The Next Torture Scandal Already Threatens
Published in Financial Times - Deutschland
(Germany) on 17 April 2009
by David Böcking (link to
original)
Barack Obama doesn’t want to punish CIA agents for using torture methods blessed by his predecessor, George W. Bush. That’s his prerogative. But it would be a scandal to say that’s the end of the matter. And how President Obama has explained his decision doesn’t bode well.
Christopher Hitchens didn’t even last one minute. In the summer of 2008, the British journalist volunteered to undergo the drowning simulation procedure called “water boarding” used by CIA agents while interrogating suspects. The masked torturers poured water over a hand towel stretched over Hitchens’ face just a couple of times before Hitchens, a staunch supporter of America’s invasion of Iraq, gave up. “Believe me, it’s torture,” he later wrote of his experience.
The new U.S. president shares that appraisal. One of the first things Barack Obama did after taking office was to put a stop to water boarding. His rationale, that such methods only serve to undermine the moral authority of the United States, was never popular during the Bush administration.
Four CIA memos, blessed by the Bush administration, that approve of water boarding as part of national policy have now been made public by the Department of Defense. The approved interrogation techniques range from sleep deprivation to face slapping to locking people up with insects.
”No Worse than Dieting”
Each technique's description includes the intelligence organization’s rationale as to why it doesn’t constitute torture: Giving prisoners unappetizing liquid meals is no worse than what many Americans do voluntarily to lose weight. Enforced nudity, which was routinely practiced at the Abu Ghraib prison, causes no serious mental anguish despite possible “cultural sensitivities.” In the CIA’s opinion, water boarding represents a “threat of imminent death.” Despite that, the agency maintains, it doesn’t cause any “emotional damage.”
Hitchens’ experience clearly proves that to be nonsense. Hitchens, known as a tough and resilient journalist, reported recurring nightmares and asphyxiation panic attacks after the experiment. But whenever a government approves of such measures, it makes little sense for it to indict those who carried out the policies. That’s why it’s understandable that Obama has declined to bring charges against the CIA torturers.
The president’s reasoning, however, should give us pause: “But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." It sounds as though he wants to avoid coming to terms with the Bush era altogether. His oft-repeated calls for national unity during times of crisis should mean he has a good chance of pulling that off. But if he wants to end what he has called “a dark and painful episode” in American history, merely sweeping it under the carpet practically ensures there will be a future torture scandal.
Christopher Hitchens didn’t even last one minute. In the summer of 2008, the British journalist volunteered to undergo the drowning simulation procedure called “water boarding” used by CIA agents while interrogating suspects. The masked torturers poured water over a hand towel stretched over Hitchens’ face just a couple of times before Hitchens, a staunch supporter of America’s invasion of Iraq, gave up. “Believe me, it’s torture,” he later wrote of his experience.
The new U.S. president shares that appraisal. One of the first things Barack Obama did after taking office was to put a stop to water boarding. His rationale, that such methods only serve to undermine the moral authority of the United States, was never popular during the Bush administration.
Four CIA memos, blessed by the Bush administration, that approve of water boarding as part of national policy have now been made public by the Department of Defense. The approved interrogation techniques range from sleep deprivation to face slapping to locking people up with insects.
”No Worse than Dieting”
Each technique's description includes the intelligence organization’s rationale as to why it doesn’t constitute torture: Giving prisoners unappetizing liquid meals is no worse than what many Americans do voluntarily to lose weight. Enforced nudity, which was routinely practiced at the Abu Ghraib prison, causes no serious mental anguish despite possible “cultural sensitivities.” In the CIA’s opinion, water boarding represents a “threat of imminent death.” Despite that, the agency maintains, it doesn’t cause any “emotional damage.”
Hitchens’ experience clearly proves that to be nonsense. Hitchens, known as a tough and resilient journalist, reported recurring nightmares and asphyxiation panic attacks after the experiment. But whenever a government approves of such measures, it makes little sense for it to indict those who carried out the policies. That’s why it’s understandable that Obama has declined to bring charges against the CIA torturers.
The president’s reasoning, however, should give us pause: “But at a time of great challenges and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and energy laying blame for the past." It sounds as though he wants to avoid coming to terms with the Bush era altogether. His oft-repeated calls for national unity during times of crisis should mean he has a good chance of pulling that off. But if he wants to end what he has called “a dark and painful episode” in American history, merely sweeping it under the carpet practically ensures there will be a future torture scandal.
Excellent translation, yet again, Ron.
Thanks