Torture – Plain and Simple

After some years in the media wilderness, torture and its ethics have returned to the spotlight. Following the recent change in Administration, the Bush spin machine – once so efficient and clinical – is dead. Nuanced differences between ‘enhanced interrogation’ and torture are over and it’s time to take stock of the damage done. After some heated in-fighting, Obama de-classified a series of memo’s which amounted to Bush administration directives to the CIA allowing them to torture al-Qaida and other suspects held at Guantánamo and secret detention centres round the world. After eight years of secrecy and slight-of-hand, this kind of transparency makes me kind of nervous.

For context, the public have known about enhanced interrogation since Bush coined the phrase in 2002; a euphemism encompassing a range of aggressive and questionable practices – and equating very literally to torture (Bush continued past this time to insist that “we do not torture” – content to split linguistic hairs). At that time after a lengthier than usual rant, I concluded that while the appropriate position on torture was to avoid it (and to grab what little moral high ground was left) – the Bushies should at the very least be honest about the lengths they were going to, “to keep us safe”. Well they didn’t and they weren’t. And now, someone should answer for it.

I’m not actually sure what to be most angry about, wading through the recent disclosures. Maybe that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times (so much for tricking him into simulated drowning – I think he’s on to you!), that the frequency of torture spiked just when the US were looking to justify their invasion of Iraq, or that Cheney and Rumsfeld really were the black hearted sons-of-bitches that we feared they were (don’t even get me started on that prick Alberto Gonzales…). While Obama is content to “look forward”, I want to see all the Bushies that dragged us down into the moral quagmire to be held accountable. If it’s good enough for Clinton, it’s good enough for Bush – bring on the show trials.

While we all wait for that not to happen, I can recommend some reading/viewing to give this whole torture thing a face you can see: 1) The 2007 Jake Gyllenhaal movie, Rendition. It tries to give a sense of the complexity of the torture question – but confirmed for me the obvious dangers of such primitive techniques: getting the wrong guy, and the validity of his torture-induced testimony; 2) Enemy Combatant: A British Muslim's Journey to Guantanamo and Back, a book written by former detainee Moazzam Begg. I defy you to read it and not feel empathy for the way he was treated – even before getting to Gitmo. Treating any human this way, guilty or innocent, murderer or terrorist is abhorrent and 3) A recent essay by Atul Gawande appearing in The New Yorker. In summary, solitary confinement will send a regular man crazy in about a month. Three tops. It’s chilling. While it focuses on the use of isolation in the US prison system (it’s rife) – I couldn’t help but think of poor old José Padilla, held in solitary for 3 and a half years, until he finally cracked…

Tipping Point

The US is a notorious chain-dragger on a range of progressive issues. They seem to have a disproportionate number of evolution deniers, extremist pro-lifers and ‘traditionalists’ (read: homophobes). Increasingly, these issues are being decided in state and federal courts and finding their way onto ballot propositions (like Prop 8). While there have been setbacks (and there will be more), I get the feeling that on same-sex marriage at least, the scales may well be reaching tipping point.

While Proposition 8 was passed in California, effectively banning gay marriage in that state – Massachusetts and Connecticut continued granting marriages to same sex couples. This week, Vermont became the first state to pass laws to legalise same sex marriage. The legislature overturned the governor’s veto with overwhelming votes in both houses (100-49 and 23-5). So, 3 New England states (of the 50) support gay marriage – that’s hardly a turning tide, you might say – especially when 29 states have constitutional amendments explicitly barring the recognition of same-sex marriage…

What gives me hope on this issue is the recent battleground of mid-western Iowa. On April 3 their Supreme Court ruled the state's ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional – a clear victory in this war. Still, my interest was not only in the win – but in the arguments used by the prosecutors. Out-loud, in a courtroom, gay marriage opponents argued to continue the ban in order to: protect tradition, promote a good environment for children, promote procreation, promote stability in opposite-sex relationships, and save the state money. Let that sink in for a minute.

Now while, Judge Robert Hanson had the good sense to dismiss this arguments as insufficient, I’m pleased that these reasons were articulated – as I find them especially damaging to the opponents of same sex marriage. The prosecutors moved beyond simple religious (God Intended It) reasoning and skated out onto some very thin ice. Applied to the whole community, will marriage be denied to couples who create a ‘bad’ environment for children, or who choose not to (or are unable to) procreate? And are we seriously expected to contemplate that gay marriage undermines the stability of opposite-sex relationships? Please.

Overall, it was a pretty farcical case, which I hope does irrevocable damage to anti-gay crusaders everywhere. The stated reasons are based largely on a number of false gay stereotypes and could not possibly be digested by any self respecting individual (or court). The heterosexual community leaves in a giant glass mansion on this one, and I strongly suggest keeping these stones un-thrown.