Obama and Torture
The American president has revisited methods of interrogation used after the attacks on September 11, 2001
The attacks on September 11, 2001 were terribly traumatic for the United States, as well as the rest of the Western world — the great power was shown to be vulnerable. The desire to combat terrorism and to avoid another tragedy motivated the Bush administration to disregard the rules and to disrespect the basic rights of people who, as a result, were arrested and interrogated using methods that the current American president has qualified as torture. President Obama, upon coming to power, promised a different way of governing and, more notably, committed himself to closing the prison at Guantanamo.
Thirteen years and a second Democratic presidential term have proven to be insufficient. Guantanamo and revelations about phone tapping organized by the NSA, the American security agency, involving well-known figures, have demonstrated that in the name of the fight against terrorism, the “land of liberty” has largely eroded its principles. Even in France, the jihadi threat and the will to prevent attacks can lead to the intervention of individuals who have not (yet) committed any crime.
In his press conference on the first of August, President Obama clearly judged the methods used in the years that followed September 11 to be contrary to America’s values. He recalled that the strength of a nation is judged not only in times when all is well, but also when times are hard.
The question posed here, about the use of methods that are morally condemned, is not posed only to members of the government, to those responsible for intelligence services, to the security forces or to the army. It is posed to the people. Do they accept that, in the name of their security, rights and liberty, fundamental principles are ridiculed? A refusal exposes them to risks, certainly, but their acceptance makes the defense of democracies more fragile. Such is the paradoxical success of the terrorists — they cause their enemies to take actions that go against the values on which they are founded, specifically those values which these terrorists hate with all their might.
The attacks on September 11, 2001 were terribly traumatic for the United States, as well as the rest of the Western world — the great power was shown to be vulnerable. The desire to combat terrorism and to avoid another tragedy motivated the Bush administration to disregard the rules and to disrespect the basic rights of people who, as a result, were arrested and interrogated using methods that the current American president has qualified as torture. President Obama, upon coming to power, promised a different way of governing and, more notably, committed himself to closing the prison at Guantanamo.
Thirteen years and a second Democratic presidential term have proven to be insufficient. Guantanamo and revelations about phone tapping organized by the NSA, the American security agency, involving well-known figures, have demonstrated that in the name of the fight against terrorism, the “land of liberty” has largely eroded its principles. Even in France, the jihadi threat and the will to prevent attacks can lead to the intervention of individuals who have not (yet) committed any crime.
In his press conference on the first of August, President Obama clearly judged the methods used in the years that followed September 11 to be contrary to America’s values. He recalled that the strength of a nation is judged not only in times when all is well, but also when times are hard.
The question posed here, about the use of methods that are morally condemned, is not posed only to members of the government, to those responsible for intelligence services, to the security forces or to the army. It is posed to the people. Do they accept that, in the name of their security, rights and liberty, fundamental principles are ridiculed? A refusal exposes them to risks, certainly, but their acceptance makes the defense of democracies more fragile. Such is the paradoxical success of the terrorists — they cause their enemies to take actions that go against the values on which they are founded, specifically those values which these terrorists hate with all their might.