Repudiation: Torture

A week ago, Mother Jones reported that Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire has written an amendment for the Defense Bill that would have the United States using torture techniques.

The amendment, which purports to authorize "lawful interrogation methods," actually rescinds Obama's 2009 executive order banning torture. It directs the secretary of defense, attorney general and director of national intelligence to adopt a "classified annex" to the Army Field Manual, complete with a list of interrogation methods that could be used by the inter-agency High Value Interrogation Group (HIG).

This is a bad idea for several reasons.  First is that what we are currently doing is working according to the military and intelligence officials charged with protecting the United States.

Ayotte attempted to prod Defense Secretary Leon Panetta during his June confirmation hearings into suggesting there was something inadequate about the HIG's methods (which don't involve torture), Panetta argued "It's working pretty well." In July, John Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, expressed pride in having helped craft the Army Field Manual standards, and said they reflected "the nexus of the importance of gaining intelligence with the importance of preserving our values as a nation and as an army." The current head of the CIA, David Petraeus, has said the "techniques that are in the Army Field Manual that lays out how we treat detainees, how we interrogate them. Those techniques work." Ayotte wants to give national security officials authority they haven't asked for to use techinques they don't need.

The second problem is that this would likely place the United States in violation of international laws prohibiting the use of torture.  The Harvard Human Rights Journal has a lengthy discussion of the history and current state of laws regarding torture.  Part of this is directly germane.

The United States has recently ratified the Convention Against Torture, but the campaign to accomplish this took nearly twenty years. The United States’ long refusal to ratify the Convention Against Torture is indicative of its general unwillingness to subscribe to the treaty-based regime concerned with international hion Act of 1991.

The holding of a case decided under the Alien Tort Claims Act spurred Congress to pass the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991. This legislation was aimed at mitigating the effects of torture. Under the Act, a torturer acting under actual or apparent authority or color of law may be liable in a civil action for damages to the victim. Several limitations restrict the eligibility of claims under this Act: the claimant must exhaust all domestic remedies (in the original state) before invoking the Act; and claims are subject to a ten-year statute of limitations.

The Act uses the definition of torture established by the Convention Against Torture, a definition that addresses physical and mental suffering. The latter includes the actual infliction, or even threatened infliction, of severe pain, suffering, or mind-altering procedures. Alternatively, other procedures calculated to disrupt profoundly the senses or the personality, threats of imminent death, and threats to do any of these actions to someone else are also included in this definition. Courts have interpreted the Torture Victim Protection Act to expand rather than limit the Alien Tort Claim Act. Furthermore, courts have ruled that claims under these two acts are not barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

In addition to the 1991 Act, the Torture Victim Relief Act of 1998 and Torture Victim Relief Reauthorization Act of 1999 have appropriated more funding to further the campaign against torture and facilitate the rehabilitation of the victims. Though it does not necessarily counteract U.S. reluctance to join international legislation against torture, this domestic legislation does demonstrate some U.S. effort to provide legal remedies for torture victims.

Third, it does not work.  I would be willing to consider setting aside my ethical concerns about hurting other people if I thought that doing so would be effective in safeguarding my country.  For purposes of this discussion, opinions are easy to find but Live Science added more in 2007.

As a rule, torture is not an effective method of extracting information from prisoners, most experts agree.

"If anything useful came out these interrogations in Iraq, we would have heard about it," said Alfred McCoy, a University of Wisconsin-Madison historian and author of "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, From the Cold War to the War on Terror" (Holt Paperbacks, 2006).

Some good news.  Yesterday Human Rights First reported that a group of forty retired admirals and generals sent two letters to the committee that is considering the defense bill and its amendments.  They also provide the two letters.  Regarding Sen. Ayotte's amendment, they wrote in part.

We worked closely with Senator McCain in 2005 to pass the Detainee Treatment Act which banned torture and limited lawful interrogation to techniques listed in the Army Field Manual.  In 2008, we shared our insights with Presidential candidates from both parties that torture, as well as cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, undermines our security at home and our moral standing in the world.  Members of our group stood behind President Obama when he signed an Executive Order ending torture on his second day in office.  The Executive Order mandated that all federal agencies comply with the military's high standards in the Army Field Manual.

Amendment 1068 to the defense bill would repeal the Executive Order banning torture, undermine a key aspect of the Defense Treatment Act by permitting some service members to engage in interrogation techniques outside the Army Field Manual, and would send interrogation tactics by other agencies underground.  Amendment 1068 sets the stage for a return to Abu Ghraib.

They went on to write that torture is unreliable and counterproductive.  In their second letter, they call for Congressional oversight of detention legislation.  Both letters are at links from Human Rights First and are well worth taking the time to read in full.

I understand that some see limiting torture as a mistake because they do not understand that it is not an effective technique.  I also understand that some politicians find it expedient as an election or reelection talking point.  Patriotic Americans should rise above such limitations and do what is right for the United States, not turning to torture.

Praise: Marine Corps Implementation of Repeal of DADT

It was not long ago that many religious and social conservatives were hysterical that the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) would result in harm to the military.  My prediction was far more optimisitic.

The repeal of DADT and subsequent adjustments of military policy will end up strengthening the United States military.  When soldiers do not need to hide who they are, they will be more confident fighters.  When soldiers are not making assumptions about their fellow soldiers, they will be more confident fighters.  The necessary social bonding of our soldiers and sailors will enhance performance in the long run.

Today's Marine Corps Times has an interview of Marine Corps Commandant Jim Amos, who once opposed the repeal of DADT.

“I’m very pleased with how it has gone,” Amos said in an Associated Press interview during a week-long trip that included four days in Afghanistan, where he held more than a dozen town hall-style meetings with Marines of virtually every rank.

More of the article.

The apparent absence of angst about gays serving openly in the Marines seemed to confirm Amos’ view that the change has been taken in stride, without hurting the war effort.

In the AP interview, he offered an anecdote to make his point. He said that at the annual ball in Washington earlier this month celebrating the birth of the Marine Corps, a female Marine approached Amos’s wife, Bonnie, and introduced herself and her lesbian partner.

“Bonnie just looked at them and said, ‘Happy birthday ball. This is great. Nice to meet you,’ ” Amos said. “That is happening throughout the Marine Corps.”

Amos said he is aware of only one reported incident in Afghanistan thus far, and that turned out to be a false alarm. He said a blogger had written of a gay Marine being harassed by fellow Marines for his sexual orientation. In an ensuing investigation, the gay Marine denied he had been harassed.

A Defense Department spokeswoman, Cynthia O. Smith, said implementation of the repeal of the gay ban is proceeding smoothly across the military.

“We attribute this success to our comprehensive pre-repeal training program, combined with the continued close monitoring and enforcement of standards by our military leaders at all levels,” Smith said.

Soldiers, Sailors, and Airmen all know the importance of unit cohesion.  The United States has the best trained military on the planet.  General Amos says later in the article that he does not regret opposing the repeal of DADT, but he is a patriotic American soldier.  Like his men, the General rises to the call of duty.  Kudos to General Amos and his brave men and women.

The work now needs to go on for full equality.  Harvard University recently hosted a discussion of the repeal of DADT.  They discussed some of the ongoing concerns.

One continued problem has been that potential employers often ask dismissed veterans for their discharge papers, which reflect the servicemembers’ sexual orientation.

Additionally, the panelists said that many servicemembers who were dismissed for their sexual orientation do not receive full severance pay and veteran benefits, including medical care.

The treatment of partners of gay soldiers is also a continuing problem, according to the panelists. [military veteran Travis] Hengen said he has decided not to go back into the military because his partner would not receive the same benefits as a heterosexual spouse, including access to military bases.

They also discussed the denial of service to transgender individuals.  The road to equality is bumpy, but it does appear to be the good road that we are slowly moving on.

Maybe Praise: Harvard University Considers Better Serving LGBTQ Students

A little over a month ago, I wrote in praise of Elmhurst College adding sexuality as an optional part of their admissions form that goes into home life and student interests.  As reported on Care2, now Harvard University is reconsidering doing the same.  The Harvard Crimson, the oldest college paper in the United States, offered a positive opinion of the concept on Monday.

We welcome the College’s decision to offer students the option to self-identify as queer. Such a question does not force students to pick a label while offering students who wish to utilize the option the opportunity to show the College another aspect of their identity.

Harvard prides itself on recognizing the diversity of our student body, through demographic questions and public events such as Diversitas. Public recognition of diversity with regard to sexual orientation and gender identity is no different, and this move will reaffirm the College’s commitment to diversity in all its forms. As with other identity questions, providing applicants with the option of self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender shows that Harvard acknowledges and values these unique aspects of their identities.

While many universities in the United States have some claim to fame, Harvard is the best known around the world.  When it takes a stand other schools, both here and abroad, take notice.  I hope that Harvard listens carefully to the encouragement of their Crimson editorial staff.  This could be very good for the school and for the outside community.