The Senate has become one of the most important battlegrounds in the government’s struggle to defend “the land of the free.”
Three prominent Republicans, Sens. John McCain, John Warner and Lindsey Graham, have written a bill to resist the president’s attempt to grossly weaken the prisoner protections afforded by the Geneva Conventions and to circumvent a suspect’s rights to a fair and speedy trial as codified in the Bill of Rights. The senators’ bill is unnecessary, as it also gives military tribunals authority over the cases when they should remain in the standard court system, but it represents a compromise that protects the soul of the American justice system.
Given the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Hamdan vs. Rumsfield, the practice of torture-including that “coercive interrogation”-of prisoners by members of the U.S. government is a violation of the War Crimes Act passed in 1996. As a result, the government’s interrogation of prisoners held without charge around the world-a violation of another important legal principle, habeas corpus-is unquestionably a crime.
As a result, President Bush is supporting legislation to legalize some forms of torture. Of course, he and his supporters are using doublethink euphemisms such as “coercive interrogation.” Nevermind that the Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishment.”
The president has stated that his authority as commander-in-chief puts him above the very constitution he is obligated to protect. Let there be no mistake, torture or coercive interrogation or whatever one calls it is a form of punishment-punishment for the untried crime of not cooperating with the government’s interrogators. Regardless of what Congress passes, torture is illegal under American law.
President Bush may even understand this. Nevertheless, he has a vested interest in redefining torture under the War Crimes Act because his authorization of the torture makes him criminally responsible. If the law changes, he may no longer be in danger of impeachment or prosecution after his term ends. As it stands, his actions justify impeachment so that the Senate may decide whether to remove him from office for violating the War Crimes Act.
Naturally, others who participated or authorized such interrogations are also worried about being tried for their crimes. A. John Rasdan, former assistant general counsel for the CIA, was quoted in the New York Times as saying, “Their perspective is that they got authorization, they got legal advice and they did the difficult, dirty work of the war on terror. They think they should not suffer because someone changed the rules.” There are four problems with this line of reasoning.
First, no one changed the rules. The Geneva Conventions have been in place for decades, and furthermore, the Third Geneva Convention, Article 17, specifically forbids “physical or mental torture or any other form of coercion … to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted or exposed to unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” Ironically, the government uses the term “coercive interrogation” in an attempt to pretend that causing pain or harm to a prisoner is anything but torture. Any form of coercion is banned. The rules were and are clear. Coercive treatment is a crime under the War Crimes Act.
Second, their jobs as interrogators and intelligence agents are to acquire reliable intelligence. Torture of any sort does not provide reliable intelligence. Consider the Salem witch trials or the various inquisitions. Someone under torture will say anything to stop their suffering. They may tell the truth as they know it, or they may tell their assailants what they want to hear. There is no reason to tell the truth, as the point is to make the pain stop immediately. Not only did they sacrifice American values, they did so to no benefit.
Third, as McCain-a prisoner of war during the Vietnam War-has pointed out, poor treatment of prisoners increases the likelihood that American prisoners will be mistreated. It also removes America’s greatest weapon in any conflict: our dedication to human rights and limited government. Ultimately, the best way to make the world a safer place is to sell liberty and limited, democratic government by showing that our respect for human life and rule of law is universal and untainted by prejudice or expediency.
Fourth, presuming the agents believed they were in the right, their actions effectively constitute a form of civil disobedience. If they were actually acting to protect the American people and Constitution, surely they understand the necessity of being punished under the laws they violated. To claim they were trying to protect Americans from criminal terrorists, and then to hide from the same laws they were arguably protecting, is hypocritical and childish. They are adults and should accept the consequences of their actions.
The president and his agents have unquestionably put themselves above the law. That they have chosen to do so “to protect the country” is no defense, particularly given that they have ignored and circumvented the limits placed upon the government that help make All of them should be held responsible for their actions, including the president, who deserves impeachment. The government must be taught, as Sens. McCain, Graham and Warner seem to understand, that the ends can never justify the means.