Enhanced Interrogation

Since the invasion of Iraq, the term ‘enhanced interrogation’ has become to torture what intelligent design is to creationism. In short, a euphemism. A shameless re-branding of a topic that is unpopular in the mainstream in an attempt to make it more acceptable. The analogy between torture and creationism ends there though, because the discussion of school curriculum pales significantly when compared to the subject of ritual prisoner abuse – particularly in light of its current context, justifications and growing links to patriotism.

Throughout history and across regimes, torture has enjoyed several periods of state sanctioned acceptability. The Catholic Church presided over Inquisitions in the late 1100s and early 1200s of heretics that achieved notoriety for their severity and liberal use of torture. Non-believers were most regularly suspended by their wrists – which were tied behind their back, a technique known as strappado – causing considerable pain and damage to shoulder joints in particular. Their Spanish Inquisition is particularly well known as an example of religious persecution and torture, though it was no more or less severe than other movements of the time. The Church was not alone either at this time of civilization, with general acceptance of torture common throughout medieval England and Europe. Thumb Screws, hot irons, drawing and quartering (see Braveheart), the rack and good old fashion beatings were in wide and accepted use, up until the late 1700s. The US was by no means exempt from this sort of cruelty, famously burning ‘witches’ at the stake in the late 1690s.

Such tales have formed the basis for many an urban legend and Hollywood blockbuster – but modern day torture has had the good sense to move underground, mostly. Stalin’s USSR and Hitler’s Germany are notable exceptions. It is also periodically brought to our attention that some regimes – say Saddam’s Iraq, or those mysterious Saudi’s still persist with these barbaric practices. The reality though is that it remains widespread, with Amnesty International reporting torture or ill-treatment by state officials in more than 150 countries from 1997 to 2000. It can be found amidst almost every conflict, in every corner of the world. The change in the last few years for mine is that Western countries are for the first time openly discussing – and attempting to justify – their use of torture, specifically to combat terrorism. Following decades of covertly pursuing torture as an interrogation tool, while publicly deriding ‘un-civilized’ regimes for doing the same – it is the height of hypocrisy, at the very least.

The US and its allies have been particularly vocal on the topic of late. Exploiting loop holes in the Geneva Convention, the euphemism of enhanced interrogation and the pressing threat of terrorism – the attocities of Guantanamo Bay, of Abu Ghraib and of proxy torture in secret prisons have been allowed to take place. Instead of remorse, the Republicans are upping the ante: Mitt Romney wants Guantanamo Bay doubled in size, Giuliani wants interrogators to be able to “do whatever they can think of” and fringe candidate Tom Tancredo has invoked fictional renegade Agent Jack Bauer (Tancredo is incidentally, an evolution denier). That is of course, except for the lone hand of John McCain, who having been tortured himself for 5 years in the Hanoi Hilton believes the US should be setting a moral example and not resorting to such barbarism.

Let’s get one thing clear; ‘enhanced interrogation’ is torture. It can involve sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, ‘stress’ positions, intimidation with dogs, sensory deprivation, solitary confinement – and that old favourite of the Catholic Inquisitors, strappado (In November 2003, Manadel al-Jamadi was killed during an interrogation session at Abu Ghraib by this method). There’s also the widely referred to waterboarding technique, which consists of immobilizing an individual and pouring water over his face to simulate drowning, making the subject believe his death is imminent. Undeniably, if these techniques were performed on you – you’d think they were torturous.

So I think the US and her allies (including Howard, of course) have two options. 1. Take the appropriate moral stand and refrain from anything that could be construed as torture. Treat prisoners with dignity and respect and try to regain some ethical authority, or 2. Tell us the truth. If we really need to torture prisoners to be safe from terrorism, level with the public – in graphic detail – and make each and everyone of us understand the lengths we are going to. At the least, quit hiding behind political spin, and at the most acknowledge that torture is for torture’s sake. As Ulpianus noted nearly 2000 years ago: “The strong will resist and the weak will say anything to end the pain."