In the shadow of the Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib scandals, the
issue of torture and its relationship to the U.S.-led war on
terrorism has reached the pinnacle of political debate in
Washington.
This month, with a vote of 90-9, the U.S. Senate passed two
defense bills amended with an anti-torture provision banning the
“abusive treatment of terrorism suspects.” The
legislation was proposed and authored by Sen. John McCain, widely
known not only for his political career but for his time spent as a
prisoner of war in Vietnam.
As the House prepares to vote on the ban, the Bush
administration remains steadfastly opposed to the provision.
President Bush has not only threatened to veto it but has
supported an exemption for “clandestine counterterrorism
operations conducted abroad.” Politicians from both parties
have been alarmed by President Bush’s resistance to the
congressional ban and have harshly criticized the
administration’s views on the issue.
I find the president’s stance on the anti-torture measures
to be unsettling, to say the least. Surely there are points of
contention, as there are with every issue, but torture is about as
close to a black-and-white issue as one can get.
Torture is a violation of countless national and international
doctrines, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
Article 99 of the Geneva Conventions ““ and not to mention the
Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Torture is unequivocally
wrong, immoral, unethical and un-American, yet President Bush feels
the need to impede this legislation and qualify it with an
exemption.
So what exactly would be the effects of this exemption
entail?
The Bush administration has made it clear that it in no way
condones torture, but it has also made clear that whatever actions
the U.S. undertakes in secrecy for the war on terror would be
lawful. The administration’s exemption, I fear, would provide
a window of opportunity for U.S.-backed torture of terrorism
suspects, namely by relieving the U.S. from legal ramifications for
the use of secret prisons and extraordinary renditions (the
outsourcing of torture to countries that don’t forbid
it).
I needn’t stress the obvious concerns with a system of
secret prisons, but what may not be so well known is the shameful
use of extraordinary renditions.
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the U.S. has transported roughly 100
terrorism suspects to countries such as Saudi Arabia, Syria and
Egypt, where there are few to no restrictions on torture and
interrogation methods. Syrian torture methods, as documented by the
U.S. State Department’s own annual report, include
“pulling out fingernails; forcing objects into the rectum;
… using a chair that bends backwards to asphyxiate the victim or
fracture the spine.”
With the Bush administration’s exemption, these egregious
human rights violations could not be investigated or even tried in
the U.S. legal system. They would remain behind closed doors and
free from any punitive repercussions.
There is also symbolic significance in the president’s
opposition to torture ban in the wake of ignominious developments
like the occurrences at the Gitmo Detention Center. The U.S. is
still struggling to repair its public image, especially in regard
to its treatment of detainees ““ and Bush decides to quibble
over a ban on torture?
This should have been viewed as a golden opportunity for
American leaders to band together to reclaim our country’s
values and reassure the world of our opposition to cruel and
unusual punishment. Instead, the world received the image of our
nation’s executive branch not only splitting hairs over, but
threatening to block anti-torture legislation.
No matter how it is euphemized or contextualized, torture is
inhumane. Whatever measures can be taken to prevent it, like a
congressional torture ban, should be implemented. This belief has
been reaffirmed by our Constitution, most recently by our Senate,
and possibly very soon by the House of Representatives.
Why should our president be an exception?
Fonss is the co-president of Amnesty International
UCLA.