The official line, of course, is that we don't torture; that our sometimes harsh interrogation techniques do not constitute torture, and that recorded abuses and clear violations of human dignity were the sins of a few bad apples.
Is the official line accurate, or are we really practicing torture as a matter of unofficial policy?
Here are some of my concerns:
1. President Bush has admitted that he doesn't know what "outrages against human dignity" means, yet in a recent Executive Order, he says the following:
On February 7, 2002, I determined for the United States that members of al Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces are unlawful enemy combatants who are not entitled to the protections that the Third Geneva Convention provides to prisoners of war. I hereby reaffirm that determination...The Military Commissions Act defines certain prohibitions of Common Article 3 for United States law, and it reaffirms and reinforces the authority of the President to interpret the meaning and application of the Geneva Conventions.If the president doesn't know what constitutes an outrage against human dignity, how is he to be an accurate interpreter of the laws prohibiting torture? He also claims the power to define who counts as an unlawful enemy combatant, those who, according to him, are not protected by the laws prohibiting torture. Even if President Bush would never authorize torture, he's paved the way for his successors to torture with impunity. There seem to be loopholes.
2. The acceptance of torture by prominent conservatives, including some of the Republican presidential candidates. Justice Scalia has praised Jack Bauer's torture techniques. Charles Krauthammer has argued for torture (by that name) in the Weekly Standard. Michael Ledeen had this to say:
My point--Machiavelli's point, actually--is that real decisions in real life are almost never easy, and those called upon to make those tough decisions have to be willing to "enter into evil." Sometimes by doing that--as briefly as possible, he implores us--means doing things we know to be morally wrong. I gave the Hitler example because Machiavelli knows, as every grownup thoughtful person knows, that it is also possible to do the morally right thing, and by so doing, we unleash great evil. Life is tough. And the abstract moralists are not a very good guide for leaders, at least not all the time.
3. These 14 documents originating from the White House, the Pentagon and the Justice Department concerning the Administration's interrogation policies.
4. What does "Take the gloves off" mean in this memo?
5. The administration's unwillingness to outlaw particular techniques like waterboarding, despite President Bush's complaints about the vagueness of the Geneva Conventions.
6. The underhanded way Cheney's Office went about crafting the policy for "robust interrogation" techniques.
7. The speculative reporting of Seymour Hersh on Abu Ghraib, The Special Access Program run by Stephen Cambone, and the concerns of Major General Antonio M. Taguba. Hersh relies heavily on interviews with anonymous sources, so one should not think his reporting is cold hard fact. See his book Chain of Command.
Do these concerns mean we have a torture policy? That may be debatable, but it seems clear to me that the door has been opened for one. I pray that I am wrong.