FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Torture and the Damage Done

by PETER WEISS

Osama bin Laden’s death has laid to rest the mystery of his whereabouts. His body lies under the ocean. But now his death raises another increasingly popular question. Was he tracked down thanks to tips elicited through the torture of captured al-Qaeda operatives?

The answer should be clear: no, torture doesn’t “work.” The damage done by systematically resorting to torture far outweighs the benefits obtained from the very rare instances where reliable information is obtained from torture.

Defenders of the Bush-Cheney policies that gave us rampant human rights abuses at the Abu Ghraib and Guant?namo prisons claim, on flimsy evidence, that waterboarding and other forms of torture produced information that eventually led the Navy SEALs to bin Laden’s hideout in Pakistan.

Defenders of Obama’s policy of ending torture, such as White House counterterrorism advisor John Brennan, tell us that the trail to bin Laden’s compound was assembled over a decade, from a multitude of bits and pieces of intelligence. As New York Times reporters Scott Shane and Charlie Savage explained, “harsh techniques played a small role at most” in leading the Navy SEALs to Osama Bin Laden.

Professional interrogators, like Air Force Major Matthew Alexander, insist that torture is the wrong way to go because it tends to produce unreliable or deliberately deceptive information. In addition, torture creates more terrorists than it unmasks.

It’s also unnecessary, as I learned first-hand many years ago. I did part of my army service in World War II at an interrogation center for high-level German POWs. We got a lot of valuable intelligence without ever laying a hand on them.

But it’s not necessary to deny that torture ever works in order to come to the conclusion that it should never be used. People who believe in morality ? and not everyone does ? will oppose torture because they consider it deeply immoral. People who believe in the rule of law will refuse to employ it because it is illegal. And people who are proud to be Americans should reject it because it is profoundly un-American. The U.S. Constitution forbids cruel and unusual punishment.

In 1863, in the middle of the Civil War, a German immigrant law professor at Columbia University, Francis Lieber, drafted “Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field,” which President Abraham Lincoln subsequently promulgated. The Lieber Code, as it came to be known, is the fountainhead of all subsequent documents dealing with what is prohibited in warfare, both in this country and throughout the world.

At its core is this sentence: “The law of war does not only disclaim all cruelty and bad faith?offenses to the contrary shall be severely punished, and especially so if committed by officers.” The United States is a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which spell out the law of war in detail, and, as of 1994, to the Convention against Torture.

In 1980, in a case brought by the Center for Constitutional Rights, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit said, “The torturer has become like the pirate and slave trader before him hostis humani generis, an enemy of all mankind.”

Another reason to obey the injunction against torture, one that military officers frequently cite, is the blowback effect. If the United States tortures foreign detainees as a matter of policy, as it did during George W. Bush’s administration, what is to prevent other countries from using torture on American detainees, as the North Koreans did during the Korean War?

Finally, there’s something about a slippery slope. If the law can be broken because doing so “works,” where will that stop? How about convicting Guant?namo detainees on secret evidence? Or locking up “really bad people” ? that’s what Dick Cheney called the ones in Gitmo ? for life without trying them at all, as the government is getting ready to do? Or doing away with the presumption of innocence, as President Barack Obama did the other day when he declared that Private Bradley Manning “broke the law,” despite the fact that the alleged WikiLeaker hasn’t even been tried yet?

If the law is discarded in the fight against terror, terrorists can rack up a win.

Peter Weiss is a vice-president of the Center for Constitutional Rights and a member of TransNational Institute‘s International Advisory Board.

 

More articles by:

CounterPunch Magazine

minimag-edit

August 30, 2016
Russell Mokhiber
Matt Funiciello and the Giant Sucking Sound Coming Off Lake Champlain
Mike Whitney
Three Cheers for Kaepernick: Is Sitting During the National Anthem an Acceptable Form of Protest?
Alice Bach
Sorrow and Grace in Palestine
Sam Husseini
Why We Should All Remain Seated: the Anti-Muslim Origins of “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Richard Moser
Transformative Movement Culture and the Inside/Outside Strategy: Do We Want to Win the Argument or Build the Movement?
Nozomi Hayase
Pathology, Incorporated: the Facade of American Democracy
David Swanson
Fredric Jameson’s War Machine
Jan Oberg
How Did the West Survive a Much Stronger Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact?
Linda Gunter
The Racism of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima Bombings
Dmitry Kovalevich
In Ukraine: Independence From the People
Omar Kassem
Turkey Breaks Out in Jarablus as Fear and Loathing Grip Europe
George Wuerthner
A Birthday Gift to the National Parks: the Maine Woods National Monument
Logan Glitterbomb
Indigenous Property Rights and the Dakota Access Pipeline
National Lawyers Guild
Solidarity with Standing Rock Sioux Tribe against Dakota Access Pipeline
Paul Messersmith-Glavin
100 in Anarchist Years
August 29, 2016
Eric Draitser
Hillary and the Clinton Foundation: Exemplars of America’s Political Rot
Patrick Timmons
Dildos on Campus, Gun in the Library: the New York Times and the Texas Gun War
Jack Rasmus
Bernie Sanders ‘OR’ Revolution: a Statement or a Question?
Richard Moser
Strategic Choreography and Inside/Outside Organizers
Nigel Clarke
President Obama’s “Now Watch This Drive” Moment
Robert Fisk
Iraq’s Willing Executioners
Wahid Azal
The Banality of Evil and the Ivory Tower Masterminds of the 1953 Coup d’Etat in Iran
Farzana Versey
Romancing the Activist
Frances Madeson
Meet the Geronimos: Apache Leader’s Descendants Talk About Living With the Legacy
Nauman Sadiq
The War on Terror and the Carter Doctrine
Lawrence Wittner
Does the Democratic Party Have a Progressive Platform–and Does It Matter?
Marjorie Cohn
Death to the Death Penalty in California
Winslow Myers
Asking the Right Questions
Rivera Sun
The Sane Candidate: Which Representatives Will End the Endless Wars?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia District Attorney Hammered for Hypocrisy
Binoy Kampmark
Banning Burkinis: the Politics of Beachwear
Weekend Edition
August 26, 2016
Friday - Sunday
Louisa Willcox
The Unbearable Killing of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies: 2015 Shatters Records for Bear Deaths
Paul Buhle
In the Shadow of the CIA: Liberalism’s Big Embarrassing Moment
Rob Urie
Crisis and Opportunity
Charles Pierson
Wedding Crashers Who Kill
Richard Moser
What is the Inside/Outside Strategy?
Dirk Bezemer – Michael Hudson
Finance is Not the Economy
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Bernie’s Used Cars
Margaret Kimberley
Hillary and Colin: the War Criminal Charade
Patrick Cockburn
Turkey’s Foray into Syria: a Gamble in a Very Dangerous Game
Ishmael Reed
Birther Tries to Flim Flam Blacks  
Brian Terrell
What Makes a Hate Group?
Andrew Levine
How Donald Trump Can Still be a Hero: Force the Guardians of the Duopoly to Open Up the Debates
Howard Lisnoff
Trouble in Political Paradise
Terry Tempest Williams
Will Our National Parks Survive the Next 100 Years?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail