Torture
The lack of any official condemnation for CIA
torture ensures it will happen again
Instead
of trials for those accused of endorsing torture, or a process of
accountability for political leaders, we get trials by essay. It’s not enough for a healthy democracy
‘The shocking details
in the US Senate report demand accountability but there’s little public
appetite for it.’ Photograph: John Moore/Getty Images
The
details shocked. Shackled prisoners were treated like cattle, watched by their
CIA interrogators. Testimony from one observer stated that men blindfolded and
tied “were made to run down a steep hill, at the bottom of which were three
throws of concertina barbed wire. The first row would hit them across the knees
and they would plunge head first into the second and third rows of wire”.
This wasn’t CIA torture after the September 11
attacks, exposed in detail in a recent Senate report, but the Phoenix
programme, instituted by the CIA and US, Australian and South Vietnamese
militaries in Vietnam between 1965 and 1972 to “neutralise” the Vietcong. The
result was more than 60,000 people tortured and killed. No senior politicians,
generals or decision-makers were prosecuted for these crimes. A culture of
immunity, despite occasional media and public outrage, thrived across the US.
Questioned
before a US House operations subcommittee in the late 1960s to investigate
widespread Phoenix-inspired torture, future CIA head William Colby used
language that sounds familiar today. It’s just the official enemy that has
changed. The “collateral damage” was justified, he said. Phoenix was “an
essential part of the war effort … designed to protect the Vietnamese people
from terrorism.”
In 2007, decades after its cessation, the CIA was
still worried that the public
felt Phoenix was an “unlawful and immoral assassination programme targeting
civilians.” Instead, they claimed, it was “pacification and rural security
programmes”.
Compare this to today’s CIA head, John Brennan, who defends his agency’s
behaviour in the “war on terror” as doing a “lot of things right.” This
arrogance only exists in an environment that doesn’t punish those who sanction
abuses at the highest level and a mainstream media that gives equal time to torturers
while virtually ignoring the victims. American torture’s grim legacy in Afghanistan is one of the
least reported aspects of the last decade.
While it was the French who first introduced
electrical torture to Vietnam, it was the Americans, writes journalist Mike
Otterman in his bookAmerican
Torture, who advised the Vietnamese “how to make the torture
more painful and effective. Under American supervision, Vietnamese
interrogators often combined electrical torture with sexual abuse”.
Otterman reminds us that US torture wasn’t an
invention after the terror attacks of 2001 but part of a continuum of unaccountable
US cruelty from Latin America to Asia, the Middle East and beyond. It’s
revealing that this pedigree is so rarely explained or investigated in the rush
to condemn (or praise, depending on your worldview) Washington-directed
brutality under George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
This history is relevant during the current debate
over post September 11 torture. The Senate report is an important contribution
to the public record but the lack of any prosecution, censure or official
condemnation goes to the heart of modern political culture. Obama has
acquiesced in this position. The effect, writes journalist Andrew Sullivan, is that America has
ensured that these crimes will occur again: “That will be part of his legacy:
the sounds of a torture victim crying in the dark, and knowing that America is
fine with it.”
A culture that celebrates television shows
such as 24, Homeland and Spooks, where torture is central to capturing the bad
guys and glamorises its use, makes real-life torment easier to justify or
ignore. An Amnesty poll this year found
29% of Britons, higher than in Russia, Brazil and Argentina, believed torture
could be justified to protect the public.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken after the
release of the Senate torture report found that 59% of Americans felt that the
CIA’s treatment of suspected terrorists was justified. This is in spite of the
fact that one of the key findings in the US Senate report was that CIA torture
wasineffective in hunting down
extremists. Evidence from a US Senate armed services committee report into torture
in 2009 found that such abuses were only guaranteed in bringing false confessions.
The Senate torture report has brought a handful of
politicians demanding full transparency of their government’s role since 2001.
The head of Britain’s Commons intelligence and security committee, Sir Malcolm
Rifkind, wants Washington to release all documents
showing London’s role in the CIA’s rendition programme though it’s sad he
acknowledges London’s relative weakness when
“requesting” the USA to hand over the details.
The silence has been deafening in Australia with no
major politicians demanding openness from Canberra on its role under former
prime minister John Howard in sanctioning the illegal incarceration of David Hicks and Mamdouh
Habib. Independent MP Andrew Wilkie is one of the few modern politicians with a
history of questioning the pernicious role of group-think in government. In 2004,
he published a searing book, Axis of Deceit, on Australia’s real
reason for overthrowing Saddam Hussein, and it wasn’t weapons of mass
destruction. Thus far Wilkie has not commented on the CIA report, although he
has accused the Abbott
government of crimes against humanity for its treatment of asylum seekers.
The failure to punish torturers in the US fits neatly
into a wider social malaise. The powerful don’t go to jail; it’s the weak that
suffer for their foibles. The lack of any substantial prosecutions for Wall
Street illegality is symptomatic of the rot inside the political class. Rolling
Stone’s Matt Taibbi’s shows in his book The Divide how this occurs.
“Obsessed with success and wealth and despising
failure and poverty”, he argues, “our society is systematically dividing the
population into winners and losers, using institutions like the courts to speed
the process.”
When “we” break the law, it’s with benign intent and
good intentions (aneditorial in the
Australian makes this spurious case). But when “they” do it, they’re criminals
who should be punished. Elites protect elites. Where was the outcry when the
CIA hired private mercenary company
Blackwater after 9/11 to assassinate “enemies” in Afghanistan?
Instead of trials for those accused of endorsing
torture, we’re left with articles, essays and works like The Trial of Donald Rumsfeld, “a prosecution by
book”, written by the Centre for Constitutional Rights’ Michael Ratner. It’s a
solid tome but desperately short of what’s required in a healthy democracy for
individuals at the highest levels of government who order harsh crimes.
The ability of the state to retroactively justify illegal behavior
when caught is a feature of every nation on earth, not just the US. But
demanding other countries abide by international law, when western nations so
blatantly ignore it, is the height of hypocrisy. The shocking details in the US
Senate report demand accountability but there’s little public appetite for it.
Retired
Navy JAG John Hutson warned in 2008 against trials for post
9/11 crimes because “people would lawyer up”, a tacit admission that the legal
system is gamed by the wealthy and powerful to escape justice. There’s hardly a
more illustrative example of the modern state’s failure.
No comments:
Post a Comment