Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Torture Watch

It's become common for the investigation into torture and other abuses sought by Senator Patrick Leahy and others to be referred to as a "truth commission." But Leahy actually says what he wants is a "commission of inquiry."

As human right expert Eric Stover explains in an article on (where I am deputy editor), there's an important distinction: "Truth commissions tend to be set up after a period of political upheaval or mass violence which affects an entire society," he says. Typically, everybody in the society played a role of one kind or another.

"It’s not necessary for the American public to go through some purgation here," he says. "But they do need to understand what was done in their name, and how we can correct it."

I'm not entirely sure, but Michael Kinsley, in a Washington Post opinion column today, seems to be arguing in favor of purgation or nothing.

"If you're going to punish people for condoning torture, you'd better include the American citizenry itself," he writes.

"Sixty-two million of us voted to reelect George W. Bush in 2004....If you're looking to punish the ultimate decision makers, you can't stop at the Justice Department or even the White House. You've got to go all the way to the top. You have to ask the famous Howard Baker question about the voters themselves: What did we know, and when did we know it?...

"Prosecuting a few former government officials for their role in putting our country into the torture business would not serve justice or historical memory. It would just let the real culprits off the hook."

But Gary Kamiya writes for Salon: "An investigation of the Bush years would not assign the ultimate blame to the citizenry: In a vast representative democracy like the U.S., the people cannot be held directly responsible for the illegal or immoral actions planned, authorized and carried out by government officials, even if they elected those officials. Those Americans who signed off on war and tacitly approved torture because they were afraid of terrorism must bear some responsibility for their hot-blooded reactions, but such reactions are to be expected. The reason we have laws and representatives and accountability is that they act as a check on mere impulse, on vigilante justice, the untrammeled thirst for vengeance. Because it would recognize this, the investigation would be psychologically tolerable to the American people. But at the same time, it would force citizens to examine their own conscience, their own attitudes, their own emotions and where those emotions led. And by calling for appropriate justice for those officials who, in cold blood, lied about war, created secret prisons, trashed the Constitution, and tortured, an investigation would make clear to every American that some lines can never be crossed."

And senator Robert Byrd writes on "As the facts continue to come to light about exactly what happened at Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay, Bagram, and other U.S.-run secret prisons around the world, it is increasingly impossible to ignore that the U.S. government violated the basic human rights of prisoners. Not only did these insidious tactics sacrifice our national integrity, but they may also have compromised our security as well...

"The rule of law is not just a lofty concept to which we should aspire only when convenient. It is a fundamental principal upon which our Republic was founded, and it is the foundation of our free society. I understand the desire to look forward and to forge a new path on high ground instead of on the low road of the past eight years. But to use the need to move on as a reason not to investigate basic human rights violations is unacceptable. Excusing individuals at the highest levels of government from adhering to the rule of law, whether in wartime or not, is a dangerous precedent, for it undercuts the principle of accountability which permeates representative democracy....

"Whether it is through an independent investigation, a 'Truth Commission,' a Congressional investigation, or a criminal investigation by the Department of Justice, action must be taken. As long as those who condoned and approved these despicable acts are permitted to escape the consequences, we allow our moral standing in the world to be severely compromised."

In a Los Angeles Times op-ed, Joseph Margulies, a lawyer representing detainee Abu Zubaydah, reminds us "that there was a human being strapped to that board. His name is Zayn al Abidin Mohamed Hussein, known to the world as Abu Zubaydah....

"They tormented a clerk....[and] Abu Zubaydah paid with his mind....

"Today, he suffers blinding headaches and has permanent brain damage. He has an excruciating sensitivity to sounds, hearing what others do not. The slightest noise drives him nearly insane. In the last two years alone, he has experienced about 200 seizures.

"But physical pain is a passing thing. The enduring torment is the taunting reminder that darkness encroaches. Already, he cannot picture his mother's face or recall his father's name. Gradually, his past, like his future, eludes him."

Karen J. Greenberg writes for TomDispatch: "The policies of the Bush administration were not just horrific in themselves or to others, they may also have brought to an end the human rights movement as we know it....

"Through perverse language, a twisting of the law, and an immersion in the precise details of implementing torture techniques, the United States renounced its position as the leader of the global human rights movement. Abandoned by the country it long considered its greatest ally, that movement now teeters at the edge of its grave. That's what the torture memos and the present media uproar over torture really mean."

If you missed it, see my rebuttal to Charles Krauthammer's defense of torture from earlier today.

Meanwhile, in the news,
Josh White writes in The Washington Post: "When the photos of detainee abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq surfaced in 2004, U.S. officials portrayed Army Pvt. Charles A. Graner Jr. as the ringleader of a few low-ranking 'bad apples' who illegally put naked Iraqi detainees in painful positions, shackled them to cell doors with women's underwear on their heads and menaced them with military dogs.

"Now, the recent release of Justice Department memos authorizing the use of harsh interrogation techniques has given Graner and other soldiers new reason to argue that they were made scapegoats for policies approved at high levels. They also contend that the government's refusal to acknowledge those polices when Graner and others were tried undermined their legal defenses.

"Graner remains locked up at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., about halfway through a 10-year prison sentence for detainee abuse, assault and dereliction of duty. His lawyer said this week that he is drafting appeals arguments centered largely on the revelations in the memos and a newly released congressional investigation into the interrogation practices...

"Graner and other defendants -- including Lynndie R. England, who was photographed holding a naked detainee by a leash -- were blocked by military judges from calling senior U.S. officials to the stand at their trials in 2004 and 2005. The government would not acknowledge any policy or procedure that could have led to what the world saw in the photographs."

Annie Lowrey finds and transcribes video of former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice seemingly restating President Nixon's view that if the president does it, it's not illegal.

Says Rice, being questioned by students at Stanford University : "The president instructed us that nothing we would do would be outside of our obligations, legal obligations, under the Convention Against torture. So that's -- and by the way, I didn't authorize anything. I conveyed the authorization of the administration to the agency. That they had policy authorization subject to the Justice Department's clearance. That's what I did."

Q. "Okay. Is waterboarding torture?"

Rice: "I just said -- the United States was told, we were told, nothing that violates our obligations under the Convention Against Torture. And so, by definition, if it was authorized by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Conventions Against Torture."

Spencer Ackerman writes for the Washington Independent that Rice's comments are also notable for her portrayal of herself as merely a conduit for approving interrogation techniques. Ackerman notes: "There are only two more-senior officials than Rice in this context, and that’s Bush and then-Vice President Dick Cheney."

John Schwartz writes in the New York Times that Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who spent nearly six years in isolation in a Navy brig as the last enemy combatant held on United States soil, yesterday "reached a deal with the government to
plead guilty to conspiracy to provide material support to Al Qaeda....

"In a statement issued after the plea, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said, 'Without a doubt, this case is a grim reminder of the seriousness of the threat we as a nation still face.'

"Mr. Holder also took the opportunity, however, to distinguish the criminal proceeding from the indefinite detention under which Mr. Marri, 43, had been held without charges as an 'enemy combatant' during the Bush administration, when he was kept in solitary confinement in a Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., for nearly six years. That detention had been challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"The switch to criminal court and the agreement, Mr. Holder said, 'reflects what we can achieve when we have faith in our criminal justice system and are unwavering in our commitment to the values upon which the nation was founded and the rule of law.'"

Carrie Johnson writes in The Washington Post that Marri "faces as many as 15 years in prison when he is sentenced this summer. But he could serve far less time if a judge gives him credit for time served" though "prosecutors will argue against Marri getting credit for his brig time at the sentencing hearing in July."

Elisabeth Bumiller and William Glaberson write in the New York Times: "As many as 100 detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could end up held without trial on American soil, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested Thursday, a situation that he acknowledged would create widespread if not unanimous opposition in Congress...

"On Wednesday in Berlin, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. said the legal basis for holding any detainees was still under review.

"'We have to determine what would be our basis for holding that person that would to the world appear to be fair and that would in fact be fair,' he said. 'How could you ensure that due process was being served by the detention of such a person?'"

Brian Ross, Matthew Cole and Joseph Ree report for ABC News: "According to current and former government officials, the CIA's secret waterboarding program was designed and assured to be safe by two well-paid psychologists now working out of an unmarked office building in Spokane, Washington.

"Bruce Jessen and Jim Mitchell, former military officers, together founded Mitchell Jessen and Associates.

"Both men declined to speak to ABC News citing non-disclosure agreements with the CIA."

And CNN reports: "The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

"More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is 'often' or 'sometimes' justified. Only 42 percent of people who 'seldom or never' go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life."

By Dan Froomkin  |  May 1, 2009; 1:30 PM ET
Categories:  Torture  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Quick Takes
Next: Why Biden's Gaffe Matters


Blaming the voters is fine if the standard is any responsibility whatsoever, any knowledge.

But a war crime has a higher standard: on your own authority you violated Geneva. By that standard the war criminals are well defined. I think we now have a pretty good idea exactly who they are.

Oh, and note to Ms. Rice: having one war criminal say they weren't war crimes doesn't make them not war crimes, nor does it make the other war criminals not war criminals. I know you'd heartedly like to believe otherwise, but, dear, you're wrong.

Posted by: jpk1 | May 1, 2009 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Every citizen of this country is now a torturer and will remain such until the true criminals are found and brought to justice. Something I do not anticipate.

Posted by: davidbn27 | May 1, 2009 3:05 PM | Report abuse

Does anyone really think that Sen. Byrd is able any longer to put together a statement like the one released to the press?

Posted by: bmschumacher | May 1, 2009 3:16 PM | Report abuse

Dan: Two more great post's on torture. They are thorough and informative. One reason we need to follow the rule of law is because we need cooperation from our allies in the global struggle against terrorism. They will not give us information, or turn over prisoners if we torture. Here are a couple of questions for Krauthamer: George Washington told his troops we would not do what the British were doing, ie torture. We would treat our prisoners with respect and dignity. (source Jane Mayer). 2. How do we want other coutries to treat our captured servicemen? Does he think they can be waterboarded? 3. Isn't it true that John McCain gave a false confession, along with many other victims of N. Vietnam torture? What does Charley think of those facts? And finally, WWJD?

Posted by: tammbusiness | May 1, 2009 4:02 PM | Report abuse

Can you reveal if Krauthammer (was there ever a more appropriately named human being?) responded to your brilliant destruction of his torture column?

Posted by: fredleonhardt | May 1, 2009 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Two thoughts:

1. Ms. Rice was the National Security Advisor to President Bush. Either she was at least as responsible as Vice President Cheney and the rest of the senior torture advocates, or she was completely ineffective and incompetent in that position. I wonder which position she would prefer to be known for?

2. Of course church-goers are more likely to approve of torture. They all believe they get a second chance with an afterlife. The rest of us have to make the best of the one chance we get, so we want to get it right this time.

Posted by: DigiMark | May 1, 2009 8:37 PM | Report abuse

That was pretty good of Condoleezza Rice: on torture, she didn't authorize anything, she merely conveyed the administration's decision. It was not torture "if it was authorized by the President."

There you have it, straight from the horse's mouth, George W. Bush's direct personal responsibility, which has been curiously hushed up for far too long. He's the first person who ought to be put on trial, and in jail.

Or is the President free to order that a crime be committed?

Posted by: cristca9 | May 1, 2009 9:56 PM | Report abuse

Aaah, yes, I remember how a Truth Commission was convened for all the criminal abuses of the Nixon administration, and all the Republicans who voted for Nixon were held accountable and indicted along with the criminal Republicans who broke countless laws back then...and I remember how a Truth Commission was held to hold President Bill Clinton accountable for a blow job, along with all Democrats who voted the philandering fellatioist into office (gee, lying about a blow job seems so, so, so insignificant when compared to when Republicans Go Wild and start blowing off everything we hold dear in our liberal democracy), of course, some are calling for a Truth Commission to investigate the countless abuses of the previous Bush/Cheney administration, even when most patriotic American citizens realize that Watergate-style hearings are required, with criminal convictions and jail time for those Bush/Cheney administration officials responsible for pulling a "Nixon" on our country again.

Posted by: wizard2000 | May 1, 2009 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Kinsley's formulation is absurd on its face, but I'll poke a couple of holes in it anyway.

First, tens of millions of people voted *against* Bush twice; why should those people be lumped in with the tens of millions who *did*? Further, the number of people who didn't vote for Bush--either through not voting at all, voting for Bush's opponents, or being unable to vote for whatever reason--shouldn't be lumped in with the Bush supporters, either. Finally, who is to say that the 60-some million people who voted for Bush were aware--tacitly or not--that the US was torturing people? That's a pretty big logical leap.

Such an approach reminds me of the teachers in elementary school who made everyone in class write lines because he or she couldn't figure out which one or two people were misbehaving.

Second, the Bush administration went out of its way to keep people in the dark. They lied, obstuficated, misdirected, and used every other means at their disposal to cover up these crimes. 60+ million people should bear the burden of that?

Kinsley is wrong. It's that simple.

Posted by: dougom | May 2, 2009 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Thanks, Mr. Froomkin!

My complete bravo here:

Posted by: gormans | May 4, 2009 5:08 AM | Report abuse

I submit there is one factor that sets apart war criminals of the Muslim faith; their belief that death in battle ensures a new life in a Heaven of a nature to be much desired by men. In their eyes, probably, the battle continues after capture and resistance to torture becomes their pathway to Heaven. On the other hand, there must be those who will eventually break and provide information that strengthens the war on terrorism.

Security of the state, along with the preservation of law and order, is the first duty of the President. And there is the irony. The chosen option must be security of the USA for without that, present law based on Christian values could be replaced by that of Muslim extremists.

(As an aside, I would add that there are aspects of the Muslim religion from which Christians could learn and vice versa.)

Interrogation of such POWs cannot be exposed without compromising sources of intelligence essential to successful prosecution of the war on terror.

The choice is not pleasant but I recommend a greater regard by the critics of these uncomfortable facts.

Posted by: corners | May 4, 2009 6:00 AM | Report abuse

Dan, please write more about this meme being pushed by the Pentagon. From today's Washington Post, "There are up to 100 detainees in Guantanamo who are too dangerous to release but who cannot be tried, according to Pentagon estimates."

And from Eliz B's story in the NYTimes, "As many as 100 detainees at the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, could end up held without trial on American soil, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates suggested Thursday.

I would think that, according to the constitution, the phrase "too dangerous to release but who cannot be tried" ought to describe the empty set.

Holder says, "We have to determine what would be our basis for holding that person that would to the world appear to be fair and that would in fact be fair."

Hint hint, Mr. Holder, it is all spelled out for you already, in the U S Constitution!

Here goes the O administration, going extra-Constitutional, too. I hated when Bush did it, and I can't like it now, either. This is bad news.

Posted by: tjallen | May 4, 2009 6:57 AM | Report abuse

I have no other conclusion left but that Michael Kinsley, like Charles Krauthammer and Michael Gerson, is an amoral sociopath who should be locked up. Monsters among monsters, ruled by monsters, elected by monsters, with a media filled with-obsequious monsters.
The conservative movement is nothing less than a mental defect, like some kind of amoebic slime crawling the earth in search of human victims, demanding violence and murder and torture at every turn.

Posted by: sparkplug1 | May 4, 2009 9:54 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company