoted cowardice rather than courage, degraded our ability to think of others as fully human, perverted our ideas of justice, and trained us all to pretend not to know something is going on while silently supporting its continued practice. None of that can help us much in any other ethical pursuit.