Disabusing the U.S. of theMyths Used to JustifyPrisoner Abuse: Why Torture is Hurting America in theWar on TerrorJohn JettBruce LusignanEthics of Development in a Global EnvironmentMarch 15, 20051This essay is an expansion on a submission for PWR IV: DirectedWriting. As such, I am indebted to Tenoch Esparza, my peer reviewerfor that course, as well as instructor Dr. Alyssa O’Brien, PhD for herguidance and valuable suggestions. 2“Look, I’m going to say it one more time…maybe I can be more clear. The instructions went out to our people to adhere to the law. That ought to comfort you. We’re a nation of law. We adhere to the laws. We have laws on the books. You might look at these laws and they might provide comfort to you. And those were the instructions, from me to the government.” –U.S. President George W. Bush, June 10, 20041“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”-Benjamin Franklin, 17592At first glance, the current pseudo-war pales beside previous American victories. After all, has America not smote the so-called enemies of freedom many times before? The War on Terror, however, presents new challenges. What does America do when there is no enemy capital, no army, no economy to destroy? In such a case, conventional means are frustratingly unsuccessful. Joshua Dratel in TheTorture Papers, his trenchant inquiry into torture at Abu Ghraib, frames the consequent U.S. government mindset as follows, “the Bush administration reasonedthe United States was up against an enemy more insidious than the country had faced.”3 This mindset causes a break with the past, in which America won wars not only because it was physically the strongest, but because its bedrock principles wereunassailable and guided America’s actions. The current use of torture represents a departure from this successful legacy. This essay will demonstrate that by yielding often unreliable information as well as undermining American law at home and American standing in the international community, the use of torture runs counter to1 Danner, Mark. Torture and Truth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on Terror. New York, NY: New YorkReview of Books, 2004. pg. 462 Franklin, Benjamin. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759. As found in Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations.16 ed. New York, NY: Little, Brown and Company, 1992. pg. 310. 3 Dratel, Joshua. The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004. pg. xiii3the U.S.’s interests in the War on Terror. In doing so, it will draw on several historical examples as well as illustrative anecdotes from recent press coverage of the U.S. War on Terror and its concomitant, the War in Iraq. Before progressing forward further with the argument, an important term—torture—must be defined. Unfortunately, relevant interested parties (the U.S. government, NGOs, the United Nations, et cetera) fail to agree on a common definition. Some hold that any duress beyond that which is incidental to normal incarceration—such as poor quality food and accoutrements, denial of basic freedoms such as that of free movement—constitutes torture.4 Others draw a middle line thatdefines torture as the result of deliberate action tocause prisoners pain. According to article one of theConvention Against Torture, torture is definedproperly as “any act by which severe pain orsuffering, whether physical or mental, isintentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a thirdperson information or a confession…”5 6 Still others, such as certain representatives of the current White House administration, set the bar even lower by requiring that for torture to exist, the recipient must have experienced pain so great as to be comparable to major organ failure or death. According to this latter definition, a whole range of offenses that violate people’s common sense understanding of 4 “The Legal Prohibition Against Torture”. Human Rights Watch Online. http://www.hrw.org/press/2001/11/TortureQanA.html. June 1, 2004. Accessed on March 3, 2005. 5 Danner Pg. 73. 6 The Schlesinger Report specifically condemns “acts of brutality and purposeless sadism.” Pg. 331. 4torture would be admissible.7 For example, breaking all of the bones in a person’s hands or feet would be perfectly acceptable. The two alternatives to rejecting torture outright are to ignore the practice of torture or to accept its use in certain cases. Both of these courses of action are mistaken. First of all, torture is an issue that Americans must grapple with, despite the difficulty this can present. Indeed torture makes even the stoutest “terror warriors” squeamish, as John Ashcroft, not the warm and fuzzy type, demonstrated in his uncomfortable writhing before a congressional hearing on the topic.8 Torture is not popular domestically but then neither is terrorism, so the implicit bargain between policymakers and the public appears to be for the former to propagate an acceptable, if factually unlikely, moral line (i.e. the U.S. condemns the use of torture) and for the public to accept this sentiment without rigorous inquiry—in effect, to turn a blind eye. Torture represents an insidious threat to fundamental American values like respect for the law, human dignity, separation of powers, rejection of cruel and unusual punishment, and more. No American can afford to leave these values undefended, and hence to ignore torture is irresponsible. 9The second alternative is to accept that the use of torture is acceptable in certain cases. The leading theorist in favor of employing torture for national securityends is Alan Dershowitz, renowned American criminal-defense litigator and 7 “A Memo Too Far” The Economist Online. http://www.economist.com/printerfriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2752779. June 10, 2004. Accessed January 19, 2005. 8 “ibid9 Danner pg. 2195professor at Harvard Law School.10 Rather than dismiss the use of torture categorically, Dershowitz poses the “ticking bomb urgency” scenario.11 Suppose lawenforcement apprehended a terrorist leaving the scene of a crowded sporting event. Suppose further that the terrorist had in his or her possession implements that could be used exclusively to arm a major bomb and for no other purpose. Would law enforcement officials act justly in torturing the man to find the location of the imminent threat? Dershowitz says yes despite