The recent release of two reports illustrates the best and worst of how we Americans investigate ourselves. The 9/11 Commission searched all known information and unflinchingly criticized the institutions that failed. The Army inspector general investigated allegations of torture in Iraq and flinchingly reported that he found no systemic problems, although at least 94 people in U.S. custody had been “abused” and some had died.
The inspector general told a congressional committee that all approved interrogation procedures were legal. Only a few low-ranking people at the Abu Ghraib prison were involved in the abuses. He said his investigation was limited to certain areas and he found no evidence that the Army commander had approved use of unmuzzled dogs in interrogations. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) reminded him that the Senate had such evidence.
So, what happened in Abu Ghraib prison? Was it torture or merely “abuse?” Were the actions approved by higher officials? Does it matter?
The Geneva Conventions say ” … the following acts are … prohibited at any time … and place: (a) Violence to life and person … cruel treatment and torture; (c) Outrages upon personal dignity … humiliating and degrading treatment. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights uses similar language. Under our Constitution, both documents are valid U.S. law.
Webster’s dictionary defines torture as inflicting severe pain to force information or confession, or any method by which such pain is inflicted. The Constitution forbids cruel or unusual punishment.
These facts somehow left the Pentagon’s civilian leadership in doubt. They asked the Justice Department to define torture. The political-appointee attorneys at Justice advised that torture occurs only if the pain inflicted is comparable to loss of an organ or vital function.
Lawyers for the military services objected, writing that Justice’s opinion violated military doctrine and practice. William Howard Taft IV, the State Department’s legal adviser, wrote that Justice’s opinion was inconsistent with U.S. obligations under international law. Taft is both the U.S. government’s official expert on international law and a Republican of impeccable heritage.
So then what? The Pentagon’s lawyers were ignored. Taft and the State Department were cut out of the information loop.
White House Legal Counsel Alberto Gonsalez, who was aware of the military and State Department objections, passed the Justice opinion to the president as the government’s official legal position. He also wrote a memo calling the Geneva Conventions obsolete and “quaint.” When his memo became public and controversial, he reportedly expressed regret for embarrassing the president.
Most recently, the British medical journal “The Lancet” reported that U.S. military doctors and other medical personnel actively participated in the torture of prisoners and falsified medical records to cover up the causes of the deaths of some prisoners.
The sordid history of this episode requires an honest, comprehensive investigation, as called for by the American Bar Association, not a cover-up by clever definition. Neither ideologically motivated in-house lawyers nor handcuffed generals are credible. Otherwise, we may soon find ourselves debating whether beatings that cause pain are OK but not if they cause brain damage; that matches under the fingernails are OK but not tearing nails out.
We have had enough dissembling and evasion. We need some common sense and plain speaking. This ought not pose a problem for a political leader committed to respect for human life and the Constitution. Instead, we have a leader who asserts that in Iraq his administration has followed the law, and a Justice Department that has redefined the law to permit torture. Torture is a crime under U.S. law and a shame on all Americans.
What has happened to the ancient and honorable tradition of military commanders taking responsibility for the failings of their commands? When I was stationed in Iceland, I remember a popular American colonel being replaced because his crews were unable to keep the required percentage of combat aircraft ready to fly. In Berlin, I remember a general being transferred and retired because, after a few drinks at a party, he berated a bus driver. Are criminal acts to be treated less seriously?
If a proper investigation finds that senior military commanders were responsible, they should face the same disciplinary process as their subordinates. Civilian leaders whose policies encouraged or tolerated torture should similarly be held accountable.
The land of the free and the home of the brave is not Pinochet’s Chile or Castro’s Cuba. It is a democracy ruled by laws and elections, not the whims or obsessions of individual leaders.
James E. Thyden of Edmonds is a retired Foreign Service Officer. For three years during the Reagan administration, he was director of the State Department’s Office of Human Rights.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
