The Reality of Torture in the Bush Administration - Term Paper Example

The Reality of Torture in the Bush Administration “A rose by any other would smell as sweet.” Shakespeare wrote those words centuries ago, butthey truth they contain is just as relevant in today’s world. The Bush administration forgot this truism during the first decade of the 2000s, when they subjected prisoners of war as well as noncombatants to humiliation, psychological torment and physical abuse. When critics pointed out that they were engaging in torture, they countered by calling it “enhanced interrogation.” But, as the Bard pointed out, simply changing the name of a thing does nothing to alter its essence. Retired brigadier general David Irvine was a prominent critic of the Bush-Cheney human rights violations. He used his position as a journalist to expose the atrocities that the president, his right hand man, and Richard Rumsfeld not only allowed but authorized. He founded his argument on the accepted definitions of the terms “war crimes” and “torture” that can be found in the Uniform code of Military Justice, US law and the 1949 Geneva accords. The UCMJ specifically defines a war crime thus: The term ‘war crime’ means any conduct defined as a grave breach of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949 or any protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party…which constitutes a violation of common article three of the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949. Any act that is a ‘grave breach” of the above mentioned article is thus a war crime. This includes torture, which it defines thus: Torture means an act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering upon another person within his custody or physical control. The article goes on to say that torture includes the causing of “severe mental pain or suffering” from inflicting or threatening to inflict severe physical pain or suffering. It is also defined as administering or threatening to administer mind-altering substances to another. (UCMJ) Despite the legal prohibitions against torture, an overwhelming amount of evidence proves that American forces occupying Iraq did just that to persons it held captive at the Abu Ghraib prison. In June of 2003, Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of military prisons in Iraq. Under her administration a disturbing number of human rights abuses were committed. By January of the next year she had been reprimanded and suspended, and a formal investigation was launched by Lieutenant General Ricardo S. Sanchez, the senior commander in Iraq. The probe revealed hellish conditions and brutal treatment of Iraqis by American military personnel. The text describes these practices in vivid detail: Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one instance actually biting a detainee. (newyorker.com) Rape and threat of rape; use of dogs to terrify prisoners; pouring toxic chemicals and cold water on them; these certainly fit within the definition of torture relied on by General Irvine and cited in the Geneva accords. Responsibility for these actions starts with those who committed them and flows up the chain of command to Karpinski. The most notorious form of torture used is known as water boarding. Originally used in the 1500s during the Inquisition, this involves binding the victim in a prone position, covering their face with a cloth and pouring copious amounts of water over their face. It forces the body to induce a gag reflex and makes the person feel like they are drowning. When confronted with these actions, military and Bush administration officials employed a variety of responses. Irvine discusses and rebuts these in the editorials in the course database. One is that CIA interrogators should not be held to the same standards as their military counterparts because they are “older and more seasoned.” (Presidential Candidates) This misses the point, however. A person who is prone to torturing another is almost certainly psychologically disturbed themselves. Whether or not they are more “seasoned” at the practice makes no difference. Another argument advanced by the administration is that the use of water boarding was justified because it saved lives. This assertion is spurious, though. As Irvine notes: Cheney argues that the brutal interrogation techniques he approved of and still supports have saved lives. Eaton’s personal experience in Iraq was exactly opposite. The day after the Abu Ghraib photos were seen on Arab TV, his shocked Iraqi counterpart warned him that the Iraqi reaction would be bad. (Why Place) To call the Iraqi reaction “bad” is a gross understatement. American soldiers captured by insurgents were castrated, tortured and beheaded in retaliation for the incidents in the Abu Ghraib facility, and their mutilated bodies left for their comrades in arms to find. (Cancer of Torture) The fact that the US had already violated Geneva convention standards robbed America of the ability to cite how the enemy had done the same. Not only did the use of torture by US personnel actually cost American lives, it failed in its intent to obtain quality intelligence about the enemy. From a psychological point of view, torture has limited effect on determined captives. For example, a person who refuses to give up secrets after being repeatedly water boarded can become self-congratulatory about their own reserves of strength, giving them a sense of superiority over the torturer (Why Put). Further complicating the practice of torture is that fact that any data obtained is likely to be incoherent, inaccurate and generally useless. As Army psychiatrist Steve Xenakis has pointed out, a mind driven mad by torture is incapable of communicating information to another human being. (Why Put) Another factor in considering whether torture is justified is the fact in has on the torturer. Unless the person is a psychopath, that act of inflicting physical harm and psychological torment on another human being will scar them emotionally. Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee spoke to this in a public address: What we don’t get is reliable information. what we do get is a challenged soldier who has participated in something that goes against not only his or her own moral code but against our own sense of justice in this country. (Presidential Candidates) The only alternative to inflicting this sort of mental anguish on our own people is to recruit people who have no qualms about engaging in it. The state of Utah in general and Brigham Young University in particular are “target-rich” zones where many young people aspire to careers in the military or CIA. But what sort of people will volunteer to water board others, apply thumb screws to them, or maim and torture them in other ways? Are these the sort of people we want as parents, as neighbors, as service men and women? (Presidential Candidates) The only defenders of the bush policy are attorneys such as John Yoo and David Addington. Yoo issued an infamous memo in 2001 in which he claimed that the president was essentially above the law, and could suspend legal principles such as Posse Commitatus at will. Addington’s 2005 signing statement said essentially the same thing. Neither of these men are held in high regard in the legal profession, and their opinions have been soundly rebuffed by legal scholars (Tortured Memos) In conclusion, the verdict is clear. The Bush administration was responsible for the use of torture, without legal, moral or tactical justification. Their actions will be a blight on the history of the United States forever, a source for condemnation by the world community. Works Cited Hersh, Seymour. Torture at Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker. May 10, 2004. http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10. Irvine, David. Cancer of Torture at Abu Ghraib Has Metastisized. May 17, 2007. Retrieved from course database. Irvine, David. Presidential Candidates and Where They Stand on Torture. December 16, 2007. Retrieved from course database. Irvine, David. Tortured Memos. March 4, 2009. Retrieved from course database. Irvine, David. Why Place the Nation at Risk With Torture? May 30, 2009. Retrieved from course database. Layton, Julia. What is Waterboarding? www.howstuffworks.com Uniform code of Military Justice. Retrieved from course database. Read More