Questions and Answers About US Sponsored Torture and US Security

Question: What does our constitution say about the use of torture?

Answer: Torture has been banned in this country since the days of Patrick Henry. As he pointed out, most of the original colonists fled to this country to escape the rack, the screw and the Star Chamber in the "Old World." If such barbaric practices were allowed here, he declared, then "we are lost and undone." Our constitution has reflected this core value from the outset. Police brutality, for example, is barred by the constitution, as is cruel or unusual treatment of prisoners, or abuse of any persons within official control, such as patients in a state or federal institution.

Question: Why are there no constitutional cases in the courts by detainees who have suffered torture?

Answer: The Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution does not apply outside of the US. Guantánamo, however, has been ruled to be part of the United States. Unfortunately the recent Graham amendment just stripped the courts of the right to hear any civil claims by detainees there. This will be the subject of a fierce court battle.

Question: Are there any available US laws to prohibit torture then?

Answer: Yes, our 1996 statute, 18 USC 2340 et seq. makes torture a felony.

Question: How does this law define torture?

Answer: Physical torture includes any actions which would inflict severe physical pain. Mental torture includes threats to kill or harm family, mock executions, and any other methods or drugs that would disrupt the prisoner's personality. This covers virtually all current interrogation practices.

Question: Has the US carried out actual torture, or have our agents just embarrassed the prisoners by putting women's underpants on their heads, and similar methods?

Answer: Unfortunately we have gone far beyond mere embarrassment. Many prisoners have been killed outright. For example, Mr. Dilawar in Afghanistan was beaten across the leg until he died. The US forensic doctor described his leg as "pulpified." It was later learned that he was innocent. Other prisoners have been thrown head first into walls and died of head injuries. Survivors report being suspended from the ceiling until their limbs turn black, attacked by dogs, deprived of sleep, and anally raped.

Question: Is water-boarding torture?

Answer: Of course. Although the CIA describes it as a pool dunking, it in fact means the prisoner is held under water until he or she convulses, and looses consciousness. It qualifies as both mental and physical torture under 18 USC 2340, as well as the Convention Against Torture, which we have signed. Sen. McCain himself describes this technique as very "exquisite torture."

Question: What about Extraordinary Renditions?

Answer: When we capture a prisoner, bind and drug him and send him on a CIA plane to Egypt or Syria, hand over a list of questions to be asked, and offer funding knowing that torture will be used, then we have more than satisfied the elements of conspiracy. Again, 18 USC 2340 would make this a felony.

Question: Why has no one been prosecuted if these actions are felonies?

Answer: Because Alberto Gonzales, as our Attorney General, would have to indict. Yet he himself authored memos to the President supporting these techniques. The administration has insisted these methods are "merely" cruel and degrading but not torture. Of course, the correct interpretation would be up to the courts. However, Gonzales is preventing court review by not indicting.

Question: Didn't the McCain bill take care of this?

Answer: Not really. It made cruel and degrading treatment also illegal, but provided numerous new legal defenses to torturers and stripped the courts of power to hear detainee complaints. In short, it granted immunity. The courts will determine the validity of these provisions. To meet international standards, they must be found void.

Question: Are enemy combatants even covered by the Geneva Conventions?

Answer: Absolutely. They are not prisoners of war, but saboteurs, insurgents, and even people carrying out acts of deadly force against us, are specifically covered by the Fourth Geneva Convention. They may be arrested, tried and imprisoned but not tortured.

Question: Don't we need to use torture to get good information though?

Answer: Although the Administration says that we do, in fact intelligence experts around the world agree that information obtained through torture is completely unreliable. Most people will say anything under torture. Others, better trained, will say anything false to buy time for their colleagues. A good example is the case of Al Libi. FBI agents first interrogated him with conventional methods and insisted that he was beginning to cooperate. However, he was then turned over to CIA agents who humiliated him and sent him to Egypt to be tortured. There he "confessed" that Iraq had links to Al Qaeda and on that basis we went to war. Similarly, an Iraqi detained tortured in Abu Ghraib admitted that he was Osama Ben Laden in disguise.

Question: How do we get good intelligence from a prisoner then?

Answer: Both the FBI and police have worked out time tested methods for productive interrogations. These include careful questioning combined with investigations of the prisoner's responses, the "good cop- bad cop" technique, incentives and disincentives, and the building of a rapport. Intriguingly, experts in the Middle East suggest sending in a Muslim religious leader to "de-program" an extremist. Although these methods may seem tame, in real life they have proven to be the most effective.

Question: What if there was a nuclear bomb about to go off under Grand Central Station?

Answer: This situation has never actually occurred. If it did occur, as noted above, torture would not work. Anyone willing to die in a nuclear blast could handle a few hours of pain, and would either remain silent or give false information. Even if the prisoner did give honest information, his or her colleagues would be aware of the capture, promptly move the bomb, change all codes, and flee the region. These are basic covert action techniques that the CIA itself uses. The true solution is better preventative action and more effective and coordinated intelligence gathering. The next time the White House receives a memo entitled "Al Qaeda Determined to Attack within the US," perhaps urgent protective measures should be taken.

Question: If torture did prevent a nuclear disaster should the agent be punished?

Answer: This is a bit like asking what to do if the moon turns green some day. This skewed hypothetical has been used repeatedly by the Administration to frighten the public into accepting torture in the context of routine warfare. As a result, torture has become rampant without any such "ticking bomb." All of this violates the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, and our own criminal statutes.

Torture is a Pandora's Box which must never be opened, because the results cannot be controlled. We must learn from the Israeli experience. The Landau Commission originally permitted Israeli interrogators to use moderate force in cases of an imminent bombing. Years later, Israeli civil rights lawyers submitted evidence that virtually all Palestinian prisoners were being tortured. The Court reversed its position and banned all physical abuse, noting that: "It may be that a democracy must fight with one hand tied behind its back, but at least it is the upper hand." Condoning torture under any circumstances simply leads to more torture. It becomes impossible to draw the line. For example, if the suspect may be tortured, why not his wife and young daughter, or even a neighborhood child who might have witnessed something important? Must the explosion be expected in hours, days or just be a vague possibility in the future? For this reason TASSC maintains its position of zero tolerance regardless of the circumstances. Some may disagree with this position but there is no need to change our laws. Our legal system already has adequate flexibility for such extraordinary situations as the "ticking bomb". Presidential clemency is one example. Again, beware of the consequences.

Question: Is this the first time the United States has carried out torture?

Answer: Unfortunately not. Most of the torture techniques we are seeing now have been practiced for decades by the CIA and other US intelligence agents. For example, the iconic photograph from Abu Ghraib of the hooded man on the box reflects an old practice. It is known in intelligence circles as "The Vietnam." The use of extreme cold and heat was also used in Vietnam. Many torture survivors from Latin America recognized the Abu Ghraib techniques as well. They had suffered precisely the same techniques, many of them in the presence of a North American. Many had suffered attacks by terrifying dogs, water-boarding, extreme sleep deprivation, and excruciating stress and duress positions. The water pit now used in Afghanistan was also used in Guatemala. When US agents were not physically present, they knowingly paid for such tortures. In short, torture by proxy is nothing new.

Question: Aren't these harsh methods needed to keep us safe?

Answer: To the contrary, creating rage and hatred against us throughout the Muslim World greatly endangers us. The first to pay the price are our young soldiers. If water boarding is declared legal, then it can be done to our troops as well if captured.

Question: Don't people recover pretty quickly from the techniques we are using?

Answer: People may physically survive torture, but they suffer for the rest of their lives. So do the soldiers whom we teach to torture. Look at Lynndie England.

Question: What about the new McCain bill?

Answer: It made cruel and degrading treatment illegal. Unfortunately, it also provided numerous defenses for anyone charged with torture or cruel treatment. In short, it is all illegal now but no one will go to jail. Hence the torture will continue.

Question: What happens if the torturers are never brought to justice here?

Answer: If we refuse to comply with our own laws and treaties, our allies in Europe will be forced to bring us to trial abroad, either under their own laws, or under the doctrine of Universal Jurisdiction, which was used in the Pinochet case. As citizens of the United States, we should clean house ourselves.