U.S. Military Personnel Victims of Torture

The revelations about the use of torture as an interrogation “technique” have churned many stomachs in the last two weeks. We knew it was bad. We knew it was reprehensible. Now we know more.

Astonishingly, there is still “debate” about the “effectiveness” of torture. Torture’s presumed benefits are altogether beside the point, which is that torture is illegal and morally reprehensible in the extreme.

There are those who claim that the call for investigations and prosecutions is “liberals pushing for retribution.” A vindictive desire for retribution (among other things) was what led to torture. This is not a question of policy differences, as—incredibly—some claim. Rather, it is a question of justice and the restoration of the Rule of Law.

As Ali Soufan said in the New York Times on Wednesday, “This should not be a partisan matter, because it is in our national security interest to regain our position as the world’s foremost defenders of human rights.” And as others have said, it is not a question of right vs. left but of right vs. wrong. In his column today, Paul Krugman wrote, “Never before have our leaders so utterly betrayed everything our nation stands for. 'This government does not torture people,' declared former President Bush, but it did, and all the world knows it."

The United States is a very, very powerful nation. We have the responsibility to use that power wisely, not only for the good of our own people but also for the good of the world and the planet. The use of torture is a horrendous abuse of that power. At our best we have been a defender of human rights, and here we are blatantly violating human rights in one of the most atrocious ways imaginable. We have lost our moral footing and any moral authority we may once have had. We as a nation cannot ever defend human rights with any credibility until we fix this. If we do not pursue justice—however politically inconvenient that pursuit may be—we have no hope of regaining whatever moral standing we once had.

We have all been debased by the sanctioning of torture, but none more so than those who had to work in the environments where it was practiced. Kayla Williams, a sergeant in a military intelligence company of the 101st Airborne Division, poignantly asks, What does the act of torture do to those who commit it?

Williams cites the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment, in which participants were randomly assigned roles as prisoners and guards. What we learned from that unhappy experiment is that human beings are profoundly susceptible to an environment in which the powerful abuse the powerless. In a 2004 editorial, after the initial release of photos of tortured detainees in Abu Ghraib, Philip G. Zimbardo, author of the Stanford Prison Experiment, queried, “Should these few Army reservists be blamed as the ‘bad apples’ in a good barrel of American soldiers, as our leaders have characterized them? Or are they the once-good apples soured and corrupted by an evil barrel?”

The “once-good apples” may have been the perpetrators of torture, assured by their superior officers that what they were doing was okay, but they are also the victims of those who exposed them to this extraordinary evil. We sent our daughters and sons, sisters and brothers into this morass. They went on our behalf. As scarring as war itself is, the experience of participating in the torture of fellow human beings is much worse.

In 2003, Alyssa Peterson, one of the first female soldiers to die in Iraq, ended her own life a few days after she refused to participate in interrogations involving torture. Kayla Williams, who served with Peterson, reflected: "It [being required to participate in interrogations involving torture] made me think, what are we as humans, that we do this to each other? It made me question my humanity and the humanity of all Americans. It was difficult, and to this day I can no longer think I am a really good person and will do the right thing in the right situation."

Those who serve our country in the military should never be exposed to such anguish and moral torment. Nor should they be further endangered because our enemies, knowing that we torture prisoners, are then that much more likely to torture captured members of the U.S. military.

Those who corrupted the barrel are the ones who should be prosecuted. Those who were forced into that evil barrel deserve our compassion, prayers, and support. Beyond the questions of legality and prosecutions are the questions of how these individuals can recover from the grave evil that befell them in their service to our country, an evil wrought not by our enemies but by our leaders. The first steps in that recovery may well involve investigations and prosecutions of those who corrupted the barrel.

To Investigate Bush or Not

In response to William Fisher's "To Investigate Bush or Not" in the February 16, 2009, Huffington Post

This divergence of viewpoints - from doing nothing to appointing a special prosecutor - is putting President Obama in an uncomfortable position. ... But Obama appears reluctant to take any action that might further divide the country. Moreover, he may be loath to antagonize Republicans, whose support he may need on many other issues in the future.

There is always a divergence of viewpoints. Justice should not have to depend on consensus. Nevertheless, you say yourself that "a sizable majority of Americans favor an investigation into Bush-era misconduct."

Investigations and prosecutions are never pleasant. There will never be a convenient time. "Further divide the country?" It was the Bushies who were deliberately divisive. The November election and popular support for Obama since then shows that we are currently less divided than we have been for a long time.

Obama is in quite a lot of uncomfortable positions. That's what he signed up for.

Republicans have just as many reasons, if not more, to want an investigation into Bush-era misconduct. Weren't they doing everything they could to put distance between themselves and Bush during the election? And isn't it the fault of the Bushies that the Republicans performed so abysmally in the election?

The bottom line is that if we don't investigate and prosecute Bush-era crimes, we set ourselves up for more of the same in the future. There will be absolutely nothing to prevent future leaders from doing the same unless we go forward with the investigations.

Today's Torturous Reading

I was distressed earlier this week that so few seemed to be taking note of Cheney's blithe admission in the ABC interview that aired on Monday (Dec. 15) to having authorized torture. Things are looking decidedly less distressing today, in the sense that more people are taking notice. Of course, the news itself could not be more distressing.

If you read nothing else, be sure to read Glenn Greenwald's post: Demands for War Crimes Prosecutions Are Now Growing in the Mainstream

And if you go on to read only one more thing, the New York Times weighed in today on its editorial page: The Torture Report

At Think Progress: Cheney Defends Torture: It "Would Have Been Unethical or Immoral" for Us Not to Torture

At the Huffington Post, David Latt: Cheney Taunts Bush, Pardon Me or Else

At Harper's, Scott Horton: The Torture PresidencyBlogger: The Worley Dervish - Edit Post "Today's Reading"

And finally, I believe every American should read the report released last week by the Senate Armed Services Committee, Levin, McCain Release Executive Summary and Conclusions of Report on Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody

Update: On her program tonight Rachel Maddow interviewed David Rose, author of Tortured Reasoning. Rose points out that not only is torture morally repugnant; it just doesn't work. The intel gained from it is generally useless.

Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration

Members of Change.org are voting for the causes they most want the Obama administration to pay address. I believe that holding the Bush administration accountable for its crimes is of paramount importance to our democracy (see my previous posting on Facebook).

Please go to Change.org and log in (or register if you haven't already).

Then go to this idea for change: Appoint a Special Prosecutor for the Crimes of the Bush Administration and vote for that idea.

Then e-mail it to your friends, post it on Facebook, Digg it, and promote it in any way you can.

There is no political will for this in Washington, and Obama won't do it unless we push him. This looks like another good way to push for the change we need.

Update: You can just click the widget to the right. Easy shmeezy!

"U.S. Vice President Admits to War Crime"

In yesterday's Daily Dish, Andrew Sullivan declares "U.S. Vice President Admits to War Crime." Well at least somebody understands the implications of Dick Cheney's recent interview with Jonathan Karl of ABC News.

Is it just me, or should Cheney blithely, casually admitting to authorizing torture interrogation tactics at least register in the media? Why this isn't being splashed all over every front page in the nation (and around the world) is completely beyond me. If this isn't big news, what is? And yet, it doesn't even seem to be treated as news at all. If it weren't for Rachel Maddow and Andrew Sullivan (anyone else? if so, please let me know), the ABC interview would have escaped my attention entirely.

In his interview with Karl, Cheney says, "I think those who allege that we've been involved in torture, or that somehow we violated the Constitution or laws with the terrorist surveillance program, simply don't know what they're talking about."

Huh? Am I the only one who is confused here? I thought it was well and widely understood that waterboarding is indeed torture. And, as Rachel Maddow pointed out on her show last night, the United States has prosecuted individuals who performed waterboarding as war criminals. Apparently Cheney feels free to define terms in whatever way suits him. Never mind that the rest of the world believes that waterboarding is torture and that torture is, well, bad.

In answer to Karl's very next question -- "Did you authorize the tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed?" -- Cheney says, without missing a beat, without an iota of hesitation: "I was aware of the program, certainly, and involved in helping get the process cleared. . . . It's been a remarkably successful effort. I think the results speak for themselves."

Excuse me? the results? Let's think: It is widely acknowledged that torture does not produce good intelligence. What it does do is engender hostility toward the United States, which does not have the effect of making us any safer. Just the opposite. Moreover, the international profile of the United States has been defiled by this reprehensible practice.

Does anyone else think Cheney seems a bit, oh, say, sociopathic? According to Wikipedia, a person with an antisocial personality disorder, otherwise known as a sociopath, shows "a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others."

Karl goes on to ask Cheney, "In hindsight, do you think any of those tactics that were used against Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others went too far?" Cheney's cheery, unflapped reply: "I don't."

Karl: "And on KSM, one of those tactics of course widely reported was waterboarding . . . even that, do you think was appropriate?" And again Cheney replies with his head held high: "I do."

Cheney's demeanor is every bit as alarming as his admissions. He's not hedging at all. He's proud, he's defiant, he's enjoying himself! You can tell he thinks this waterboarding is great stuff. Very successful tactic. Nothing wrong with it whatsoever.

This is a dark stain on our history that must be addressed legally and morally. We can't just go skipping along because, hey, we have some new guys coming in and we promise they won't do this nasty stuff. Oh yeah, we were just reeling from 9/11. We've come to our senses now. We promise we won't do it again. Does anyone really think that's an acceptable response?

Crimes of this magnitude must be addressed by the nation: in public, in a court of law. Otherwise we are all complicit in this monstrosity. It is a disgrace in which we all share. This is utterly, altogether, and in every way unacceptable. People of good conscience should not allow this to go unchecked, not to mention unnoted.

No more of this! We have to stand up against torture or it will eat away at our identity as a nation. As it is, this country is altogether unrecognizable to me. And I do not tolerate this horror without loud and repeated protest. Enough! Not on my watch! Not in my country!

Update: Glenn Greenwald is also duly outraged. Glenn rocks!

Update 2: The Guardian gets it!

Update 3: And check out this great post on the Lost Albatross: Disproportionate Force