"This Government Does Not Torture People"
Many aspects of the devastating war in Iraq have compelled our attention - we agonize over the rising body count among our own forces, we express our rage over the staggering reports of innocent Iraqi dead, we read between the lines of official statements to glean the larger motive behind the invasion.
Another less visible battleground in the Iraq war has been the American Constitution. Under the broad mantle of national security, the Bush Administration has claimed exemption from the protections enshrined in our Constitution and defined in International agreements. Prisoners continue to be detained for years without acknowledgment of their whereabouts, without counsel. They are subjected to extremes of deprivation and torture.
There is a growing consensus that the harrowing images of Abu Ghraib did great trauma to our national psyche - and was one of the steepest falls from grace in our nation's history.
Like everyone else, I had seen the images that came out of Abu Ghraib and was shocked and saddened by them. And like so many others, I wondered how could people, particularly Americans, treat others so inhumanely? I initially set out to do a documentary about why ordinary people commit extraordinary acts of evil. Were the people who committed these acts psychopaths? Or were they the sweet kids next door behaving badly in times of war?
But as I began to do research for a documentary film and get more and more access to the people on the front lines, the people who were at Abu Ghraib in the fall of 2003 when the majority of these abuses took place, (I ended up interviewing well over a dozen people who were involved in the abuse) I heard the same thing over and over again "We did it because we were told to do it by people up the chain of command." Indeed, despite the Administration's denials, and assertions that Abu Ghraib "was the work of nine bad apples on the night shift," my documentary film, Ghosts of Abu Ghraib makes it clear that responsibility for the abuses at the prison goes right to the top.
So I was not surprised last week when White House press secretary, Dana Perino, denied that secret memos in 2005 written by the Justice Department sanctioned torture. "Regardless of where we are, we do not torture anybody," Perino said.
The 2005 memos were, according to the New York Times, "an expansive endorsement of the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency." But because the Bush administration claimed these methods approved for use by the CIA - extreme temperatures of heat and cold, water-boarding or simulated drownings, prolonged stress positions and isolation - were "not torture" they had the deniability they are still claiming. "U.S. policy is not to torture -- and we do not." (It didn't matter that other nations had been calling these same techniques torture for decades.)
The Bush administration's narrower definition, unrecognized anywhere else, defined torture as "severe physical or mental pain or suffering" that results in significant harm of significant duration, lasting "months or even years." Still, when pushed for specifics about what the White House considers allowable in "getting information" U. S. officials can't or won't say.
The CIA memos revealed last week are very consistent with the horrendous torture policies the Administration put into effect after 9/11, and these practices continue to protected by legislation such as the Military Commissions Act which denies military detainees rights to due process granted under habeas corpus and allows the president alone to define what is and what is not torture.
Just last Friday, President Bush said, "this government does not torture people . . . we stick to U.S. law and our international obligations." This is familiar rhetoric. We heard him say the same thing in the wake of Abu Ghraib. We shouldn't have believed him then, and we shouldn't trust him now.
I am saddened and angered that America's standing as a global leader in human rights and a country with a deep and abiding respect for the rule of law continues to be undermined by the pro-torture policies of the Bush Administration. And many Americans agree: an essential part of winning the war on terrorism and protecting our country for the future is safeguarding the ideals and principles that Americans hold dear: that torture is not acceptable and the law must be respected.
Unfortunately, as our bedrock principles have eroded, I believe our legislators have been compliant, the media timid, and the courts mostly rudderless and conflicted. We are left - as so often in times of national crisis - to depend on individuals who have the courage to speak out.
In order to change the tide, it is essential that people get involved. For my part, I have initiated the Ghosts of Abu Ghraib Campaign
The Campaign launches on October 17, 2007 - the one year anniversary of passage of the Military Commissions Act and little more than 12 months away from the next presidential election.
Of course, given the state of things and the actions, both past and present, of the current administration, the upcoming presidential race figures largely in the Ghosts of Abu Ghraib Campaign.
We are inviting our audiences to support the view that our next president must stand against torture in accordance with the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, we will demand that the Senate Judiciary Committee seek a commitment from the next Attorney General to reject torture and all the policies emanating from the Administration's opinions permitting it. Additionally, we will pressure Congress to act to ensure transparency relating to detainee treatment and that all U.S. personnel abide by a single standard of humane treatment.
The ACLU will use the film in roughly 1,000 key districts, not to push for any one candidate but to engage citizens to make torture a platform election issue. Amnesty International will kick off an 86-day campaign of organizing and protests starting with the anniversary of the Military Commissions Act and ending with anniversary of the first prisoner held at Guantanamo Bay. Human Rights First will screen Ghosts of Abu Ghraib in their "Elect to End Torture '08" campaign, which advocates the need for a president who won't allow torture to happen again in America's name. The National Religious Campaign Against Torture is organizing faith-based action-centered screenings in over 1,000 congregations nationwide the week of October 26th.
It is my hope that the film and these targeted actions will help to eliminate the policies and legislation sanctioning torture, that this initiative will contribute to more humane treatment for military detainees and will help to restore America's standing as a country committed to human rights, human dignity and the rule of law.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Maybe it's time the U.S. adopted a more common-sense definition of torture. Or ask Dubya a simple question.
If we don't think it's right for others to do to our people when they're prisoners, why is it OK for us to do it to other people when they're our prisoner?
Just ask McCain. Shrub doesn't listen to him on this issue, tho.
Has anyone noticed that all these videos of AbuGhraib and Osama Bin Laden get passed around the in-crowd in DC for weeks before the release of the information to us regular people? Osama video by the Prez and his gang timed to suit their purposes, the Abu Ghraib info by folks who could not stomach the secrecy of total evil.
The Prez tortured frogs with firecrackers as a youth. But it did not stop there. He branded initiates to his secret society in college. When asked about the rumor by the NY Times, he responded effectively, no worse than a cigaret burn. If I shot dead a deer and said it was no worse than killing my first husband, you would accept that I killed my first husband. Therefore, I think (without the help of Karl Rove) our youthful but set-in-his
Moving forward to the present time, we know that Bush toady Gonzalez (and others) basically OK'd the kind of thing that Bush was already known for, limiting torture only to organ failure and death and therefore accompassing branding and cigaret burns.
Would anyone be surprised if Bush did not have a complete collection of torture videos which the CIA and other interrogators have provided him? While others suffer, he feels pleasure, and it is apparent from his happiness in discussing the programs he himself set in motion. Hence the smirk at what we consider inappropriate moments. Absolute power over life and death is his greatest pleasure.
I hope "Ghosts of Abu Ghraib" is brought to the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St. Paul as we are facing unusual challenges regarding the issue of torture and human rights abuses during times of war. The co-author (along with John Yoo) of the original "DOJ Torture Memo", Robert Delahunty was hired in 2004, over community objection, to teach law at the University of St. Thomas Law School. Last week the University of St. Thomas banned Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu from speaking on their campus and demoted the head of their Justice and Peace Studies Program for asking Tutu to speak.
http://www
Students and the public at large don't know the half of it. It appears St. Thomas doesn't like a Nobel Peace Prize winner--one of the most important voices in the world today for ending apartheid and peaceful reconciliation--on campus when the U.S. has lost its own ability to criticize human rights abuses abroad. While ironically, the ability of the U.S. to criticize other countries' abuses has been lost, in part, due to the efforts to legalize torture by one of St. Thomas' own law professors.
So it would be great to bring this movie here and, even better, to bring it right on St. Thomas' campus.
colleen-
Until we get rid of the "good 'ol boy" club that runs this country we get what we deserve.
Thanks for sharing this invaluable information.
Is Waterboarding, Head Slaps, subjecting prisoners to extreme temperature for long periods of time or using
any of these in combination TORTURE?
Looks like the Abu Griab affair and President Bush's recent disclosures put the UNITED STATES
in the crosshairs of a Geneva Convention Tribunal.
Torture. Torture is proscribed by all four of the Geneva Conventions and their
Torture, which can
be either mental or physical, is not explicitly defined in the Conventions. Modern
tribunals may look to the United Nations Convention Against Torture (“CAT”)26 for
a definition of torture:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term “torture” means any act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on
a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information
or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or
is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third
person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain
or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It
does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to
lawful sanctions.
The International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) has identified the
following elements of the crime of torture in a situation of armed conflict:
(i) . . . the infliction, by act or omission, of severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental; in addition
(ii) this act or omission must be intentional;
The following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever,
whether committed by civilian or by military agents:
(a) violence to the life, health, or physical or mental well-being of persons, in particular:
(ii) torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental;
(b) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,
(d) collective punishments; and
(e) threats to commit any of the foregoing acts.
T
Horrendous torture policies and the systematic weakening of our Constitutional system are symptoms of an age old problem. It is said that the first casulty of war is the truth. But Liberty also dies with the truth. Whether we consider the dishonest manner in which we have prosecuted the war or the compromises we have made with our commitment to liberty at home, the misadventure in Iraq has brought out our worst. It has tested the true measure of our commitment to what we claim to believe and inspired reckless compromises with our most sacred values. It is all the worse when those who are sworn to preserve, protect, and defend are ideologically blinded, intellectually challenged, and morally inept. The truth was dead in buried in Iraq before the first shot was fired and our liberty was imperiled the moment we allowed fear to do the choosing between right and wrong.
Thank You Rory, You are your father's daughter.
Believe them, or believe your lyin' eyes.
Georgie says "freedom's on the march." -- Gotcha.
Rudy says he's a counterterrorism expert -- Gotcha.
Dick says "last throes" -- Gotcha.
Were it not for the vast swath of voters who'd rather hear comforting lies than discomforting truth, these psychopaths wouldn't be able to get work as carnival barkers.
Some Americans torture people because it FEELS GOOD. All they needed was a pretext, and the band of war criminals lurking in the White House deliberately gave them the pretext.
Miz/miss/Mrs. Kennedy;First I will try to remember a quote from Mr. Jim Hightower," Question your leaders, the Question their answers." Second and I believe this quote comes from Marcus A. Cicero." There are two ways to describe a politician, One is Lier and the other is thief." Now my question . Why is any one surprised when these rats are caught in a lie.?
WWII made the US the richest nation on earth: we duked it out with the Soviets and became the Super Power. For 50+ years we've been assembling an EMPIRE. All this fussing over who is right or wrong about what, is clearly after the fact. The only question now is, What sort of Empire shall we be? Empires by nature lean heavily away from THE GOOD toward THE EXPEDIENT and do a lot of damage to citizens and outsiders alike. The British and Rome had empires, the Arabs too. Americans don't like to think, but they are going to have to think about the messy business of empire and stop bickering over the obsolete past.
Ms. Kennedy, in an odd way I have to agree with President Bush's statement that "This Government Does Not Torture People", and before people start hurling epithets hear me out.
The "War on Terror", a part of which includes the Iraq theatre by the President's own admission, is a Privatized War, a Corporate War, not falling easily into previous definitions of American Wars. At Abu Ghraib, as I recall, it was American personnel taking direction from Civilian Intelligence Contractors that led to the abuses. The problem here was American Forces being undermined by a fuzzy chain of command structure. Certainly American Forces were being used as instruments of Torture, but, as I understand it, at the direction of Civilian Contractors.
I would imagine that the Torture Chambers maintained abroad are also maintained by Corporate Intelligence Corporations as opposed to American Government Agencies. Now, to be sure, the line between Corporate Intel Employees and US Intel Employees is mutable, with individual assets working under one jurisdiction or another as the need arises, but that fact gives President Bush plausible deniabilty when he says "This Government does not Torture People", because it doesn't, its Corporate Intel Organizations in the EMPLOY of the US Government that tortures people for the US Government.
It would be interesting to see someone ask this President:
"Given the United States of America doesn't engage in torture, but has the United States Government outsourced torture to Private Companies?"
It is an odd turn of phrase " This government
It leaves open the door to torture by entities that are not considered "government".
Corporations? The CIA ?
In much the same manner that the Germans claimed the "Solution" was not "their decision" until we the people realize that "the Government" is actual and implied policy we are doomed. . . . will future generations react like modern Turkey, when the World Court/UN issues a Statement Condemning America for the unilateral invasion that resulted in government sponsored "Torture and Killing of Millions of Iraqis"????
The thing that worries me most about conversations regarding torture is this hysterical focus on Bush/Cheney. They did not invent this although they may be less adept at keeping it secret.
We have either used these techniques or, as Clinton did, allow someone else to do the dirty work. On C-SPAN last night, I heard no less Bush critic than Naomi Klein describe a CIA manual from the early 60s which outlined methods we now define as torture.
I am not making this arguement to justify Bush. I DO want to dispel any any illusions that this issue started after 9/11 and will end when the current administration leaves office. No Way!
Unfortunately, torture is such a political hot button, we can't seem to get an honest discussion among ethical people at the national level.
If we are going to veer from past policies as to the use of torture, there needs to be an honest dialogue on its effects and the repercussions of abandoning methods that have saved lives in the past.
I'm sure someone is going to say torture never produces actionable intelligence--save your fingers.
Then: "I am not a crook."
Now: "This government does not torture."
My thoughts exactly.
I am the Great and Powerful Wizard of Oz! Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! The Great Oz has spoken!
Jase....gr
Who exactly is "this government" ?
It leaves a lot of loopholes in Rovespeak.
HAHA, you work with the premise that torture works. Torture is a bad method because the information given isn't reliable. This is backed by historical knowledge. Smarts over brute force each and everyday. But Bush won't learn. He eats,sleeps and dreams in American deaths. Bloody bloody hands. Bush using torture is so idiotic. It works against our interest every step of the way. We win the war on terror when no more terrorists want to kill us. Well torturing them doesn't do anything but agitate the hornets nest. But Bush has been an idiot his whole life an failed at everything he touches: oil business, baseball teams, showing up for his national service, rebuilding New Orleans, not catching Bin Laden, taking troops and resources out of Afganistan
Yea, lets keep following Bush's lead. That doesn't sound like suicide!
As long as you have a two party political system money will decide who wins office. Not qualification. You end up with the likes of Bush and Kerry. Both losers who will say,or do anything to get in office,whose money backing puts them as the voters only choice. Then you got the loud mouth who shouts "I didn't vote for Bush",then find out he didn't vote for anyone. Torture Why should anyone be shocked by what came out of Abu Ghraib??? The same thing goes on in every police station,and prison in the country, but the press dont tell you about it. Where do you think the military learned it's torture methods from??? AS for shooting POWs every country has shot and killed POWs,some more than others. Get caught armed fighting without a uniform you are fair game to get shot,or hung,or worse. War is always ughly,and terrorism is a mean nasty warfare which rules do not apply.
What I took from "The War," on PBS, among other things, was, there is less seriousness associated with the shock - shock! - that people, nations, even the good old U.S.A. etc., behave badly, inhumanely, during wartime, than the simplicity of the concept that we NEVER fight anything other than a "necessary" war. In the documentary, an old man, formerly a young American soldier in 1944, recounts how 30-odd Germans taken prisoner were gunned down on the orders of a fresh lieutenant out of West Point, in retaliation for a similar slaughter of American troops. Have we tortured before? Have we commited atrocities before? Is it possible the last Marine facing charges for Haditha will get off because he was a scared, young kid, in his first combat situation, who watched a fellow marine die after their convoy was attacked, then reacted to incoming fire by demanding a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that ended up in the deaths of a number of Iraqi women and children? Of course it is. All these things happened, and will continue to happen, when young men, and increasingly, young women, are put into the stress and chaos of war and combat. The question is less - was Abu Ghraib wrong and should higher-ups pay for it, than, when will we get it through our thick heads that we have to STOP this war before more atrocities occur, and NEVER go to war again unless it is NECESSARY? Not "pre-empti
this-thing" idiocy, but, an admission we made a mistake, and a sensible redeployment before we do more damage. In war? Atrocities happen. They are commited by soldiers on both sides because the situation they are placed in is mind- bendingly stressful, and ONLY those who have been through it can understand that. The answer is - don't put them there in the first place, unless absolutely NECESSARY.
This country is going downhill and fast and the Americans, where are they? They are concentrated on Irak, and of course now on Iran. They are concentrated on raising lots of money for an event that is going to happen in 2008. They are concentrated on scapegoats, like gays, and people’s reproduction rights and of course, immigrants (oops I wrote the I word).
And in the meantime, what happens, while everybody is looking the other way and hugging trees, Bush quickly grabs more power. ALL power. Yes, all. That bad it is…and what happens next baffles me the most. Nobody does anything . NADA. They blog about it at most.
Then, on May 2207 the New York Times publishes a tiny article on page 12 “ …. President Bush issue
D a formal security directive yesterday ordering agencies to prepare contingency plans for a surprise “decapitating” attack or the federal government …THE PROSPECT OF A nuclear BOMB BEING DETONATED IN Washington without learning whether suggled in by terrorists or a foreign government, has been cited by many security analysts ….”
Hello!!!
…THE PROSPECT OF A nuclear BOMB BEING DETONATED IN Washington
Everybody talks, grieves and of course blogs about the loss of Habeas Corpus, we mainly do it though to show we know how to enunciate that word that we had to Google earlier …But who talks about Bush redifying the National Emergency Plan? All this without even bothering to pass it on congress! And again! Where are the Americans!!!
Keith Olberman puts the exact words on my mouth “We have lived as in a trance, afraid of the wrong thing”
It was not the Iraquis, nor the Iranians, nor the communist not the Soviets nor theVietnamese nor the immigrants, it was our own Government we should’ve feared and quesioned from the beginning.
Again citing Olberman “We have given this man a blank check drawn against our liberties” so may God or someone help our Amigos., And ALL of us for that matter.
This graces country is going downhill!!
Kick Bush in the teeth and out of office. He only knows violence, kick them out! Don't talk to them about it, cite the administration for War crimes and hold President Bush/V.P. Cheney accountable. Why won't the Democrats use the law and constitution as their trump cards? As a democrat, I'm not voting for the democrats in 2008 because they are being outplayed by a guilty administration. Democrats, what losers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
