Yonit Shames
Published: November 23, 2005
At a news conference in Panama on Nov. 7, President Bush responded to rumors of secret CIA prisons by proclaiming, “We do not torture.”
These rumors were only the latest in a long line regarding the administration’s post-Sept. 11 detainee treatment policies. Although the U.S. officially outlaws torture, the administration has allowed harsh mistreatment of terror suspects- and it is unclear where the line between mistreatment and torture has been drawn.
Just two days before the president’s remarks, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) proposed amendment 1977, which would prohibit the “cruel” “inhuman” and “degrading” treatment that has unfortunately become acceptable in the case of terror suspects. It passed by an overwhelming majority in the Senate (90-9) and is now making its way through Congress as part of the Defense Department spending bill.
Thus he of the “We do not torture” doctrine should support the amendment, right?
No. Bush’s own administration is vehemently lobbying against it, threatening a presidential veto if it remains part of the bill.
As explanation, the White House said that the amendment threatens to “limit the president’s ability as commander-in-chief to effectively carry out the war on terrorism.”
But this reasoning is insubstantial.
In a letter dated Oct. 3, more than 25 retired U.S. military officers from all branches of the service, including three generals, expressed their support for McCain’s amendment. They called prisoner abuse “anathema to the values Americans have held dear for generations.”
This reflects the notion that many of the U.S. initiatives against terrorism- whether well-meaning or not- have not upheld American values.
But perhaps even more importantly, the letter raised a crucial question about the effectiveness of torture. These experienced war veterans, many of them former prisoners of war, said that torture and brutality are ineffective methods of obtaining information. McCain, a former prisoner of war himself, raised the same question in his statement before the Senate.
Evidence points to humane treatment as an effective interrogation tool, and it has seen success in nations like Israel.
While the White House defends its demands by citing the remote possibility of a detainee holding information regarding an imminent attack, the amendment could hypothetically provide for emergency measures in cases like these. It seems superfluous that the White House would seek to ban the amendment altogether or demand a general loophole in the U.S. system that would allow torture.
In doing so, the White House once again falls victim to its fatal flaw. It fails to place any stake on the importance of improving America’s image in the rest of the world. The U.S. image as a liberator has been badly, perhaps even irrevocably, harmed by the Abu Ghraib fiasco and the torture rumors from Guantanamo, and this has undermined our missions worldwide.
Americans who are truly serious about the mission of spreading democracy understand that accomplishing it is a factor of far more than brute force. Continuing to condone torture, as the current administration has done, will only continue to provoke mistrust among our neighbors and prevent us from achieving our aims.