If We Don’t Torture, Why Did We Hide It?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, The War On TerrorismWhile that’s obviously a rhetorical question, I still feel the need to pose it after I read in Forbes (via Time) about a report that suggests the CIA tried to hide the death of a detainee:
WASHINGTON (AFX) – CIA interrogators apparently tried to cover up the death of an Iraqi ‘ghost detainee’ who died while being interrogated at Abu Ghraib prison, Time magazine reported today, after obtaining hundreds of pages of documents, including an autopsy report, about the case.The death of secret detainee Manadel al-Jamadi was ruled a homicide in a Defense Department autopsy, Time reported, adding that documents it recently obtained included photographs of his battered body, which had been kept on ice to keep it from decomposing, apparently to conceal the circumstances of his death.
The details about his death emerge as US officials continue to debate congressional legislation to ban torture of foreign detainees by US troops overseas, and efforts by the George W. Bush administration to obtain an exemption for the CIA from any future torture ban.
So how exactly did they hide it?
A forensic scientist who later reviewed the autopsy report told Time that the most likely cause of Jamadi’s death was suffocation, which would have occurred when an empty sandbag was placed over his head while his arms were secured up and behind his back, in a crucifixion-like pose.Blood was mopped up with a chlorine solution before the interrogation scene could be examined by an investigator, Time wrote, adding that after Jamadi’s death, a bloodstained hood that had covered his head had disappeared.
Is the CIA evil? No. Did some of their people make a big mistake? Yes. Should they be held responsible? Absolutely.
And yet we still have “black sites” and “ghost detainees.” What once seemed unthinkable is now becoming commonplace, as it has been revealed recently that there are more than 100 detainees that have absolutely no rights. They are our information slaves and we can do anything we want, including murder them. And let’s not kid ourselves. If one of these people die because of inuries they’ve suffered at our hands, it’s murder.
And yet we have Donald Rumsfeld responding to detainee abuses with questions, “Does it rank up there with chopping someone’s head off on television?” And people actual wonder why I’m concerned about the torture issue? When our leaders are using the terrorists own tactics to justify their own, we’ve got serious trouble and glaring ethical ignorance that will probably only be solved by new leadership.
People, accountability here is key. Some would have you believe that simply because we’re fighting a war against terrorism that we hold a higher moral authority and therefore can do anything we want to stop this scourge. But are we really ready to say that we can be judge, jury, executioner and clean up crew all in one fell swoop? That seems not only wrong, but completely counter to the type of message we’re trying to spread across the globe. However, I fear that some will use the War on Terrorism as an excuse to do just about anything they want to anybody they please.
And as I type this, I can’t help but feel that passing the McCain Amendment seems more important now than ever.
Also, please take a look at one of Callimachus’ previous posts called “Torture Matters.” It was overlooked at the time and it shouldn’t have been.
This entry was posted on Sunday, November 13th, 2005 and is filed under Foreign Policy, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
November 13th, 2005 at 8:59 pm
I’m not advocating torture. But I do have a question:
How do get get intelligence regarding terrorist activities if we cannot detain and interrogate members of al-Qaeda and other groups? Bad intelligence is one of the Left’s main criticisms of how we got into this war.
November 14th, 2005 at 12:44 am
Listen, detaining and interrogating prisoners is completely okay. But putting limits on how long we can hold people and what we do to them is needed. Right now we can hold anybody indefinitely and kill them.
And if we can’t get information from them, then let’s charge them, prosecute them and put them away legally.
Agreed, but torture does not mean we’re going to get any better intelligence. As McCain pointed out in his latest essay, he didn’t tell the enemy any actionable intelligence when he was in Vietnam. He told them the starting offensive line of the Green Bay Packers. Anything to get them off their back. And McCain didn’t think Allah was going to make him a martyr either. These people don’t care about death, obviously.
I understand the concern from many about not being able to torture, but we are fighting a war of ideas, and we need to convince the world that the US’s way is better. Torturing people and holding them without charge for life only reinforces the image that we’ll do anything to anybody at anytime. That doesn’t exactly scream “Shining beacon of freedom.”
November 14th, 2005 at 2:22 am
I’m wary of letting known members of terrorist groups go again. That would come back to bite us in nasty ways. Could we keep them for the duration as POWs? The legal grounding for that seems shaky, since they’re not actually part of any national army. The Bush Administration claims that there is no grounding in the Geneva Conventions regarding treatment of terrorists. What I want to know is if this has legal grounding. At least there are rules for the treatment of POWs.
If these BA claims have a grounding in fact and law, then the question becomes ethical: Should it be done? Bush does have one thing right: He is duty-bound to prevent any more attacks on American soil.
I realize that this is an uncomfortable topic. But these are very complex issues. I have no love for the Bush Administration, either. But I would like to end this war as quickly as possible.
November 14th, 2005 at 9:37 am
I think my point is that torture is going to prolong this war rather than shorten it. I truly believe that this is going to be a war about ideas. Sure, we’re going to have to stop terrorists threats too, but in the long run terrorism will die out and become a nuisance simply because nobody wants to take part in something that is so obviously wrong. However, if we’re torturing people, somehow terrorism seems more justified to Muslim extremists.
And I too agree that Bush is duty bound to protect us, but prosecuting these people and sending them away is doing just that. Remember, we’ve let people out of Guantanamo after two or three years who had NO connections to Al Qaeda. They were just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Innocents are getting caught in the cross-logic here and that’s significant because that’s what happens when you have a backwards policy like indefinite detention. These people were never charged with a crime, and yet they’ve lost a few years of their life. And you can bet the US isn’t compensating them for their time. Guilty until proven guilty in Guantanamo. Well, it’s ridiculous for a democratic country like the United States using such Orwellian tactics. It has to stop, and soon.