This election, Charlie Savage of the New York Times writes, will decide the future of “interrogation methods in terrorism cases,” whether torture techniques used by the administration of President George W. Bush are restored. GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney favors “enhanced interrogation techniques” or torture. President Barack Obama has maintained certain torture techniques should not be used on prisoners suspected of having ties to terrorism.
The reality is the choice is not so distinct. When it comes to policy, both candidates would permit a level of torture.
Obama has stopped agents and military officers from engaging in some forms of torture and outsourced the torture to allies in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. That does not mean agents and military officers are not engaged in torture themselves. Guantanamo Bay prison is still open.
It is believed with the Army Field Manual in force torture has stopped. Jeff Kaye of Truthout has found, through his research and work, the Army Field Manual—particularly Appendix M—permits sleep deprivation, twenty hour interrogations and environmental and dietary manipulations, as long as they are not “extreme.” Kaye has detailed how the Army Field Manual makes it justifiable for prisoners to be limited to “four hours of sleep per day for up to thirty days straight and longer than that with approval.” The four hours of sleep, he has noted, could occur at any time of the twenty-four hour day, “a form of manipulation of circadian rhythms that also amounts to torture, not to mention allowing mammoth interrogation sessions to exhaust the prisoner.”
The use of isolation for more thirty days or more with approval is allowed. Goggles and earmuffs can be used for sensory deprivation. Hallucinations can be caused in the minds of prisoners. Officers or agents can create a learned helplessness in prisoners like officers or agents did to prisoners when Bush was president and create mental or even, in some cases, physical illness in prisoners.
It was reported in February 2012 that British prisoner Shaker Aamer, one of eighty-six prisoners at Guantanamo cleared for release, was being held in isolation. According to human rights organization Reprieve, Aamer was placed in isolation—solitary confinement—on July 15, 2011. He was put in a cell that has no view outside, “just a one meter by 30 centimeters of opaque glass, and no real toilet, just a hole in the ground.” Aamer told Reprieve torture was worse in Guantanamo than before: “Here they destroy people mentally and physically without leaving marks.” He suggested isolation was being called “separation” to get around rules limiting “isolation” to thirty days. [There's also evidence on the drugging of detainees, which points to a possible Defense Department coverup and raises questions about how pharmaceuticals are used on prisoners today.]
One can argue Romney would allow more torture if elected, but one could also counter that more torture would not be acceptable to the current actors, who populate the national security state. More torture would scar suspects, making it likely terror prosecutions are complicated by torture. It would further complicate interrogation and detention policy and give suspects evidence that could be used to press cases challenging officials in the US government. [As Savage's report suggests, "The Central Intelligence Agency could give 'a certain amount of passive-aggressive resistance' to any directive to restart any aggressive interrogation practices that could leave it exposed if political winds shift again, said Mark Lowenthal, who was its assistant director for analysis and production from 2002 to 2005."]
Both would maintain the culture of impunity, making it possible for officials to authorize and oversee policies that permit torture. There would be no prosecutions for even a few agents or officers caught torturing or abusing prisoners.
The advisers coaching Romney are the very people, who contributed to Bush efforts to make torture an issue where people debated whether it worked or not rather than how a country could permit torture to be used. They include: ”Michael Chertoff, the former homeland security secretary; Cully Stimson, the Pentagon’s detainee policy chief; and many other Bush-era executive branch veterans: Bradford Berenson, Elliot S. Berke, Todd F. Braunstein, Gus P. Coldebella,Jimmy Gurule, Richard D. Klingler, Ramon Martinez, Brent J. McIntosh, John C. O’Quinn, John J. Sullivan, Michael Sullivan and Alex Wong. Three others — Lee A. Casey,Maureen E. Mahoney and David B. Rivkin Jr. — served in earlier Republican administrations.”
But, if liberals or progressives express any concern over Bush officials returning to power, they should understand that Obama’s commitment to moving forward instead of looking backward has already empowered these officials. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and former counterterrorism head for the CIA, Jose Rodriguez, have all appeared on television to evangelize and preach the Gospel of Torture and how it is effective—that they believe it has disrupted a number of terror plots.
These officials have been vindicated by Obama’s administration, which has let them escape accountability. And, as I have written, without accountability or justice, those who were at the center of acts of torture may work to clear their name, as if they never committed any wrong. They may suggest that if what they had done was criminal, they would have been put on trial. They may point to the absence of prosecutions and say Obama was just spouting hot rhetoric. Civil liberties and human rights advocates and the antiwar or peace activists are all just a part of focus groups, which Obama figured out were misguided once he was introduced to officials from national security agencies.
Parts of history can be rewritten to cloud the record of what really happened. That does not just mean aspects of these torture techniques not repudiated by the lack of investigations into former Bush administration officials may seep back into US interrogation policy but also that abusive techniques like stress positions, sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation and solitary confinement will likely become more and more entrenched in policy.
Whatever Romney might do as president, if elected, Obama would bear a certain level of responsibility. He had the opportunity to be a leader and, in the first months in office, make use of people like Attorney General Eric Holder and former White House Counsel Gregory Craig. He consciously chose the vacuous and morally bankrupt path laid out before him by his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his former Senior Advisor David Axelrod. He chose continuity of government over justice for victims tortured while Bush was president, over ensuring a culture of impunity would not further seep into the government effectively decriminalizing torture. And, as a result, he ensured officials could return to the halls of power to promote their “Torture Works” ideals that support the myth that America must be able to torture people and torture people in secret in order for the country to survive and prosper.



15 Comments

Change you can bereave in.
“He consciously chose the vacuous and morally bankrupt path laid out before him by his former Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and his former Senior Advisor David Axelrod. ”
How do we know Rahm and Axelrod convinced Obama?
Torture under the Democratic Party — Torture You Can Believe In.
Read Daniel Klaidman’s book Kill or Capture.
So it comes down to a choice of someone who openly agrees with USA,Inc. policy of torture, including the active participation by US personnel, and someone who approves of outsourcing the torture, with passive involvement by US personnel, while maintaining that his policies equate to torture-lite.
Obama, through both his actions and inaction is a war criminal.
I choose none of the above, thanks.
There is a choice as many here are suggesting; go third party and don’t abstain and don’t hold your nose as you vote.
Versus what else? One or the other will be US policy even if lightning strikes and a third party candidate wins the Presidency. Any third party candidate. Including Vermin Supreme.
Any way you look at it, on this issue it’s a crappy choice.
The winner of the Nobel Peace Prize espouses torture and the assassination of anyone he personally believes is a danger to “the homeland”. We’ve truly fallen through the looking glass.
Last time it happened was when Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for ending a war that he didn’t end.
I’m well aware of the third party choice, but the Kevin’s post was only concerned with ORama & Bomney, so my comment only addressed that.
Kissinger, the architect of the first 9/11 in 1973 Chile to depose the democratically Allende. War criminal extraordinaire.
Two points:
(1) Yes – Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson & Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson all have platforms that in some way specifically address torture.
(2) I understand that no matter what we’re going to get Obama or Romney but that will not influence whether I post about the reality of what the two major party candidates stand for in the month leading up to Election Day.
Keep up the good work. I trust that you will also do civil liberties, drone warfare, … in this same format.
Great article, Kevin, though there may be those who could label me biased
But you make the excellent necessary points, i.e., that the issues are between primary reliance on physical torture, which the CIA used and the GOP loves, and psychological or so-called “no-touch” torture, which Obama and the Democrats support, and which was also crafted by the CIA some decades ago, and relies on isolation, sensory deprivation or overload, stress positions, and creating fearful scenarios.
Former interrogator Matthew Alexander wrote an op-ed for the New York Times a few years ago, “Torture’s Loopholes,” that discussed the problems with the manual and Appendix M. At that time, he noted one problem that I had not previously considered: “The Army Field Manual also does not explicitly prohibit stress positions, putting detainees into close confinement or environmental manipulation (other than hypothermia and “heat injury”). These omissions open a window of opportunity for abuse.”
It’s worth noting that most of the human rights groups at this point have publicly criticized the AFM and/or called for rescission of Appendix M. I’ve made a point myself of discussing the terrible changes on the policy re using drugs in the manual.
What irritated me about Savage’s article was that he labelled the Army Field Manual as having “nonabusive tactics”. Of course, that’s wrong, if you’re describing the totality of the manual, and he’s done nothing to correct that. I can’t prove he knows that I’ve tried to correct him, but I’d be surprised if he didn’t. That’s irritating, not on a personal level, since I’ve never tried to solicit attention from some famous reporter or politician for any egoistic purpose, but because it is dishonest to the public.
Thanks again, for taking up the cudgels on this important issue.
Not a bad idea to do issue-by-issue posts. However, I will be examining five candidates, not two, if I do a series.
Is there still time to weigh in here?
Jeff, I just wrote to Charlie Savage about this. He doesn’t know me from Eve — except, of course, for the costume. But he may take account of my credentials.
Kevin, many thanks, as well. Those of us appalled by torture cannot afford to give up addressing it.