Our Gulag: The Secret State of Torture
Like a sharp razor cutting through the fog of war, the New York Times headline reads,
"Justice Dept. Said to Back Harshest Tactics After Declaring Torture Abhorrent."
The article could not be clearer. The Bush Justice Department has secretly authorized "the harshest interrogation techniques ever used by the Central Intelligence Agency."
Simulated drowning. Fear of suffocation. Blows to the head. Naked men held in freezing cells. Sleep deprivation. Noise assaults.
All secretly legalized, from Guantanamo to Abu Graib. Anything is permissible up to organ failure or death, or unless it "shocks the conscience."
In defense of silence, one might claim it is impossible to be shocked at horrors that are not known.
But it we know, and still are not shocked, there are lessons.
It's all in the 1960 classic The Battle of Algiers, in the dialogue between the press and the general:
"Journalist: Excuse me. It seems that out of an excess of caution, my colleagues keep asking you indirect questions. It would be better to call a spade a spade, so let's talk about torture.
The General: The word torture isn't used in our orders. We use "interrogation" as the only valid police method. We could talk for hours to no avail because that is not the problem. The problem is this. The FLN wants to throw us out of Algeria, and we want to stay.
Even with slight shades of opinion, you all agree that we must stay. We're here for that reason alone. We are neither madmen nor sadists. We are soldiers. Our duty is to win. Therefore to be precise, it is my turn to ask a question.
Should France stay in Algeria? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences."
Are the torturers winning? The Times' frontpage headline surrenders the struggle over words. "Severe Interrogation" replaces torture as a description of our behavior. [Oct. 4]. Nonetheless, the Times' has the courage to lay bare the entire truth of the Bush Administration's secret policies.
If torture is winning on the field of rhetoric, it must be stopped in reality. Otherwise, we will be accepting America's status as an emptied democracy that cannot put an end to its own gulags.
Two weeks ago, an eminent Pentagon commission reported that the Iraqi security forces are engaged in brutal sectarian violence against civilians. The White House acknowledged the same findings in July. The Baker-Hamilton Report made the same findings almost two years ago. The torture runs deep. And it continues, with American advisers and $19 billion in taxpayer funding.
We must learn a painful lesson, that torture is not out-of-control behavior by an isolated handful of poorly-trained soldiers, but is integral , sooner or later, in any policies aimed at suppressing a popular insurgency. And secrecy is not limited to a handful of over-enthusiastic bureaucrats, but is integral, sooner or later, to any state pursuing an unpopular war. Torture and secrecy are embedded in America's policies in Iraq. And so we must paraphrase the French general's question to the media and public, by asking:
Should America stay in Iraq? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequences.
TOM HAYDEN is the author of Ending the War in Iraq [Akashic, 2007]
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
Cheney's thinking on torture is exemplified in the hypothetical scenario that, "What if a terrorist had a nuke that he was known to be in the process of detonating in New York within 72 hours?" Would torture be justified to save New York?
As a policy, the answer is, "No!" I would suppose that, if the suspect was tortured, there would be a legal defense of justification or necessity to the crime of torture. In other words, if there was a strong enough set of circumstances that linked that suspect to certain death of many thousands, most of us would take that risk, and torture the suspect.
But the argument can be reduced to absurdity and the logic fallacies revealed. Would we torture everyone "just in case," to assure that we are safe? How about just Middle Easterners?
Cheney's "one-percent doctrine" is that the U.S. should take all steps to eliminate terror if there is any chance, even a one-percent chance that these steps might make us safer.
This Dark Age mentality of torture and preventative war was rejected with the Enlightenment. Cheney has caused us to become as barbaric as the perceived "enemy." It also ignores Mr. Cheney's own role (and personal profits) in Middle Eastern wars that helped cause the blowback.
The Dark side is the Dark Ages. The secrecy of this administration has as much to do with the Bush family dynasty and Mr. Cheney's finances and those of the MIC as it does with any identifiable threat that justifies these intrusions on all of our rights and liberties under our Constitution.
The proposition put forth by the General is a classic example of the rhetorical device known as "false dichotomy," where two notional options are claimed to be the only possible alternatives.
There's a reason why it's called "false," of course.
DOES ANY ONE THINK TWO DRAFT DODGING COWARDS LIKE BUSH AND CHANEY WOULD TAKE TORTURE OFF THE TABLE.THEY HAVE SINGLE HANDEDLY TURNED AMERICA FROM THE MOST RESPECTED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD TO THE MOST DESPIED.WH
It's worth remembering that in August of 2003, it was reported that the Pentagon’s Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict department decided to show The Battle of Algiers to its employees. This occurred as Iraqi resistance began to intensify its operations against the US military and US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld began to demand “improved intelligence” from its interrogations in Iraq and elsewhere. David Ignatius, writing for the Washington Post, made the preposterous claim that it was a “hopeful sign that the military is thinking creatively and unconventionally about Iraq.” The real purpose of the screening, however, to encourage even more sadistic and illegal attacks on prisoners held by the US army. (Credit to Richard Phillips - http://www
Is the USA 'an emptied democracy that cannot put an end to its own gulags'? If the answer is yes, then you must accept all the consequences. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT?
Pssssssssssssst. . .torture is fundamentally inhumane.
Basically most of us would say anything to make it just stop.
This policy was sponsored by someone who got off as a kid as getting off on blowing up frogs with fireworks.
Check out your PDA's for those particular proclivities.
It's sanctioned and legalized sadism folks.
It's unbelievably deranged.
And we've had our laws subverted to pre Magna Carta standards.
They think they are above laws long established.
When selective amnesia is a prerequisite for employment at the DOJ something is seriously wrong.
When unearned executive privilege is a catch all cover for blatant criminality, it sears one's senses.
When the balance of powers have been unduly tipped to the executive branch something is totally amuck.
We are far beyond the point of a Constitutional crisis.
May truth eclipse falsehood in these times. May honour eclipse greed. May clarity eclipse deceit. May transparency eclipse obfuscation. May corruption be eclipsed by true justice.
May war be eclipsed by peace. May fear by eclipsed by basic human kindness.
May our dynamic with Iran be neutralized.
May our leadership become enlightened to the fact that wars are no longer winnable in this still new millennium.
Kudo's to CC on her inspiration
http://www
"nam-myoho
If my answer is STILL yes? My answer has NEVER been yes! I have opposed this war since before it was a war.
On a side note, I do agree with you. The torture needs to stop, under whatever the hell it's called!
Absolutely correct. I have been against this invasion from the beginning.
Don't torture and say you're doing it in my name. I DO NOT condone torture.
As this sad story clearly demonstrates, patriotism (of the "wrong" kind) and war are the greatest enemies of liberty.
"BREAKING NEWS" I just watched the idiot-in-chief on television and after first giving the good news about the economy...
I think I'm gonna be sick
What about impeaching Bush?
The Democratic party is becoming the other pro-torture, pro-occupation, racist-occupation party by refusing to impeach the torturer in chief.
I'll never come back to the "Democratic" party unless they impeach Bush and put him on trial.
I won't be a part of a political party which aids and abets a torturer, war-criminal and traitor to America.
Bush is the Beast, and the servants of The Beast are the Damned.
Impeaching Cheney-Bush is the first step toward ending torture by the USA and repairing the damage Cheney-Bush has done to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and our standing in the world. Congress is obviously not inclined to bring up impeachment, so we the people must demand it.
http://www
"Should [the US] stay in [Iraq]? If your answer is still yes, then you must accept all the consequenc
But you have to draw the line at subjecting prisoners to Eminem music.
It's sad, but I fear in this "war" we are becoming the bad guys. A handful of crazy muslems have pushed America into supporting ideas that never would have been acceptable before in our history. Just like Germany in the 30's, if the republicans win next year (especially Guliani) it's time to seek political asylum in a non-facist country somewhere.
in·ter·ro·gate
1 : to question formally and systematically
2 : to give or send out a signal to (as a transponder) for triggering an appropriate response
I think we can skip definition #2...but perhaps we need another definition for #1...what is the SYSTEM of interrogation and more specifically what is SEVERE interrogation?
Gotta love the semantics game...if the CIA is not doing anything illegal why dont we just come out and say what we're doing...Sa
In the end this is just immoral and flat out disgusting. That one person could do this to another person or order someone else to do this is just wrong...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
