Since the release of the report on the torture program conducted by the CIA and the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, one of the arguments we keep hearing from people trying to defend the program, is that it helped keep Americans safe, it saved American lives, or that based on imminent terrorist threats that America faced, somehow that puts torture back on the table.
Fourth, the majority left out something critical to understanding the program: context.The detention and interrogation program was formulated in the aftermath of the murders of close to 3,000 people on 9/11. This was a time when:
• We had evidence that al Qaeda was planning a second wave of attacks on the U.S.
• We had certain knowledge that bin Laden had met with Pakistani nuclear scientists and wanted nuclear weapons.
• We had reports that nuclear weapons were being smuggled into New York City.
• We had hard evidence that al Qaeda was trying to manufacture anthrax.
It felt like the classic “ticking time bomb” scenario—every single day.
In this atmosphere, time was of the essence and the CIA felt a deep responsibility to ensure that an attack like 9/11 would never happen again. We designed the detention and interrogation programs at a time when “relationship building” was not working with brutal killers who did not hesitate to behead innocents. These detainees had received highly effective counter-interrogation training while in al Qaeda training camps. And yet it was clear they possessed information that could disrupt plots and save American lives.
The thing is, that doesn't make torture OK.
In fact, international law unambiguously declares as much.
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
This is the principal UN treaty concerned with torture. It was adopted by UN General Assembly and came into force in June 1987.
Article 2And yes, the United States did sign this and other international treaties where torture is strictly prohibited.1. Each State Party shall take effective legislative, administrative, judicial or other measures to prevent acts of torture in any territory under its jurisdiction.
2. No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
So just because there is a suspected imminent threat, even if there is some indication that information can be obtained that might avert said threat, that is still not justification to torture.
When talking about prosecuting people in the Bush administration and/or the CIA for the torture program, many people rightly focus on many of the other glaring inconsistencies between current policy and international law,
-Just because it was authorized by high-ranking officials does not make it legal,
-High-ranking officials have an obligation to prevent torture
-As do low-ranking officers
-There is no statute of limitations and the current administration (as well as future) is obligated to prosecute people who commit torture
but what seems to always go unchallenged, by the media and other defenders, is this sense that people defending the torture program can always assert that, because the nation was in some imminent danger, of something, that this somehow made torture ok, somehow made it a viable option.
Clearly, they are not explicitly saying that, for they must know that it is still illegal, but obviously, it is more about winning over the American public.
Could torturing some of these people really have saved lives? It's possible. But you could say the same about torturing repeat drunk drivers. That still doesn't make it legal. And as a country, we are supposed to abide by common laws, by a common sense of how to treat all human beings.
In the end, the administration who orchestrated this torture program, by adamantly asserting that it was all for the safety of the American people, they are saying that what they did is ok, and this it is ok now to continue let it go unpunished, even in spite of international law that America promised to abide by.
But you know what, that is still illegal. Torturing people is illegal, and should be prosecuted, and even in cases of emergency, still, it is illegal.
and, even if that language was not specifically in the multiple treaties that the US has signed, at no point did they ever get our approval as the American public before they went ahead with this plan. So it does not sit well with me that they try to use that now as justification for their illegal activities.
and, when people defending the torture program resort to this rhetoric, about talking about how the perpetrators were operating in this emergency-like environment, they should not be allowed to go unchallenged. Because that still does not justify torture or whatever you want to call those actions you were taking. By accepting their jobs at their respective agencies, they were committing to the idea of defending American lives and American values both, not one at the expense of the other.
It is increasingly clear what we must do, if we are to maintain the integrity of the American principles and values that these agencies are supposed to protect in the first place.
I do believe that the United States and its integrity and the principles on which it is founded are worth defending against the heinous monsters who seek to destroy the values that are so inseparable from what it means to be a true American.
That is why I believe we should take the following action:
Prosecute any and all suspected participants in this torture program, now.