Home   Bookmark and Share
The Torture Debate in the USA

For the U.S. public, to recognize the futility of torture is to call into question their own silence during the 2000s.

By Bill Fletcher Jr.

January 04, 2015 "
ICH" - "Telesur "- The torture debate in the USA, following the publication of the Senate Intelligence Committee Report on Torture, has been an exercise in both “American Exceptionalism,” and 21st century horror. If you leave aside the initial efforts to debunk the accuracy of the report, what becomes more glaring and equally unsettling has been the willingness of large segments of the population to accept the reality of torture and to promote it as an appropriate means for combating terrorism.

The Report is an exhaustive examination of the usage of torture in the so-called war against terrorism. Its conclusion, as we now know, is that, leaving aside the question of morality, torture is ineffective and that little of use was ultimately obtained. This may run counter to the everyday-person’s assessment of torture when they think about what they would be willing to confess if put under such interrogation, but the findings are quite striking.

To be clear, torture can produce results at times. The French used it as part of their approach to breaking the Algerian uprising in Algiers in 1957 (made famous in the film The Battle of Algiers), but it is regularly insufficient in breaking a movement. It is also frequently unreliable in that the victim of torture may end up providing information that is false simply in order to stop the torture.

The US approach to torture, however, has always been quite hypocritical, which is one reason that we should not be entirely surprised by the reaction of the public to the Report. First, much of the public, despite the evidence, wants to believe that something positive came out of the torture. This can certainly help to ease their consciences. It reminds me of a former student of mine who submitted his term paper on the U.S. invasion of Iraq. His conclusion was that the U.S. was justified due to the search for weapons of mass destruction. What made this particularly bizarre was that we had spent the semester exploring what actually happened in Iraq – including the absence of weapons of mass destruction – yet in his paper, he asserted their existence. When I asked the student about this and how his paper related to the actual facts, his response was nothing short of priceless. He said: “There HAD to be weapons of mass destruction!” In other words, if he let go of the myth surrounding the invasion, everything for him would implode. I would suggest that much the same is true for vast segments of the U.S. public. To recognize the futility of torture calls into question their own silence during the 2000s.

A second point to keep in mind is that the USA has always engaged in torture, despite the impression that it wishes to convey. The perpetrators of torture were always supposed to be other and very malevolent powers, e.g., Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and the Soviet Union. The U.S. public was subjected to films, novels, etc., graphically detailing the barbarism of those who employed torture, usually against valiant freedom fighters.

Yet in U.S. history little has been made of the fact that waterboarding – just to use one example – was introduced in the context of the U.S.’s genocidal war against the Filipino people in the early 20th century. During the Vietnam War, to use another example, the revelation of U.S. supported and practiced torture against the members of the National Liberation Front through the “Operation Phoenix” program took many people in the USA by surprise. Yet this program not only led to the deaths of thousands, but also was entirely ineffective in derailing, let along destroying the National Liberation Front.

The examples of the use of torture by the USA are not limited to a few. Yet what is significant in the current debate regarding the Senate’s report is that there is a willingness to openly embrace torture. Rather than condemning torture as a method of interrogation the public is sending the message that, yes, it was torture, and yes, it was fine to conduct. Why? Because we are allegedly operating in an extraordinary period and the torture supposedly brought us positive results.

The embrace of torture is not only problematic due to the false assumptions as to the quality of intelligence gathered, but because of what it says about the extent to which the politics of fear have deeply permeated U.S. society. It is the fear of the unknown combined with a great deal of cinematic melodrama, that leads many people to conclude that torture is both effective and necessary.

While torture is morally reprehensible, the willingness to embrace it and justify it leads to significant and quite disturbing questions. Under what conditions is torture warranted? Specifically, can and should it be used any time a police or military agency asserts that there is great urgency in obtaining information? Should torture be limited to combating terrorism? And, while we are at it, what is terrorism?

These questions are not offered in sarcasm. Let’s take the last question, i.e., what is terrorism? In 2001, in the aftermath of the 11 September terrorist attacks in the USA, the then Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, compared five dockworkers who had been set up and charged with conspiracy to riot (due to their protesting efforts to crush their labor union) with the Al Qaeda terrorists. Should this have meant that the Charleston 5 – as the defendants were known – became subjects of torture? When does euphemism become, instead, an allegation with all of the requisite consequences?

A willingness to accept torture as a legitimate form of interrogation means opening up Pandora’s Box. Once that level of selective barbarism is permitted, it is most difficult, if not impossible, to cease such activities. The use of selective barbarism inherent in torture can always find justification in the name of urgency and danger. After all, dangers exist everywhere and who is to say whether a little more waterboarding, sexual humiliation, extreme temperatures, etc., won’t prevent another terrorist attack? Right?

Except for a couple of things. First, what if the person is actually innocent or, otherwise, knows nothing? Second, is there ever a moment or a circumstance where, after our use of selective barbarism, that we can suggest to any nation or organization, that they should be prohibited from its use? After all, they all face dangers too … right?

Bill Fletcher, Jr. is the host of The Global African on Telesur-English. He is a racial justice, labor and global justice writer and activist. Follow him on Twitter, Facebook and at www.billfletcherjr.com .

 

Click for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French, translation- Note- Translation may take a moment to load.

What's your response? -  Scroll down to add / read comments 

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for our FREE Daily Email Newsletter

For Email Marketing you can trust

  Support Information Clearing House

Monthly Subscription To Information Clearing House
   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 Please read our  Comment Policy before posting -
It is unacceptable to slander, smear or engage in personal attacks on authors of articles posted on ICH.
Those engaging in that behavior will be banned from the comment section.
 
 

 

 

 

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

Privacy Statement