Invesigating the Interrogators
"Atty. Gen. Eric Holder announced that he was conducting a preliminary review into the actions of certain CIA interrogators ....."
"I think it (the review) is an outrageous political act that will do great damage...."
Former Vice President Dick Cheney (1)
Any act by a government official could be castigated as "political", but Cheney certainly knows that investigating the CIA (or other military or security services) is political poison, which may be why President Obama has urged that the people "look forward, not back" on possible human-rights abuses by the previous administration. Maybe Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich would applaud the prosecution of Americans for abusing men suspected of terrorism, but the vast majority of us would not. Moreover, the Director of Central Intelligence during most of the Bush presidency was George Tenet, a Clinton appointee.
But what about Cheney's warning that investigating possible abusive acts would damage America's security interests?
First, note that under the leadership of Commander-in-Chief George W Bush several enlisted people were court-martialed for mistreating prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I do not recall Mr Cheney voicing any objections to these courts-martial or denouncing them as " political ." He may have objected privately to President Bush (for all we know), but he publicly supported the President right up to his last day in office.
The moral issues involved in "enhanced interrogation techniques " (i.e., torture), such as waterboarding, are far simpler to deal with if we accept as fact that every man subjected to these measures was a terrorist, and so deserved humiliation and pain. Since terrorists will deny knowledge of new plots and the names of other conspirators, they must be tortured until they tell the truth, and thereby save lives of innocent people. If so, what is the problem?
The truth is that the men captured on the battlefields and villages of Afghanistan and Iraq were suspected of allegiance to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, but some were falsely fingered by personal enemies and others were captured by mistake. For example, four men captured in Pakistan in 2001 and held in Guantanamo till June of this year turned out to be Uighurs, who were training to fight against China, which had conquered their homeland. (2) Others just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Torturing non-terrorists is not only morally repugnant, but will yield no useful information.
For this reason alone, aside from protecting the image of America in the world as a just and honorable nation, there must be rules about treatment of prisoners, and they must be enforced. Indeed, the Bush Justice Department did promulgate a set of such rules, which limited interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual also includes similar limitations.
If the planned investigation determines that no rules were broken, there will be no prosecutions; in that case, it is hard to see what damage would have been done to American security interests. Actually, many domestic criminal investigations end without charges being filed, and these probes are not considered damaging.
I suspect that what Cheney really fears is that the guidelines on treatment of prisoners were seriously violated by CIA and/or other interrogators, and that egregious human-rights violations will be exposed. Citing "national security" is not a defense against every charge; if it were, all of the Watergate defendants would have been exonerated. If anyone is actually charged as a result of this investigation, I trust the American judicial system to render a fair verdict. But no matter how such a trial turns out, the Obama presidency will lose political support, so indicting interrogators would not be a smart political move.
Cheney claimed that the investigation would damage "our capacity...to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say." (1) As an American who could be a victim of a future terrorist attack, I hope that Americans who have the power to torture suspected terrorists do worry about the possible legal consequences of their actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Los Angeles Times of August 31, 2009, quoting an interview by Fox News.
(2) "Eastern Promises" in the New Republic, September 9, 2009, page 15. The Bush Administration provided Chinese security agents visiting Guantanamo with the names and home addresses of the Uighur rebels, and permitted them to photograph and question them for up to nine hours. Those who refused to answer the Chinese interrogators were thrown into solitary cells.
"I think it (the review) is an outrageous political act that will do great damage...."
Former Vice President Dick Cheney (1)
Any act by a government official could be castigated as "political", but Cheney certainly knows that investigating the CIA (or other military or security services) is political poison, which may be why President Obama has urged that the people "look forward, not back" on possible human-rights abuses by the previous administration. Maybe Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich would applaud the prosecution of Americans for abusing men suspected of terrorism, but the vast majority of us would not. Moreover, the Director of Central Intelligence during most of the Bush presidency was George Tenet, a Clinton appointee.
But what about Cheney's warning that investigating possible abusive acts would damage America's security interests?
First, note that under the leadership of Commander-in-Chief George W Bush several enlisted people were court-martialed for mistreating prisoners at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. I do not recall Mr Cheney voicing any objections to these courts-martial or denouncing them as " political ." He may have objected privately to President Bush (for all we know), but he publicly supported the President right up to his last day in office.
The moral issues involved in "enhanced interrogation techniques " (i.e., torture), such as waterboarding, are far simpler to deal with if we accept as fact that every man subjected to these measures was a terrorist, and so deserved humiliation and pain. Since terrorists will deny knowledge of new plots and the names of other conspirators, they must be tortured until they tell the truth, and thereby save lives of innocent people. If so, what is the problem?
The truth is that the men captured on the battlefields and villages of Afghanistan and Iraq were suspected of allegiance to the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or other terrorist groups, but some were falsely fingered by personal enemies and others were captured by mistake. For example, four men captured in Pakistan in 2001 and held in Guantanamo till June of this year turned out to be Uighurs, who were training to fight against China, which had conquered their homeland. (2) Others just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Torturing non-terrorists is not only morally repugnant, but will yield no useful information.
For this reason alone, aside from protecting the image of America in the world as a just and honorable nation, there must be rules about treatment of prisoners, and they must be enforced. Indeed, the Bush Justice Department did promulgate a set of such rules, which limited interrogation techniques. The Army Field Manual also includes similar limitations.
If the planned investigation determines that no rules were broken, there will be no prosecutions; in that case, it is hard to see what damage would have been done to American security interests. Actually, many domestic criminal investigations end without charges being filed, and these probes are not considered damaging.
I suspect that what Cheney really fears is that the guidelines on treatment of prisoners were seriously violated by CIA and/or other interrogators, and that egregious human-rights violations will be exposed. Citing "national security" is not a defense against every charge; if it were, all of the Watergate defendants would have been exonerated. If anyone is actually charged as a result of this investigation, I trust the American judicial system to render a fair verdict. But no matter how such a trial turns out, the Obama presidency will lose political support, so indicting interrogators would not be a smart political move.
Cheney claimed that the investigation would damage "our capacity...to have people take on difficult jobs, make difficult decisions without having to worry about what the next administration is going to say." (1) As an American who could be a victim of a future terrorist attack, I hope that Americans who have the power to torture suspected terrorists do worry about the possible legal consequences of their actions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Los Angeles Times of August 31, 2009, quoting an interview by Fox News.
(2) "Eastern Promises" in the New Republic, September 9, 2009, page 15. The Bush Administration provided Chinese security agents visiting Guantanamo with the names and home addresses of the Uighur rebels, and permitted them to photograph and question them for up to nine hours. Those who refused to answer the Chinese interrogators were thrown into solitary cells.
Labels: Cheney, interrogations
posted by Gerald S Glazer at 8:57 AM
1 Comments:
It is not simply a matter of identifying terrorists that has me troubled, but who is determining what constitutes potentially terrorist activities. Nixon's administration would surely have concluded that street demonstrators in the late 1960's and 70's were committing or conspiring to commit acts of terrorism. Should those people have been tortured? Taken to its next step, a political group that is "plotting" to take down an administration (say it is the Republicans trying to bring down Clinton with allegations of sexual misconduct), is by Cheney's definition, weakening our government's security. Would Cheney agree that Republicans who were acting solely with political motives, acting inappropriately? But more important, would the plotters be "terrorists" as defined by those in power? In this country, we assign to a jury the power to determine guilt or innocence. We assign to the judicial brach the power to determine appropriate punishment. Neither of these two functions is granted to the accusers, nor any arm of the Executive Branch of government: the police, the army or the elected leaders or their appointees. Likewise, the Legislative branch generally has none of these powers either,(with the exception of impeachment). That is how we avoid political trials and punishing political opponents. Cheney decided that 230years of that safeguard should be discarded in the name of national security. His position is the real threat to our freedom--and to our national security. We can avoid this dangerous erosion to a fundamental separation of powers by simply assuming, whether in war or peace, the following principle: America does not torture--not its foreign enemies nor its domestic enemies. We shall not torture accused or suspected wrongdoers ever again.
Now, what of those who have violated that principle in the past? Is it fair to punish those who have been directed by qualified authorities to carry out these acts? Twentieth Century Jews should have long since answered that question. If we have forgotten what we urge both on ourselves and others: NEVER FORGET, then we are likely to re-live horrors of the past. Subordinates must reject illegal orders--crimes against humanity. And of even greater importance, those who have issued the illegal orders are of greater guilt, even if they have not themselves, committed the actual crimes. I am surprised that Jerry is so acceptant of the torturing of the real terrorists. Jerry, it's a crime against humanity to torture a suspect. It's even a crime to torture a convicted criminal. The purpetrator of one crime is not absolved by the fact that it is committed upon another criminal, unless it is in self defense. You can't believe that any of the torturers were in immediate danger. That excuse--defending our nation--is reserved for those who would pardon the leaders of our previous administration.
Post a Comment
<< Home