So, has the torture stopped yet?
Why does it seem that no-one is asking the right question yet:
Has the U.S. government definitively stopped all use of cruel, inhuman, or degrading punishment against people in U.S.-run detention facilities in Iraq and everywhere else around the world?
And then: How can we be certain that that behavior has stopped?
I'm sorry, friends, I know I wrote here about this just two days ago. But until someone can reassure me on the above two points then-- given the behavior of many organs of the U.S. government over the past 30-plus months--I am going to have to assume that the torture is continuing.
Maybe not (this week) in Abu Ghraib; but quite likely, in many other places. And maybe next week, back in Abu Ghraib again...
I am going to have to assume that all the "consternation" expressed by various spokesmen for the Bush administration is consternation over the fact that the abusive behavior of U.S. government employees and contractors has been revealed, rather than over the fact of the abusive behavior itself.
No-one in the administration has yet provided any clear-cut declarations at all to the effect that, "From now on the US government and all its employers and contractors will abide completely by the Geneva Conventions and all other relevant international and domestic regulations in its treatment of the detainees under its control."
That's the kind of declaration I would look for, as a first step.
Instead, we've just had flurries of declarations to the effect that, "Our own investigations into the abuses are thorough and are continuing... The perpetrators were only a few bad apples... But you can just trust us to deal with this whole thing... "
That is, the same kinds of avowals of good intent, coupled with thinly veiled instructions that everyone else should just butt out of enquiring into this whole business, that you hear from serial abusers in just about any situation of chronic rights abuse.
By the way, yesterday Human Rights Watch put up on their website a good summary of all the "International and U.S. Law Prohibiting Torture and Other Ill-treatment of Persons in Custody".
HRW, to its credit, has done a lot of good background work on the treatment of detainees in various US-run facilities around the world, as well as on the USG's practice of "rendering" some suspects to other intelligence services so that those others can do the torturing instead. You can find a lot of good other things about that on their website.
But even HRW hasn't been trying to press home the simple question: "Can you assure us that the abuses have stopped?" (A question that evidently needs to be followed up with the question "How can you assure us that this happened?")
Instead of asking these very important present-oriented and future-oriented questions, HRW has continued along the same old track of seekings answers to its accusations and questions regarding reports of past abuses.
Well, there's a place for backward-looking enquiries, certainly. But it strikes me that the most important things now, since we all now know that those abuses have happened and have been widespread, is to do whatever we can to make sure that they are definitively and verifiably stopped.
Without taking firm action toward that important end, we'll all still be here ten years down the pike from now, "shocked--shocked!" over the "latest" revelations of abuses in some place in the U.S. global gulag, who knows where?
This post is right on the mark, Helena. Today's WaPo has an article on Gen. Miller, of Guantanamo and now of Abu Ghraib, and his urging the use of dogs in interrogations. This same general issued an apology right after the pictures broke on the world-wide media, but he didn't say anything about recanting these orders. Miller also took a gang of journalists around Abu Ghraib to show them how wonderful it is now -- remember that story? Just before this little tour, a number of the prisoners had been released, but rather than simply turn them over to their waiting families, Miller had them shipped out in trucks and dumped in a remote area, near Tikrit, I think it was. The families were terrified, not knowing what would happen. Just a little final fillip of torture courtesy of General Miller.
Miller and all those who think like him are part of the problem. Why aren't they being investigated? Why aren't they being fired?
DS:
Thanks SO MUCH for joining me in caring about this!
I've been thinking, am I crazy that I seem to be the only person worrying about this?
Even my (other) usually faithful commenters here at JWN didn't seem to be paying much heed--either to this post, or to the May 23 one on the same theme.
I'm planning to write yet another follow-up post on this general issue, and pointing out that any tolerance of torture sets a government off on the slipperiest of all possible slopes.
I'm also thinking of starting a letter-writing campaign to our senior senator from here in Virginia, in particular (John Warner), urging him to come out in favor of a "zero tolerance for torture" policy.
Self-immolation in his office or at the White House is probably a little too extreme (at this point). (Okay, ever: I'm philosophically opposed to self-destruction.)
But still, to me this seems like a completely central campaign to focus on, and I'm puzzled that so few other folks seem so far to agree.
Well, Helena, I admit I have little to say about this question because I am cynical enough to be resigned to the reality that the torture will not stop. They will just take steps to conceal it better.
Anyone who has been paying attention at all has known for over a year that they were using torture and abusing prisoners horribly. Every Iraqi knows that because they either experienced it, witnessed it, or know someone who did. Many were also tortured by Saddam's government, and many of those have said what they experienced from the Americans was worse. I think one reason it seems so much worse is that, even as they abuse and torture Iraqis the Americans are claiming to be there to be their liberators. Saddam and his thugs were far more honest.
By the way, Juan Cole" has a guest piece on his blog about torture, and has written something about the abuse of women prisoners in Iraq - a subject that has gotten short shrift. He also points out that many, probably most of the female prisoners in Iraq are hostages being held to "encourage" their male husbands, fathers, or sons to surrender. Hostage taking is, of course, a violation of international law.
Shirin, I think it would be quite correct to be extremely SKEPTICAL of any undertakings this administration might make re the ending or even the lessening of its reliance on torture. (That was why, in my May 23 post, I laid out a couple of frameworks in which international VERIFICATION of a no-torture policy could be provided.)
And I certainly grant you the right to be extremely cynical about all this!
However, I do think that (1) good, clear leadership on this issue can make a real difference in the behavior of all govt employees and contractors, and (2) the announcement of a clear, "zero tolerance for torture" policy, allied to the putting in place of effective systems to control and monitor the work of interrogators etc., could be extremely effective in ending all but perhaps a few "rogue" torture operations.
Because I believe a different policy on this issue is possible and can make a huge difference, I personally don't want to remain mired in cynicism on it. I'm going to carry on trying to push this to the fore-front, and I invite all JWN readers to join this important campaign.
Where is the news on how Saddam Hussein is being treated???????