In Praise of U.S. Senate's CIA Torture Report (News, Switzerland)

Allowing the Rest of the World to Speak Directly to Americans
Promoting Peace, Diplomacy and Cross-Cultural Understanding

Home

Archives

About Us

Non-U.S. Newspapers

In Praise of the U.S. Senate's CIA Torture Report (News, Switzerland)

"A government report exposing torture as useless and counterproductive is an odd aberration, because it puts certain circles in that government in a bad light, making it clear that such practices are not what they pretend them to be. Yet it also shows that our societies have the capacity to practice self-criticism and depart from the wrong path. That is in stark contrast to totalitarian regimes that get ever-more deeply bogged down in their own insanity, only to sink in their own ashes or drag the world down with them. … Therefore, such a report is to be welcomed, because the alternative is far worse - and to hell with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney."

By Patrik Etschmayer

Translated By Stephanie Martin

December 12, 2014

News – Switzerland – Original Article (German)

In the U.S., debate raging over whether a Senate report on torture should have been published. Global unrest is feared. It’s possible, however, that keeping the report classified would have been even more problematic.

Ahead of publication of the report on post-9-11 torture practiced by the CIA, which included waterboarding and other methods of torture (euphemistically referred to as “enhanced interrogation techniques”), George W. Bush was certain that a great service had been done for the United States and the world. Vice President Dick Cheney, considered by many to be Bush's real “boss” - even claims that many additional terrorist attacks were prevented by this. For these men this is all about justifying their own actions - in commission of which they betrayed their own principles.

This report does the exact opposite: The methods of torture were - surprise, surprise - ineffective. That is a conclusion which has been reached over and over again: Rarely does torture yield useful results. Primarily, this is because this type of interrogation isn't conducted with the aim of acquiring information, but with the desire to achieve a specific result. The “interrogator” expects a certain response, and when that is acquired - whether or not it corresponds with the truth - the anguish of the person being interrogated is halted.

Something else, something much deeper, is not being addressed in the effective/ineffective debate: What the torture does to the torturer and the institutions and countries that permit it. Western societies purport to have left barbarism behind. However, the veneer of civilization is wafer thin, and actions that scratch or even damage that veneer (particularly with the pretext of protecting this very veneer) may have disastrous consequences.

The temptation to fight barbaric forces with the same methods they use themselves is always great - even more so when such methods can be imposed away from public gaze. Who cares if we dirty our hands in secret or in public, they're dirty regardless. If these practices come to light, there are two ways of dealing with the dirt now visible to all: distance oneself from them and swear of such practices or declare them - against one’s better judgment - necessary and useful, thereby polluting everything that has so far remained clean.

This, then, goes according to the motto that in a pigsty no one notices dirty hands, but along this path lays a slippery slope.

Of course, once torture is permissible for terror suspects, the rights of everyone else could be similarly restricted: What's private is no longer private and eavesdropping becomes a part of everyday life. No one is free of suspicion. People are guilty until proven innocent. And yes, perhaps this or that person is a terrorist sympathizer. Because critical comments on social networks make it almost impossible to come to any other conclusion, right?

Then one can apply a little more force, wouldn’t you say? … Because they must know something. And what’s the point of a right to privacy or right to physical integrity anyway? Security should really come first. Because if a little more force can't be used on the protection of freedom, then when can it?

Then the chasm between state and citizens unavoidably opens up, and the erosion of civic rights will soon be cheered on by more than just a few. And why not ... at least something is being done to combat the all-pervasive fear.

And that's where the weird handshake of Islamic terrorism and the national interest, layer by layer, eats away at the raison d'etat of civil rights. First al-Qaeda and now the Islamic State have managed to frighten the West, and security agencies have picked up the ball. Rather than putting the dangers in context they overemphasize them, using the professionally-prepared terror of madman-committed beheadings to push ahead with their plans for mass surveillance - both sides united in their disdain for genuine freedom and democracy.

Posted by Worldmeets.US

It quickly becomes clear that a government report exposing torture as useless and counterproductive is an odd aberration, because it puts certain circles in that government in a bad light, making it clear that such practices are not what they pretend them to be. Yet it also shows that our societies have the capacity to practice self-criticism and depart from the wrong path. That is in stark contrast to totalitarian regimes that get ever-more deeply bogged down in their own insanity, only to sink in their own ashes or drag the world down with them.

Therefore, such a report is to be welcomed, because the alternative is far worse - and to hell with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.