They have announced it, but because Bush has vetoed the law that was passed in the U.S. Congress, prohibiting the “simulated” asphyxiation (throwing water on the head of the detainee in order to cause a sensation of drowning) and other “tough interrogations” performed on suspects of terrorism, it is terrible news. The simulated asphyxiation is considered by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other organizations of human rights as a torture without palliation. A torture used by the CIA.
The Bush advisors recommended to veto the law since it began debate in Congress, because they considered it “incompatible” with the obtaining of information in the anti-terrorism fight. Bush, who is not known for a deep intellect, has had the nerve to say that the practice of the torture has helped save lives. And has dared to declare that simulated asphyxiation is not torture.
“The veto of president Bush will be one of the most shameful acts of his presidency,” declared Senator Edward Kennedy, and he further declared that “the use of terror is not only illegal but rather its results are very unreliable and damage lawful forces for obtaining information, because it leads those interrogated to saying what the torturer wants to hear.”
The judgment of Senator Kennedy coincides with that of an investigator in the study of torture and its history, Darius Rejali, professor of the Reed faculty (Portland), who has published Torture and Democracy in Princeton University Press, where he dives into the recent history of torture. Rejali declares that “if they want a false confession or that the victim will be submissive, torture is useful, but if they want the truth, torture is the most amateurish method that exists.” Darius Rejali has dismantled a myth of the use of torture: that victims speak. In order to demonstrate its hypocrisy he provides an enlightening historic fact, fruit of his rigorous investigation: between the years 1500 and 1750, the French legally tortured 785 people, but only 23 spoke. More recent studies and investigations support the inefficiency of torture.
But the worst is that torture presumes a repugnant backwards step in the very slow walk of the humanization of our world, in the definitive conquest of “civility.” The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, which protects us against torture, among other things, signed and ratified by almost all the states of the world, has signified a fundamental milestone in this advance of “civility.” Bush’s veto of a law that prohibits torture is to go backwards, a step toward cruelty of incalculable consequences. It is the open and legal consolidation of one of the most perverse principles, the one that expects the ends to justify the means. Perverse principle, because it denies the collective ethic that human beings have given us with advances for five millennia; because it denies the ethic principles that assure the dignity of all, and hinders our disappearance.
It is not ok to think that this veto is unimportant because, after all, those that suffer from torture are few and they are the evil ones. This is not ok because these present years of supposed fight against terrorism have demonstrated actively and passively that many innocent people have been detained, tortured and incarcerated as mere suspects, for their ethnic image or physical aspects. And they have demonstrated that, in spite of all the rotten mistakes, of all the violation of human rights committed, the world has not won in the fight for security, but rather the contrary.
I do not know why a poem came to mind attributed to the playwright Bertol Brech, in reality it is written by Martin Niemüller, a valiant German protestant pastor that faced Nazi Germany: When the Nazis captured socialists, /I did not say anything, /but I wasn’t socialist. /When they detained unionists, /I did not say anything, /because I was not a unionist. /When they carried off the Jews, /neither did I protest, /because I was not a Jew. /And when they came for me, /nobody remained /which I could protest.
Lo habían anunciado, pero que Bush haya vetado la ley que aprobó el Congreso de los EEUU, prohibiendo la asfixia "simulada" (arrojar agua en la cabeza del detenido para causarle una sensación de ahogo) y otros "interrogatorios duros" a sospechosos de terrorismo, es pésima noticia. La asfixia simulada está considerada por Rigth Human Watch, Amnistía Internacional y otras organizaciones de Derechos Humanos como una tortura sin paliativos. Una tortura utilizada por la CIA.
Los asesores del presidente Bush recomendaron vetar la ley desde que se empezó a debatir en el Congreso, porque la consideraban "incompatible" con la obtención de información en la lucha antiterrorista. Bush, que no se caracteriza por su hondura intelectual, ha tenido la desfachatez de decir que la práctica de esa tortura ha ayudado a salvar vidas. Y ha osado afirmar que la asfixia simulada no es una tortura.
"El veto del presidente Bush será uno de los actos más vergonzosos de su presidencia", afirmó el senador Edward Kennedy, y remachó que "el uso de la tortura no sólo es ilegal sino que sus resultados son poco fiables y perjudica esfuerzos lícitos para conseguir información, porque induce a que el interrogado diga lo que el torturador quiere oír".
El juicio del senador Kennedy coincide con el de un investigador en el estudio de la tortura y su historia, Darius Rejali, profesor de la Facultad de Reeds (Portland), quien acaba de publicar Torture & Democracy en AnalíticaPrinceton University Press, donde bucea en la historia reciente de la tortura. Rejali afirma que "si se busca una confesión falsa o que la víctima sea sumisa, torturar es útil, pero si se busca la verdad, la tortura es el método más chapucero que existe". Darius Rejali ha desmontado un mito del uso de la tortura: que las víctimas hablan. Para demostrar su falsedad aporta un dato histórico esclarecedor, fruto de su rigurosa investigación: entre los años 1500 y 1750, los franceses torturaron legalmente a 785 personas, pero sólo hablaron 23. Estudios e indagaciones más recientes avalan la ineficacia de la tortura.
Pero lo peor es que la tortura supone un retroceso repugnante en el muy lento camino de la humanización de nuestro mundo, en la conquista definitiva de la "civilidad". La Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos de 1948, que nos protege contra la tortura entre otras muchas cosas, firmada y ratificada por casi todos los Estados del mundo, ha supuesto un hito fundamental en ese avance de "civilidad". El veto de Bush a una ley que prohíbe la tortura es ir hacia atrás, un paso hacia la barbarie de consecuencias incalculables. Es la consolidación abierta y legal de uno de los principios más perversos, el que pretende que el fin justifica los medios. Principio perverso, porque niega la ética colectiva que los seres humanos nos damos con avances vacilantes desde hace cinco milenios; porque niega los principios éticos que aseguran la dignidad de todos e impiden que desaparezcamos.
No vale pensar que ese veto no es importante, porque, a fin de cuentas, los que sufren tortura son pocos y son los malos. No vale, porque estos años de presunta lucha contra el terrorismo han demostrado por activa y por pasiva que muchos inocentes han sido detenidos, torturados y encarcelados por meras sospechas, por su imagen étnica o aspecto físico. Y han demostrado que, a pesar de todas las canalladas cometidas, de todas las violaciones de derechos humanos perpetradas, el mundo no ha ganado en seguridad sino todo lo contrario.
No sé por qué me viene a la memoria un poema atribuido al dramaturgo Bertol Brech, pero que en realidad escribió Martin Niemüller, un valeroso pastor protestante alemán que se enfrentó a Alemania nazi: Cuando los nazis apresaron socialistas, /no dije nada, /pues yo no era socialista. /Cuando detuvieron sindicalistas, /no dije nada, /porque no era sindicalista. /Cuando se llevaron a los judíos, /tampoco protesté, /porque yo no era judío. /Y cuando vinieron a buscarme, /ya no quedaba nadie /que pudiera protestar.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
These costly U.S. attacks failed to achieve their goals, but were conducted in order to inflict a blow against Yemen, for daring to challenge the Israelis.