A detainee in Guantánamo Bay. (Photo: Brennan Linsley/Associated Press)Susan Crawford, the senior Pentagon official who dismissed charges against Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Guantánamo detainee, said in a published report on Wednesday that she had concluded that he had been tortured by interrogators. “His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that’s why I did not refer the case” for prosecution, Ms. Crawford told The Washington Post. We asked these experts — most of whom were in our previous debate on the legal challenges of closing Guantánamo — how this admission of torture might affect that closure and the prosecution of other detainees.
- David Cole, professor at Georgetown University Law Center
- Andrew McCarthy, legal affairs editor at National Review
- Diane Marie Amann, law professor at University of California, Davis
- Deborah Colson, Human Rights First
- Matthew Waxman, professor at Columbia Law School
Identify the Torturers
David Cole is a professor at Georgetown University Law Center, and the author, most recently, of “Justice At War: The Men and Ideas That Shaped America’s ‘War on Terror,’” and the essay “Closing Guantanamo,” published in Boston Review.
Susan Crawford’s admission that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured, and that as a result she had to drop the military’s prosecution of a man thought to the 20th hijacker in the Sept. 11 attacks illustrates just how costly the Bush administration’s short-sighted and immoral policies of coercive interrogation have been.
More than seven years later, it is not clear those practices have stopped any particular attack, but the Bush administration has yet to obtain a conviction against any of those behind the terrorist attacks.
“It is not enough to drop criminal charges against the torture victims.”
Moreover, many of the Bush administration’s worst distortions of law and morality were driven by the perceived need to coerce suspects into talking, and then cover up for that original sin. This led the administration to claim that the Geneva Conventions did not protect Al Qaeda detainees, to establish extraordinary rendition, to reinterpret the federal anti-torture statute to permit torture, and to create military trial procedures that either permitted reliance on coerced testimony, or would hide from the public the fact that torture occurred.
Now that the military official in charge of the tribunals has admitted that Mr. Qahtani was tortured, the question is what to do about it. It should not change the proper resolution of how to deal with Guantánamo detainees, which I discussed in this forum earlier. We still need to separate out those who can be prosecuted, those who can be released, and those who can be detained as fighters for the enemy in a specific armed conflict.
It is not enough to drop criminal charges against the torture victims, as Ms. Crawford did. Indeed, if wrongdoers can be prosecuted without reliance on coerced evidence, they should be. Rather, we must hold the torturers accountable. To date, not a single high-level military or administration official has been deemed responsible for the torture policy – even though it was specifically authorized by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and many others in the highest levels of the Bush Cabinet and executive branch.
The Convention Against Torture not only prohibits torture under all circumstances, but obligates signatory nations – including the United States – to refer cases of torture for investigation for potential prosecution. Criminal prosecution of the top wrongdoers seems highly unlikely at this point, but the latest admission calls for, at a minimum, appointment of an independent counsel or the convening of a commission to fully investigate the facts and identify those responsible for the crimes that can no longer be denied.
Intelligence vs. Evidence
Andrew McCarthy, a former federal prosecutor and author of “Willful Blindness: Memoir of the Jihad,” is legal affairs editor at National Review.
As someone who has supported the military commission system, I must concede that it has performed abysmally, and Wednesday’s news reflects more of the same.
A short recap of its failings: The judge in the first military commission trial incorrectly instructed a jury on the definition of a “war crime” (a concept one would have thought rather basic to a “war crime” trial). The same judge gave the defendant — who had been a confidant and bodyguard of Osama bin Laden himself — a get-out-of-jail-free card. (I’ve been critical of various aspects of using the criminal justice system to counter terrorism, but one thing cannot be denied: terrorists convicted in our courts have gotten appropriately severe sentences — decades or more in prison.) Finally, a general in the appointing authority (the body that oversees the commission process) suggested that statements derived from waterboarding could be used as evidence.
“Isolation and temperature variations of the type we are talking about here are not torture.”
On that last score, even those of us who have argued that there is a place for enhanced interrogation techniques have insisted that those techniques should be limited to intelligence gathering in dire threat circumstances; they are not for gathering trial evidence. You can call a proceeding in which coerced confessions are used many things; one thing you can’t call it is a “trial.” Using coerced statements is a corruption of our entire understanding of what a trial is.
Ms. Crawford’s conclusion is another instance of the military getting it wrong. Isolation and temperature variations of the type we are talking about here are not torture. To contend otherwise is to trivialize something that is truly heinous. It may be politically correct, but it is wrong. American law has always maintained a bright line between the egregious pain and suffering caused by actual torture and other forms of abusive conduct. Ms. Crawford’s suggestion that abusive conduct that has a “medical impact” meets the “legal definition of torture” is preposterous.
What impact will it have on cases? Exactly none. In the first commission case, a judge ruled some confession evidence could not be admitted at trial because it was adduced by coercion. That is the standard: “Was the declarant’s will overborne?” Not, “Was the declarant tortured?” Ms. Crawford’s assessment that “torture” occurred is not proof that it did, nor should any defendant be required to demonstrate that he was tortured in order to have confession evidence suppressed.
Confirming What Many Assumed
Diane Marie Amann is a professor of law and director of the California International Law Center at University of California, Davis. In December she observed Guantánamo military commissions proceedings on behalf of the National Institute of Military Justice.
Last month, I was in the gallery of the Guantánamo courtroom built for the trial of the 9/11 case. I saw six defense tables, but there were only five defendants. There had been no official explanation for the absence — until now. Susan Crawford’s conclusion that Mr. Qahtani, the sixth man, was tortured — confirming what anyone following military commission proceedings already assumed — raises anew questions about what effect illegal interrogations will have on this and other post-9/11 cases.
“Ms. Crawford’s correct decision not to go forward with charges tainted by torture is itself an accounting.”
Many are calling for those who committed, ordered, or enabled torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment to be held to account. Those calls tend to overlook that accountability already is playing a role. Ms. Crawford’s correct decision not to go forward with charges tainted by torture is itself an accounting.
It is an admission by a top law enforcement officer that U.S. authorities violated law the United States is obliged to obey. Their lawlessness has created a risk that dangerous persons, who might have been subject to conviction if proper evidence-gathering procedures had been followed, will have to be released. A very first step toward accountability would be to demand that those responsible admit this most basic failure to protect.
Guantánamo By Another Name
Deborah Colson is the acting director of the Law & Security Program at Human Rights First.
Susan Crawford, who declined to refer Mohammed al-Qahtani’s case for prosecution on grounds of torture, says she did so despite her certainty that Mr. Qahtani is “a muscle hijacker” who “would’ve been on one of those planes had he gained access to the country in 2001.” Yet because his admissions were made as a result of torture, her conclusions are not necessarily based on reliable evidence. That is why she refused to refer his case for prosecution.
Nonetheless, her statements will undoubtedly be held up by a group of scholars who speculate there are dangerous people — in Guantánamo and around the world — who cannot be prosecuted, but pose a risk to our national security and must be detained.
Proposals for a new “national security court,” with limited due process protections, should be soundly rejected.
Many of these scholars say they support closing Guantánamo. At the same time, however, they advocate the creation of a new “national security court” — a specialized tribunal that would provide fewer due process protections than those guaranteed in ordinary criminal courts and might also be empowered to detain “dangerous” suspects, potentially indefinitely, without criminal charge.
Proposals for this new system must be rejected. The federal criminal courts are fully capable of handling complex terrorism cases without compromising national security or sacrificing standards of fairness and due process. In almost seven years, only two military commission trials have been conducted. During that same period, more than 100 international terrorism cases have been prosecuted in the federal courts.
Our procedural safeguards and evidentiary standards comprise the bedrock of American justice. A decision to jettison them, even for a small number of suspects, will undermine our system as a whole and perpetuate the damage to America’s reputation for fairness.
Moreover, the disarray that has plagued the military commission system — with abundant litigation and dissent within the military command structure — would be replicated in another separate, and inferior, system.
Just as importantly, a national security court is not smart counterterrorism policy. The Bush administration’s attempt to insulate the detention, interrogation and trial of terrorism suspects at Guantánamo from the Constitution has only impaired cooperation with our allies and fueled terrorism recruitment. Creating a state-side replica of the Guantánamo legal regime would do the same.
Military Commissions Can Show Independence
Matthew Waxman is Associate Professor at Columbia Law School, Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, and member of the Hoover Institution Task Force on National Security and Law. He previously held senior positions at the U.S. State Department, Defense Department and National Security Council.
Ms. Crawford’s conclusions will likely hasten the demise of military commissions, but they also illustrate dilemmas of closing Guantánamo.
The fact that the military commissions authorities are themselves throwing out high profile cases based on past interrogation practices shows, contrary to some expectations, an independence from political influence. Several times now, the military commissions administrators, prosecutors or judges have rejected Bush Administration legal claims or efforts.
Still, the latest news will reinforce widely held perceptions that military commissions, and especially their special evidentiary and secrecy rules, were designed to hide illegal government practices. More broadly, Ms. Crawford’s conclusion will also reinforce perceptions that Guantánamo and Bush administration legal approaches were devised primarily to keep detainees beyond the reach of law.
While these conclusions of torture will strengthen President-elect Obama’s conviction that Guantánamo must be closed, they won’t make it any easier. The same interrogation practices that infect this military commission case would undermine federal prosecution as well. The new administration then has no good options for handling this and any similar cases, especially if it hopes to close Guantánamo quickly.
From 1 to 25 of 197 Comments
The 1994 Federal Statute to prevent torture was adopted by Congress and the Clinton administration in order to implement the 1984 United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. The 1994 law requires a “specific intent” to inflict “severe physical or mental pain or suffering” as a defining element of torture and there are no cases based on this law. So the situation appears ambiguous. In addition, Crawford didn’t say that the harsh treatment approved by the administration was torture. What she said was that the intensity of the treatment was torture apparently because it resulted in physical and mental damage to the inmate.
— LGEOur new AG Holder should convene a grand jury to look into detainee torture, and let the chips fall where they may.
— GrytpypeThe Geneva Conventions cover combatants. That is to say, persons who are members of a National Military force or members of a force in the exercise of the right to self-determination or involved in a civil war. Most detainees in Guantanamo were not combatants in an armed conflict, and thus cannot be held as POWs (prisoners of war). Those that cannot be held as POWs are held as criminal defendants. As such, they are entitled to all laws relating to criminal defendants. This Includes the right to challenge their detention and the right to counsel. And the right to a speedy trial. And the right to know the charges. Oops. The Bush administration says that none of this applies? So what law are they using?
— karen parkerThe more you are willing to accept resposibility for your action, the more credibility you will have…..let us hope that Obama will keep up this trend.
— ELCOMMANDANTEIs this some sort of joke?! Yesterday- literally YESTERDAY, I had to point out in this very comments section that each and every one of the commentators shared exactly the same core opinion. Now we have four out of five of them still here holding a “debate” on another, directly related issue.
And what are their opinions? Well, let’s see: David Cole still takes the time to argue that it is legally permissable to hold people indefinitely (it isn’t. See the US Constitution, Due Process Clause and Habeas Corpus), but at least he seems to have the guts to admit that torture is wrong.
That’s an improvement. But his argument that we should drop charges against people where the only evidence against them is torture (a good argument) runs smack against his own assertion that we should indefinitely imprison people whom the government believes to be a threat but cannot convict- presumably because the evidence was gained by torture. The one argument nullifies the other.
Meanwhile, Andrew McCarthy states point-blank that it is OK to torture people to obtain intelligence so long as the person is not brought to trial- which completely ignores the idea that torture is worthless because IT DOES NOT PRODUCE RELIABLE INFORMATION, not to mention that the most convenient method of avoiding the use of such information in trial is to make the victims of such torture simply disappear forever.
Mr. Waxman seems to think that the failure of the Bush Administration to instantaneously fire and silence those members of the US government who oppose torture is proof that the system is working- as if those who speak about such matters have not been routinely and immediately ostracized, drummed out and replaced the moment they made their opposition known.
Mrs. Amman seems to care about torture, but does not actually call for prosecuting those who did it.
Unsurprisingly, the person most willing to uncategorically declare that torture is unacceptable and must be punished in all instances (and that we do not need to create a court to bypass the Constitution) is the one new person on this panel- Deborah Colson. An honest-to-goodness human rights expert. At least they found one person who knew what they were talking about.
— Michael EnglishMs Crawford’s definition of intense treatment as torture aptly describes my years of service under the Carter and Clinton administrations. The former gave away strategic territory and couldn’t lead a group of Marines in silent prayer; and the latter’s personal integrity and misplaced set of priorities were continually suspect.
In the world of “what goes around, comes around” we should thank the Clinton administration for emasculating the intelligence services and leaving the door wide open for a terrorist attack and for the pendulum to swing hard the other way.
Ms Crawford and her liberal ilk, who can’t tell the difference between a problem and an inconvenience, should review the bidding, and get a dose of reality. Perhaps a review of the beheading and assassination videos from Iraq might sober them up.
Sorry to disappoint, and whether you like it or not, in a large part of the world, it is truly better to be feared than to be loved; because as they say, “it lasts longer.”
— LtCol George W. Murray USMC(ret)It is sad that the defenders of “enhanced interrogation measures” still find ambiguity in the definition of
— univac2004torture. There are volumes of precedent -not to mention the most basic tenets of constitutional and treaty obligations. Unquestionably, all of the principals in the decision to violate the statutes of our nation should be held accountable as war criminals for their perversion of their official duties under the guise of national security.
‘Room for debate: torture’ (link on the front page of the NYT today)
No America. On torture, there is no room for debate.
— a.lowagieThat there should even be a discussion on what defines torture in the United States should tell anyone with a grain of sense or compassion that the United States has passed the pale and is just another criminal regime.
There was torture in Vietnam as well, and I have first hand evidence of that from those who were there and from the literature that came out from that war from former soldiers and others.
As bad as that was, that was nothing compared to the Gestapo HQ in Cuba that was run by bush and company.
Are we past that scenario? I will never again believe anything that the United States Government says, so I suspect the worse.
— Clifford DeckerMr. McCarthy has it wrong.
“Ms. Crawford’s conclusion is another instance of the military getting it wrong. Isolation and temperature variations . ….. meets the “legal definition of torture” is preposterous.”
I remember, as kids, discussing that infamous “water torture” that American Indians or the Chinese or some other nefarious group might inflict upon our hero (probably some guy riding a white horse.)
Tie him up, not torture, start a drip on his forehead, not torture. After awhile, 10 minutes or two hours, it clearly becomes at least uncomfortable. A steady continuous drip on the same spot. after a day or so it goes well past discomfort and somewhere along the way it becomes torture. Extreme deprivation is torture as starvation sets in and still no bruises. Extreme temperature and isolation, maybe not torture right away but Mr. McCarthy denies that accumulation makes a difference, he is wrong.
How about restraining our prisoner next to an anthill. One ant not so bad, two or ten Ehh, how about a thousand or more are we up to torture yet?
— DGH, SeattleI served in the military and I had the unfortunate fate to have a family member in one of the more nasty prisons. This woman lawyer seems somehow convinced that people do not suffer some of the conditions that the terrorist 20th hijacker did in the military - or in prison - and that psychological or psysiological breakdowns never happen.
Otherwise, this woman appears to be laying ground to relabel US military commands and US prisons as “torture factories.
“Mr. Qahtani’s repeated interrogations at Guantánamo in 2002 and 2003 included prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, exposure to cold and involuntary grooming. He was also forced to dance with a male interrogator and to obey dog commands, including “stay,” “come” and “bark.”.”
I can verify that my relative suffered:
1, Days of sleep deprivation packed into a former storeroom with 19 other prisoners.
2. He had forced nudity AND regular body cavity searches.
3. He would have been forced to do involuntary grooming if he refused to clean himself.
4. He was forced to do awkward body postures and make humiliating responses on occasion.
5. He was in constant stress from threat of violence, mainly from prison gangs and rapists.
6. He spent a week in solitary.
7. The storeroom where they were housed had a single slit window and brutal heat and cold in the desert summer.
The military was no where near that tough, but we had several people breakdown, existed in high stress and brutal heat….
Now, this retired judge Susan Crawford has injected a new definition of torture on her whim - any situation where people are held or ordered to a place against their will, that has conditions less amenable than the judge’s house and less friendly people around, with lots of stress - that results in a person breaking down. Not any specific acts, just if the accumulation of undesirable things happenin causes “damage” to the soldier, prisoner, whatever…
As far as I know, no one has called being in jail automatically torture if someone reacts with a breakdown or suicide attempt, nor being in the military. And the people that agreed we needed to ban torture had the real thing in mind, before judges and lawyers began whippping the meaning into a host of minor tribulations related to “discomfort” and humiliation (having a female guard order a male Muslim prisoner about is universally agreed to be humiliating by Muslims).
OK, fine. I await the outlawing of prisons as “torture” unless they meet what judge Crawford believes to be essential comforts terrorists and cons expect. And if my son is deployed to the Saudi and Kuwait deserts for a few months…I demand he get the AC tents, the right to sleep decent hours, decent food, no lack of privacy when he is naked, forced to obey orders he considers humiliating, and not have any stress imposed that runs the risk of him breaking down or becoming suicidal if he is weak…the things I lacked in 1991..
— kennetekEach of these brief opinions have been proffered by quite accomplished people in the areas of law as well as diplomacy. My general sense of what they are suggesting is that the policy-makers who initiated these “extreme techniques of interrogation” can not realistically be prostecuted themselves because the very evidence, viz., the torture vicims, have somehow become “tainted” sources of evidence and therefore whatever they might say would be instantly deemed inadmissable.
Why all this talk on what torture “is?” Its precisely like Bill Clinton defending himself against allegations of having committed an audulterous sexual act by calling into question the word “is” in its contextual relation to sex.
All of us know what torture is in the visceral sense, just like all of us know what sex is in the visceral sense. These linguistic legal arguments may be necessary and even crucial to the cases involved, but it is indeed quite sadly and pathetically laughable.
Donald Gardner Stacy
— Donald Gardner StacySorry, do I understand well?
David Cole states it quite clearly:
“Rather, we must hold the torturers accountable. To date, not a single high-level military or administration official has been deemed responsible for the torture policy – even though it was specifically authorized by Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and many others in the highest levels of the Bush Cabinet and executive branch. … Criminal prosecution of the top wrongdoers seems highly unlikely at this point, but the latest admission calls for, at a minimum, appointment of an independent counsel or the convening of a commission to fully investigate the facts and identify those responsible for the crimes that can no longer be denied.”
Sorry, do I understand well?
There is a crime against a US law, it is admitted, no longer only assumed, and still:
“Criminal prosecution … seems highly unlikely at this point”
I have been convinced for many years that the outgoing president has committed many crimes - among others a war based on wrong accusations and violating International Law, and costing many tens of thousands of lives ! - but please, let us return to a status where it is expected that everybody abides by law! As one of the principles of law is that violation of laws must be prosecuted, this prosecution is a must .
I understand that President-elect Obama has many things to solve on his first and second days in office - the financial melt-down, the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and Iran’s atomic ambitions - but bringing the US back into the group of law-abiding countries is not at all a task of low priority!
-t-
— Thomas B. HumanEntertaining hair-splitting by the intelligentsia on both sides:
Try this on for size: strip to your underwear and hunker down on a concrete floor in a sealed room with the air-conditioning set to 50 degrees, with NineInchNails blasting at you at 120dB, and don’t change position for 12 hours:
Torture uses whatever method is at hand: Torquemada used the rack to break humans: today, we’re more subtle, but the effect is the same.
Answer me this: did any detainee deliver actionable intelligence, or was it all desperate babble?
Better to have dispatched them with a bullet behind the ear back in Afghanistan.
— Niccolo M.“So the situation appears ambiguous. ”
Really.
Waterboarding. Ambiguous?
What was done in Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and as yet undisclosed places of extraordinary rendition, was clearly torture, and no torturous splitting of lawyerly language will change that.
The Bush “legacy” will linger, affecting how other nations view and interact with our country for years to come.
— Jim LyonsTo me, the only comment that is worthy of full intellectual consideration is the one that calls for action not just comment. That is Mr. Cole’s call for prosecution of those responsible for and guilty of breaking the law. Contrary to Ms. Waxman’s position that the dismissal of charges against a defendant who was tortured is accountability, implying that prosecution of the people up and down the line who tortured is not necessary, is like saying that the Nurenberg trials were not necessary because the Axis lost the war!
Prosecution has more than one purpose; it is used not only to punish the wrongdoers but also to warn away others who might go down the same path. What has come out of such prosecutions in the past is a honing and articulation of the principles by which our society does and will abide. It is a necessary component of a nation that follows the rules, does the right thing and is a beacon to all.
Arthur Warren
— Arthur WarrenIf my memory serves me correctly, we hung high-level Japanese and German military for torturing detainees in their custody, back after World War II.
— Judy-in-TXThe United States has consistently stood opposed to all forms of inhumane treatment as torture down through the years since, until we began detaining people after 9/11.
Currently, one of the highest-level civilians in this administration stated he approved the procedures and would do it again.
He appealed to the American public, suggesting that we would not oppose such treatment, if it meant we didn’t have to endure another attack.
Nothing has been said by this administration relating to the danger this activity placed our military serving in “hot” zones around the globe.
The people detained didn’t represent other national governments; they are stateless, in essence, or at least considered so by this administration.
Treating them humanely doesn’t guarantee that Americans, whether military or civilian, who are captured, will be treated humanely, but it does give us the moral high ground, and gives us the right to pursue the perpetrators to the ends of the Earth.
When you consider how Daniel Pearl or others similarly kidnapped and held by these terrorist groups were treated, there is no question that they have no restraint in their treatment of their captives.
However, the administration wasn’t swayed in the least by discussion that their decision to conduct these “intense interrogations” and mistreatment, would threaten our people in service to America around the globe.
And Ms. Crawford is correct that the intensity and longevity of this treatment can lead to permanent damage.
If my memory serves me correctly, people have died in Guantanamo and Abu Gheraib, when held indefinitely.
I have been ashamed of this policy, along with the policy of rendition, which just off-loads the torture onto other countries’ agencies.
It’s a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions and a clear and present danger to both our military and civilians working for us around the globe.
It just inflames the problem of terrorism; it doesn’t relieve the situation.
Our country should take action against all those who designed these contrived excuses to try to get around the Geneva Conventions and sanction torture.
They should be held to account for their actions and their authorizations.
“Just following orders” doesn’t cut it.
Otherwise, we’re no better than the Nazis or the Khmer Rouge, or any other rogue nation.
It’s time to restore not only our Constitution but our country’s history of moral dignity.
Susan Crawford is a heroine and deserves a “Profiles in Courage” award for standing up for America’s prestige in the world community.
The acrobatics you torture-supporting clowns go through to justify torture shows how wrong you know it is.
Approving these inhumane methods goes against basic values of most organizaed religous values most of you claim to hold.
How will you justify your actions when you meet your higher power?
— ron inOf course the US is guilty of torturing detainees. We have known that for six years. The only thing new that we know is that Obama will not stop the torture, will not close Guantanamo. He is either a coward or a liar. What Obama meant when he talked about “change” was that he is a shameless chameleon.
The world must try Bush and his aides–and the military commanders involved–for war crimes. And it must find them guilty. And they must be punished.
— bert hornback
— bert hornbackBeing held for so many years without having any chance to confront the evidence held against you is one of the most tragic aspects of the travesty that is Guantanamo Bay. Compounded by systemic torture policies labeled “enhanced interrogation” carried out from Guantanamo to Abu Ghraib, this travesty has completely undermined the projection of American values abroad. The fact that there has been no immediacy what-so-ever in pursuing accountability for those who authorized water-boarding, sleep deprivation, sexual humiliation, etc of people at the mercy of our nation will be a stain on our system of justice. The apologists for these policies peddle fear as an excuse to dehumanize and ultimately render legally invisible people who are accused of antagonizing America, what we should have done was integrate these people in our federal legal system to air out the facts behind each case along with the nature of their animosity. Sweeping people into the gutter that is Guantanamo and who knows how many other secret prisons only perpetuates the cycle of hatred and ignorance that makes us as Americans further demonize people from the Middle East and makes people there hate America even more.
— PabloI think even the supreme court in Lincoln’s darkest days during the civil war upheld that American laws are to be respected even in turbulent times of conflict. Why can’t we prove to the world that our courts (if adequately resourced) can handle such challenges?
Mr. McCarthy maintains: “Isolation and temperature variations of the type we are talking about here are not torture. To contend otherwise is to trivialize something that is truly heinous. American law has always maintained a bright line between the egregious pain and suffering caused by actual torture and other forms of abusive conduct. Ms. Crawford’s suggestion that abusive conduct that has a “medical impact” meets the “legal definition of torture” is preposterous.”
What is preposterous is this statement. Mr. McCarthy has a rather bizarre definition of “heinous”. By all reputable accounts, Al-Khatani is now truly insane as a result of his treatment at our hands. Jose Padila is now truly insane as a result of his treatment at our hands. Weeks of extreme sleep deprivation and sensory isolation will render any human permanently stark raving mad. This is not “egregious pain and suffering”? This is not torture?
Let Mr. McCarthy endure months in Gitmo’s “Frequent Flyer program” and then maintain that it is not torture.
— Rod P.I find it remarkable that we can debate the pros and cons and even the definition of “torture” as it applies to our rule of law. It is a true reflection of the progressive society we live in.
At the same time, however, our enemy has no qualms about using torture, murder, dismemberment, or beheadings as justified expressions of their own “rule of law”.
Does anyone really think treating our enemy “fair and square” will provide us with the information we need to prevent more Americans from being killed? Will it deter the enemy from killing? Will it convert the enemy into democratically abiding citizens? Highly unlikely, in my view. So why doesn’t anyone have the courage to say so?
Our valued system of law, which we cherish and protect, should apply to ourselves, not to this viscious infidel-hating enemy.
— PFAsk the Bush apologists whether Hitler, Stalin, or Saddam practiced torture, they readily respond, “Yes.” But if you ask them if WE torture, they say, “Define torture.” That’s the very definition of intellectual dishonesty.
I feel no pity for Mr. al-Qahtani. He has been described elsewhere as a “broken man,” and in light of his apparent intentions toward the U.S. maybe that’s not all bad. He kicked a sleeping dog and lost an arm and a leg in the ensuing struggle. Cosmic justice.
But in a very real sense, in losing he nonetheless won. He didn’t set off any bombs, but he damaged us every bit as much as he planned. For by becoming a victim of our torture, he showed us to be as evil as he always thought.
Our self evaluation is so kind. There is no difference between what we did to this man and what Saddam did to his victims. We used to be admired for our freedom and justice, but let’s face it, if we take a poll around the globe today, asking whether the United States practices torture, they’re not going to ask for a definition, they’re simply going to say “Yes.”
— John HolmesRoom for debate: Final Solution. This newspaper needs to take a stronger stand. There should be no debate.
— Explanious GermaniusMr. McCarthy’s alleges that Susan Crawford’s interpretation of the abusive treatment at Guantanamo Bay as consistent with torture is “preposterous.” This allegation is the only thing preposterous I find. Using this term to describe her opinion implies she has shown a complete lapse of judgment, when the public debate about the conduct of interrogators has clearly indicated that there is plentiful evidence that would suggest that the line between coercion and torture has been decidedly crossed on many occasions. The point may be debatable, but it certainly is not preposterous. Calling it so is an example of the Bill O’Reilly “shock-jock” kind of journalism which encourages us to let go of any sober-mindedness in aour assessment of public matters and give free reign to emotionalism and prejudicial bias in our thinking. This sells a lot of airspace, and perhaps newspapers, but it dumbs down our discussion. As such, I feel it degrades the discussion. I feel it is wrong for the New York Times to publish such lax commentary, any more than hoots and hollers would be tolerated in a courtroom, government commission hearing, or any serious discussion pertaining to legal and governmental matters.
— mark brody