Torture Abounds

There is seemingly no end to the revelations that US soldiers have tortured detainees in American custody from 2002 to early 2004 at least. Examples of stories currently in the media include this one in the New York Times, these two in the Washington Post, and one from the Associated Press, all of which document the torture of detainees or those "rendered" to other countries for torture.

At this point it would be sheer idiocy to argue that the actual torture of detainees (not stacking them naked in pyramids) was widespread throughout the US military during this time period, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Cuba, and quite possibly to any number of secret locations where "ghost" detainees have been held, or to countries to whom they have been rendered.

Not all of these incidents are torture; many of them were soldiers who acted out of bounds in punishing detainees. The problem is that so far it appears that only these soldiers are the ones who are being punished. In any incident which involved an actual attempt to gather information, no one has bene punished. Why? Because all believed they were acting with the authority of superiors, if not President Bush himself. This from one of the NY Times articles:

But agents struggled with what they could complain about, believing that, in some cases, tactics they considered harsh or abusive had high-level approval.

"This technique and all of those used in the scenarios was approved by the dep sec def," or deputy secretary of defense, one agent wrote from Guantánamo in January 2004.

An agent in Iraq reported seeing military interrogators yelling at detainees, covering them with hoods and subjecting them to loud music. That went beyond acceptable F.B.I. practice, the agent wrote, but had been "authorized by the president under his executive order." An e-mail message from the agent made several references to President Bush's signing of an order allowing such techniques.

"We know what's permissible for F.B.I. agents but are less sure what is permissible for military interrogators," the agent wrote.

After Abu Ghraib, when the F.B.I. asked agents to report any abuse they had seen, agents reported 26 incidents they believed to be mistreatment. But the bureau's general counsel said 17 of those were allowed under Pentagon policy.

The Pentagon and the White House say that no executive order existed.

But earlier memorandums from the White House and the Pentagon on interrogation techniques could have created confusion.

The A.C.L.U. argues that whether or not an executive order existed, the fact that an F.B.I. agent believed so demonstrates the uncertainty over what was permissible.

"It's this climate of confusion and the creation of a legal framework that allowed detainee rights to be violated that has to be parked on the doorstep of leading government officials," said Anthony Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U.

Whether or not superiors in the Defense Department or President Bush himself actually authorized such treatment, many of these soldiers believed that they did. To me that is a very strong inference that the policy of relaxing the rules on detention and torture led to confusion among these soldiers as to what they could and could not do. Clearly, the Department of Defense has a narrower definition of what constitutes torture then the FBI does.

The reason of course that all of this is in the news is because of Alberto Gonzales confirmation hearing today before the Senate, but I doubt it's the last we've heard of these types of incidents. More likely then not incidents like these continue to this day; though the administration has renounced torture, and broadened the definition of what constitutes torture, they have not renounced the tactice of rendering, nor have they embraced the letter or the spirit of the Geneva Conventions. The torture then, almost certainly, continues.