The Torture Compromise of 2007

A friend at a dinner party on the East coast found herself in an argument in which she was the only person opposed to torture. The other invitees, all graduates of favored preparatory schools and Ivy League colleges, worked in the law, investment banking, urban planning and the arts. They agreed that President Bush was incompetent and untrustworthy; but his fundamental mistake about torture had been to go after the law. Torture, they said, cannot be a policy, and a law that permits torture cannot be on the books. What is wanted is a leader who will break the law selectively, in a way we can trust. Torture should be allowable, but only by the right people and for the right reason. To a man and woman, the guests who held this view were supporters of Hillary Clinton.

Go back a year. A scholar-adviser of Democratic candidates was addressing a group of journalists shortly before the 2006 election. Confident of a victory, he rattled off the legislative successes that would come soon after the Democratic majority was in place. Prescription drugs, minimum wage. As the discussion wound down, a deferential question came from a liberal editor at the back of the room. "Can we expect the Democrats to repeal the suspension of habeas corpus and the Military Commissions Act?" The answer was (slowly), No. "Of course, we're all against those things, but they can't be a primary concern to a new majority. The laws should be changed. And things will get better; but I wouldn't expect this to be at the top of the Democratic agenda."

Sherrod Brown confirmed the accuracy of that prediction when he was asked, a few days after the election, whether he would work to repeal the Military Commissions Act, and he replied that he could vote to repeal it but would not sponsor a bill to that effect, because he had other priorities. Hillary Clinton, in turn, vouched for the understanding claimed by her supporters when she gave her reasoning against the confirmation of Michael Mukasey: "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practice must be made by the president, and the president must be held accountable." Careful words. Leave aside the pandering to "the ticking-bomb scenario" by which the doctrine of torture has been sugar-coated to drug the popular mind these past several years. If interrogation is done against the law, and if the interrogation is ordered and superintended by the president alone, what can it mean to hold the president "accountable"?

The Scottish patriot Ross, in act 4 of Macbeth, is given to utter words that now seem piercing:

          Alas, poor country!

Almost afraid to know itself.

We Americans are watching a process which, if allowed to continue to its logical end, will change what it means to be an American. It will change us morally, politically, and socially.

Alfred McCoy, in his extraordinary book A Question of Torture, recounts the history of the techniques designed in the 1950s and 1960s and tested on real- life political subjects through the 1980s, which aim at destroying the identity and breaking down the resistance of suspects. There is a direct progression from American and Canadian state-funded behavioral experiments, to the instruction given by U.S. special forces to the secret police of client states, to our own adoption of the same techniques in Afghanistan, Guantanamo, and Iraq. The final step down, in which we do the thing ourselves, may mark a change of kind rather than degree. In any case, the climb out of this limbo of barbarism will not be easy; and a policy of reform can hardly commence until the question is answered: "How came we here?"

Accurate history must include the fact that the earliest large-scale approval of extraordinary renditions occurred in the administration of Bill Clinton. Nor can it fail to remark that the Clinton-Blair NATO war against Serbia was a rehearsal for the war on Iraq. In the same way that many non-political Americans forget (even though they have heard) that Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11, most liberals have forgotten (though they once heard) that the pretext for the Serbia bombing, the supposed massacre of tens of thousands of Kosovars, was a fabrication thoroughly exposed in the aftermath of that war.

Buried with the motives and causes of our humanitarian wars, lies an elaborate system of excuses and consolations. We give ourselves the right to conduct wars of choice, with destructive effects on others out of all proportion to the risk to ourselves, because we know we are not the sort of people who enjoy wars. So, too, we may reserve the right to torture when torture is really necessary, just because we are not the sort of people who torture. By contrast, the enemy must be fought by tremendous and disproportionate means precisely because the enemy are the sort of people who do torture. Hunted back to its hiding place, this train of thought would perhaps disclose the premise that it is better to be killed by Americans than it is to be killed by other people.

We have not yet come to terms with a fundamental self-deception. Such practices as rendition and torture and the indefinite detention of military-age Arab men, from street sweeps, where no charges are made and no names supplied (a tactic whose large-scale innovation is partly responsible for the reduction of violence in Baghdad)--these practices follow us home. Think of the post-2001 method of corralling anti-war demonstrators by police phalanx into intersection-sized boxes to be moved forward block by block against their will. Or the unwarranted mass arrests of demonstrators in New York City to "protect" the 2004 Republican convention.

Such have been some of our domestic experiments. But we have gone further. In August of this year, a Miami jury convicted of terrorism-conspiracy charges an American citizen, José Padilla, who had been tortured in prison, against whom the evidence was of exactly the character that would have convicted a Miami black man of rape in the year 1927. These things are happening. And yet, in the middle of the longest presidential campaign in our history, the only candidates to speak against the degradation that is now in progress are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul--both of them ignored or, as often, ridiculed by the mainstream media. Their speech, and the silence or reticence or politic circumlocution of others, is the largest symptom of the silent crisis at home. How can we place ourselves again in the track of constitutional liberty unless we reject all of the persons and all of the means by which it has been betrayed?

Comments

[Maxaron]

Mr. Bromwich,

You have explored a most interesting subject and what you have found is the kernel of barbarity and ignorance that has plagued mankind for centuries. No, our politicians will not seriously discourse on this subject lest their personal ego driven vulnerabilities be brought into question. Bravo to Kucinich and Paul. Damn the rest to hell!

[wrabbitt]

I am sorry but, if your a terrorist, or intent on hurting American citizens. Torture is fair game. Do you think that for 1 nanosecond that our captured civilians,and Soldiers are not questioned ,or tortured? if you believe that those that cut the heads off of Civilians, because of some need for insanity are fair before the cut their heads off? The dreamworld we are trying to project on the rest of the world just don't work. I have no bad feelings about torture. they do it to us and we are looked at as weak because we don't return the favor.

[Miguel]

Anyone who seriously believes that these large governmental bureaucratic organizations are, or even can be, moral as a matter of course, are seriously self-deluded. All bureaucratic entities are loyal Only to themselves.

Witness Waco: where government gunmen/Reno/Clinton joined America to the atrocities of Stalin/China/North Koreans using actions seriously more rough than 'torture'.

Our present concern is where some of these accusations may lead. Will some folks be more focused if/when San Francisco's Mission district is blown to smithereens because some interned person wasn't made plenty uncomfortable?

[jwod]

You seem to conclude that torture as an instrument of American military (and political) intelligence gathering was first utilized post-1950, gathering acceptance toward the end of the century and into this administration. Torture has never been authorized, approved or legalized by the United States but it would be naive to believe that the "Greatest Generation", Pershing's "doughboys", even Grant's, and Washington's troops didn't use it, when they deemed it necessary. The notion that whatever presidential candidates say about such an ugly tactic, has any meaning in the real world of espionage, and military adventures, is without any substance. Maybe you would want them to opine on the law of gravity?

[Reisenbrey]

David: Are you saying that Clinton, Edwards and Obama are indistinguishable on the question of torture and that only Kucinich is forthrightly opposed to torture under all circumstances?

[wrw0101]

It is actually quite amazing. We faced off nuclear annihilation with the Soviets for over 40 years. Over 6000 nuclear warheads aimed at America, more than enough to take out every city in America even if we did a first strike. Now a few Arabs in caves and a country with a defense budget the size of Sweden's has us wetting our pants and shredding our constituion in fear of being attacked. Of course the fear mongering promoted by this sick administration has contributed signficantly to this. "If we don't fight them over there, we will fight them here." As if the Iraqui insurgents are going to get in their Toyota pickups and drive across the Atlantic to attack Hoboken, N.J. When is someone going to stand up to this insanity?

[realpolitic]

The far-right is so good at pandering to our worst fears. This tactic is why they need an enemy, either communism or terrrorism or whatever the next threat may be. Terrorism is an ideal enemy for them because it can be found anywhere and is not easily geographically contained.

However, to fight these "terrorists", the far-right seeks for us to become something like the Taliban. The free press should be scurried, loyalty pledges may not be a bad idea, we must systemically lose our constitutional rights somehow in the cause of maintaining our freedom. The two ideologies are eerily similar. Perhaps the far-right believes more in wealth creation than the terrorists do.

[realpolitic]

President Bush has a "don't ask, don't tell" policy on torture.

[Sundialsvc4]

It may well be that there are men and women who do not comprehend, and therefore do not value, the gift their forefathers gave to them .. nor the price that those men and women paid to have it.

[heyguy]

yes you are accurate on most points i was reading a article at bphouse.com/blaze....Unless you or someone you know can afford to out big the biggies, it"s time to click Congress, send email to as many members as you can. Let them know you are not a Martin groupie, not on your worst day.

Email Subject? "Stop further media consolidation by passing S.2.332."

We will all be better off if you can or will also contact each of the FCC Commissioners, with the subject line reading, "Stop further media consolidation by passing S.2332³.

Persons comments and Letter To The Editor of your local newspapers is also a good idea.and i further agree with all these points heyguy thanks

[Kungfublood]

Torture right?
torture who?
We all bleed red,
not white and blue.

[ghostsofamerica]

Thank you, Sir.

[avergejoe]

"And yet, in the middle of the longest presidential campaign in our history, the only candidates to speak against the degradation that is now in progress are Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul--both of them ignored or, as often, ridiculed by the mainstream media."

The neozioncons know that if they lose msm, they will lose their fight.

[Spookcatcher]

I thank you for your commentery. It is a very telling point how you qualified the attendees at that function. Hillary met Bill Clinton while they were both at Yale. Bill also had gone to Georgetown and Oxford, another qualifying high "public service" particularly in CIA and "International studies"recruitment University is of course Harvard. the conversation you describe sounds almost word for word, of some that I read when studying Nazi-ism and Fascism, nearly 40 years ago, when I was being tutured by a German High School teacher. When he described those times, he said he was just barely to young to go to the front lines but still serving in the Hitler Youth, I had the distinct feeling he felt that he had missed all the glorious experience.
We are living in the direct resulting Fascist State that Americans believed they had stopped at the end of WW2. The facts however are very much different. In 1943, Harry Truman finally acted to shut down American Banking interests that were financing Hitler (and Mussolini)! Immediately within Our Government a plan was developed. The Dulles Brothers began negotiations with key German Nazis for the facilitation of the infiltration of thousands of Nazis into our society, and into every Institution and major Corporation. Some 749 Corporations were formed by people of Nazi Backgound in America by the end of 1945, and "operation paperclip" itself was a success. Now Just recently, Senate Bill 1959 has passed. It authorizes a Commision to study and to come up with tactics for our Government to dissuade by any means Americans that become in opposition to Our Government, which includes in speech as we are here in these blogs! It will no doubt facilitate the complete metamorphasis of the Department of Homeland Security into the American Gestapo. Hillary/Bill Clinton, as are all Our Elitist Families today, also on board with this Ideology. Welcome to the New World Order.

[Keith Richard Radford Jr]

I am for Health Care but not when your children stand to be set up for cancer. In 1992 I was implanted with a microchip by the California Department of Corrections. Just like the Angel of Death* HaloScan, IBM, Avid, Veri Chip and other company's use subcutaneous human tracking device, audio servalence systems and other venues against American people for fun and profit. It's Like the Nuremberg code of universal medical ethics have moved into California's Silicon Valley which is being protected by our own governments representatives. The national fraud squad has opened an investigation into the affair. The four are suspected of abuse, aggravated assault, causing death through negligence, fraud, forgery, breach of statutory duty, and disruption of legal proceedings. *Dr. Josef Mengele was a German SS officer and a physician in the German Nazi concentration camp was known as the Angel of Death. Since 1987, Nancy Pelosi has represented California's Eighth District in the House of Representatives wile being on the board of Veri Chip. Tommy Thompson, who approved RFID chips for use in humans back when he was serving under Bush as Secretary of Health & Human Services, is getting $40,000 a year from Applied Digital Solutions (the company that owns VeriChip) and has received company stock worth about $1 million. As California's senior Senator, Dianne Feinstein has built her reputation on condoning torture, working with both Democrats and Republicans to find solutions to the problems facing California and the Nation court who have chosen to ignore human and civil right. When will America wake up to the fact that our government knows human nature. Using sex offenders to justify their actions when what they are doing is universally immoral at least and fundamentally treasonous by using devices that are unsafe. Hiding the finding of company's product and placing humans at risk seems to be of no consequence to those that take them to court on habeas corpus writs. I was told by my attorney that my case was demurer which means the state says so what. So What if we experimented on you like a lab rat.