The Senate’s report on the CIA’s use of torture in the years
after 9/11 is, in a word, damning. Damning to the torturers, damning to the CIA
brass, and damning to the Bush administration as a whole. All parties displayed
ineptitude, an inability to objectively evaluate their own programs, and above
all, pure, brutal, inhumanity.
|
Waterboarding. Which is torture. Not "enhanced" anything. |
The report revealed haunting new facts, such as the use of
rectal feeding, the inability of the CIA to keep track of just 119 prisoners
(26 of whom shouldn’t have been detained in the first place), and the overall ineffectiveness
of torture in extracting crucial information. The report’s true impact,
however, is to condemn the practice of torture, which was banned by the White
House in 2009 and remains illegal under both US and international law. It also calls
into question just how much the Bush White House knew about its own so-called
“enhanced interrogation techniques” or EITs, and how well the program was
working when it chose to continue it.
EIT is just a euphemism for torture. Rectal
feeding/hydration is also just a euphemism for anal rape. The fact that
torturers (I won’t give them the dignity of calling them agents) also used the
threat of sexual and other violence against detainees’ family members reads
like the human rights reports I’ve translated from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and
Iraq. It appears that CIA torturers learned from the worst. Reading the report
confirms the worst fears of human rights defenders of what exactly went on in
CIA detention sites, and the executive summary is still less than 10 percent of
the classified full report.
The political response to the report has been striking, and (unsurprisingly) largely split along
partisan lines. Senate Democrats decided to release the executive summary now
for fear that a Republican-controlled Senate would not allow it to see the
light of day. Republicans have largely dismissed the report’s findings, especially
members of the Bush
administration,
as it was their party that initiated and “oversaw” the program. Yet one member
of the Republican party, Sen. John McCain, who was himself tortured as a POW in
the Vietnam War, gave a moving
speech
in support of the release of the report. I encourage you to read the entire
transcript, but here’s a relevant quote (emphasis added):
“…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 enemies; it’s
about us.
It’s about who we were, who we are and who we aspire to be. It’s
about how we represent ourselves to the world.”
Senator McCain’s speech gets at the crux of the issue. The
report confirms and expands on the knowledge that America violated its own
ideals in the interest of national security, and to little effect. In a democratic
country, we are all responsible for the actions of the government we elected,
good and bad, and in 2004 Americans confirmed its support of the Bush-era
policies of torture, black sites, and extraordinary rendition by re-electing
Pres. Bush. In a way, we all bear the shame that should be felt at reading this
report. It reflects on us, and the reflection is not a flattering one. It shows
that in a time of need and chaos, we were willing to throw off the very values
the 9/11 terrorists attacked, simply out of fear.
So where do we go from here? The report itself does not put
an end to this issue. The Obama White House may have ended the practice of
torture in 2009, but that does not mean that no future administration or CIA
will use it again. The Justice Department legally approved the use of torture, and
it is unlikely that any CIA officers, especially among the leadership, will
face prosecution or even dismissal, even if the claims that they mislead the administration about
torture’s effectiveness are further substantiated. Without prosecutions, without
more legal rules barring torture (I mean, it’s already
super,
duper illegal and
we did it anyways), this entire situation could replay itself in the future.
The question is one that Americans themselves need to grapple with as they
elect their officials. The question shouldn’t be can we use torture, but should
we? Is it ever justified? Do we use it even if it isn’t very effective? Do we use it even if we are scared, and hurt, and want to get the bad guys who made us that way?
Above all, we have to ask ourselves, if we don’t uphold the
human rights values we claim to hold so dear, who
will?
The answer, sadly, is no one, save a few western European
countries. And that’s a legacy that I, as an American, do not want to live
with.