The Torture Debate in the
USA
For the U.S. public, to recognize the
futility of torture is to call into question
their own silence during the 2000s.
By Bill Fletcher Jr.
January 04, 2015 "ICH"
- "Telesur
"- The torture debate in the USA, following
the publication of the Senate Intelligence
Committee Report on Torture, has been an
exercise in both “American Exceptionalism,”
and 21st century horror. If you leave aside
the initial efforts to debunk the accuracy
of the report, what becomes more glaring and
equally unsettling has been the willingness
of large segments of the population to
accept the reality of torture and to promote
it as an appropriate means for combating
terrorism.
The Report is an exhaustive examination of
the usage of torture in the so-called war
against terrorism. Its conclusion, as we now
know, is that, leaving aside the question of
morality, torture is ineffective and that
little of use was ultimately obtained. This
may run counter to the everyday-person’s
assessment of torture when they think about
what they would be willing to confess if put
under such interrogation, but the findings
are quite striking.
To be clear, torture can produce results at
times. The French used it as part of their
approach to breaking the Algerian uprising
in Algiers in 1957 (made famous in the film
The Battle of Algiers), but it is regularly
insufficient in breaking a movement. It is
also frequently unreliable in that the
victim of torture may end up providing
information that is false simply in order to
stop the torture.
The US approach to torture, however, has
always been quite hypocritical, which is one
reason that we should not be entirely
surprised by the reaction of the public to
the Report. First, much of the public,
despite the evidence, wants to believe that
something positive came out of the torture.
This can certainly help to ease their
consciences. It reminds me of a former
student of mine who submitted his term paper
on the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His conclusion
was that the U.S. was justified due to the
search for weapons of mass destruction. What
made this particularly bizarre was that we
had spent the semester exploring what
actually happened in Iraq – including the
absence of weapons of mass destruction – yet
in his paper, he asserted their existence.
When I asked the student about this and how
his paper related to the actual facts, his
response was nothing short of priceless. He
said: “There HAD to be weapons of mass
destruction!” In other words, if he let go
of the myth surrounding the invasion,
everything for him would implode. I would
suggest that much the same is true for vast
segments of the U.S. public. To recognize
the futility of torture calls into question
their own silence during the 2000s.
A second point to keep in mind is that the
USA has always engaged in torture, despite
the impression that it wishes to convey. The
perpetrators of torture were always supposed
to be other and very malevolent powers,
e.g., Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the
Soviet Union. The U.S. public was subjected
to films, novels, etc., graphically
detailing the barbarism of those who
employed torture, usually against valiant
freedom fighters.
Yet in U.S. history little has been made of
the fact that waterboarding – just to use
one example – was introduced in the context
of the U.S.’s genocidal war against the
Filipino people in the early 20th century.
During the Vietnam War, to use another
example, the revelation of U.S. supported
and practiced torture against the members of
the National Liberation Front through the
“Operation Phoenix” program took many people
in the USA by surprise. Yet this program not
only led to the deaths of thousands, but
also was entirely ineffective in derailing,
let along destroying the National Liberation
Front.
The examples of the use of torture by the
USA are not limited to a few. Yet what is
significant in the current debate regarding
the Senate’s report is that there is a
willingness to openly embrace torture.
Rather than condemning torture as a method
of interrogation the public is sending the
message that, yes, it was torture, and yes,
it was fine to conduct. Why? Because we are
allegedly operating in an extraordinary
period and the torture supposedly brought us
positive results.
The embrace of torture is not only
problematic due to the false assumptions as
to the quality of intelligence gathered, but
because of what it says about the extent to
which the politics of fear have deeply
permeated U.S. society. It is the fear of
the unknown combined with a great deal of
cinematic melodrama, that leads many people
to conclude that torture is both effective
and necessary.
While torture is morally reprehensible, the
willingness to embrace it and justify it
leads to significant and quite disturbing
questions. Under what conditions is torture
warranted? Specifically, can and should it
be used any time a police or military agency
asserts that there is great urgency in
obtaining information? Should torture be
limited to combating terrorism? And, while
we are at it, what is terrorism?
These questions are not offered in sarcasm.
Let’s take the last question, i.e., what is
terrorism? In 2001, in the aftermath of the
11 September terrorist attacks in the USA,
the then Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina, compared five dockworkers
who had been set up and charged with
conspiracy to riot (due to their protesting
efforts to crush their labor union) with the
Al Qaeda terrorists. Should this have meant
that the Charleston 5 – as the defendants
were known – became subjects of torture?
When does euphemism become, instead, an
allegation with all of the requisite
consequences?
A willingness to accept torture as a
legitimate form of interrogation means
opening up Pandora’s Box. Once that level of
selective barbarism is permitted, it is most
difficult, if not impossible, to cease such
activities. The use of selective barbarism
inherent in torture can always find
justification in the name of urgency and
danger. After all, dangers exist everywhere
and who is to say whether a little more
waterboarding, sexual humiliation, extreme
temperatures, etc., won’t prevent another
terrorist attack? Right?
Except for a couple of things. First, what
if the person is actually innocent or,
otherwise, knows nothing? Second, is there
ever a moment or a circumstance where, after
our use of selective barbarism, that we can
suggest to any nation or organization, that
they should be prohibited from its use?
After all, they all face dangers too …
right?
Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global
African on Telesur-English. He is a racial
justice, labor and global justice writer and
activist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook
and at
www.billfletcherjr.com .
|
Click for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note-
Translation may take a
moment to load.
What's your response?
-
Scroll down to add / read comments
|
|
Support Information Clearing House
|
|
|
Please
read our
Comment Policy
before posting -
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
|
| |
|
