Originally published on the CGS blog on May 26, 2008.
While in the UK for a friend’s wedding, it has been interesting to gauge British opinions across the party divide about the use of torture in U.S. interrogation policy (and British complicity in renditions) – not strictly pleasant wedding conversation but nonetheless an issue that has been at the forefront of the global press and an important issue on the agenda of ordinary British citizens.
From those people I’ve encountered, the overarching feeling is that not only is torture immoral and runs counter to the values of any person or nation with a respect for the law and common human decency, it simply is not an effective way of intelligence gathering. Yes, torture is immoral and a gross human rights abuse – and this alone should of course ensure that it is never adopted as official policy. But it goes much further than that.
The bottom line is, as reflected in the views of those I’ve spoken to, that it radicalizes our enemies, alienates our allies, makes us less safe as a result and most importantly for many people, brings us down to the perverted level of those we consider to be the enemies of the values that we have long cherished and espoused. Moreover, this is coupled with a brooding anger in the UK over a U.S.-led war in Iraq that the British people, if not a handful of their elected representatives, have long seen is illegitimate and questioned from the early days.
Also in the UK, President Jimmy Carter was extended a warm welcome yesterday as he addressed an audience at the Hay Festival in Wales, expressing his “embarrassment, horror and despair ” at the use of torture by the U.S. While President Carter strongly denounced the actions of Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda, correctly saying that “they represent the most reprehensible aspects of human nature,” he unequivocally condemned the use of so called “harsh interrogation” tactics which equate directly to torture in the Bush administration’s war on terror.
President Carter’s personal response to a question probing his own beliefs on the issue highlights the challenges and opportunities that lie before an incoming administration that, whether republican or democrat, stands to inherit the fall-out of various disastrously conceived foreign policy choices.
“Embarrassment and horror and despair and hope that the next president of the United States, whether it’s Republican or Democrat, will permanently and on a global basis vow that our country will never again torture a prisoner and we will in future comply with the terms of international agreements.”
Furthermore, in a Jurist article entitled “Memorial Day Memo: Honor Those Who Stood Up Against Torture” by Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law, Davis calls for the prosecutions of those responsible for concocting legal arguments authorizing the use of torture in a post 9/11 world, and strongly criticizes the likes of Condoleezza Rice and Michael Mukasey for effectively asking the public to acquiesce with the utilitarian requirement of such tactics in a time of unprecedented threat – tactics which ultimately make the U.S. and her allies less safe.
Davis also draws attention to those people in the Justice Department, Department of Defence and the FBI, who spoke out in response to the authorization of torture, passed down the chain of command in the form of ‘orders.’ Davis raises several pertinent questions:
“May I ask Secretary Rice and Attorney General Mukasey, where is your concern for those lawyers? Where is your concern for Alberto Mora standing up and objecting in the Pentagon? Where is your concern for Bruce C. Swartz, Marion “Spike” Bowman, and Pasquale D’Amuro, lawyers in the FBI? Where is your concern for the FBI agents who went up their chain of command to object to treatment that was patently illegal? Where is your concern for a William Taft IV at the State Department who argued for the applicability of the Geneva Conventions?”
Davis is absolutely correct in asking us not to sympathize with the likes of John Yoo et al for their perversion of the law in the face of global crises including terrorism. He is also right to espouse the virtues of the Geneva Conventions while articulating the fact that the use of torture is immoral and flies in the face of American values. But it goes further than that, because these are not just American values; they are the values of any individual and nation that understands the importance of the rule of law and the fact that heinous human rights abuses such as torture only serve to alienate us from our friends and allies, while making us less safe in the process.
America has long been seen as the flagship carrier of such values – it is now important we regain our footing and return to our rightful position as the responsible global leader.
Whether prosecutions do indeed transpire in the future stands to be seen. What is needed now, however, is an independent bipartisan commission of experts to investigate the use of torture by the U.S., and make sound policy choices moving forward to ensure that such actions cannot be allowed to continue.
