Why do states almost universally condemn and practise torture at the same
time?
No state admits to carrying out torture, but a great number of states engage
in it. It cannot be admitted because it is illegal in all circumstances.
States therefore find various means to get around the prohibition. This is
what I believe Jay Bybee and John Yoo did in the story I tell in Torture
Team. It was a deplorable example of poor lawyering. I explain the
context in testimony I
gave to the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee last week.
Is torture really acceptable during any campaign of conflict? Do Western
governments have the right to suspend habeas corpus, even during a conflict?
Is torture a real alternative where soft techniques to extract information
have failed?
The 1984 Convention prohibiting torture makes it clear that there are no
circumstances in which torture is permissible. Beyond its illegality,
history indicates that torture provides unreliable information, undermines
authority and degrades the morale of those who are engaged in it.
Are there any claims of abuse by unlawful enemy combatants that you believe
to be utterly without merit? If so, what percentage do you believe to be
totally fabricated?
In researching Torture Team, it became clear to me that whatever
illegalities are occasioned by Guantanamo and whatever abuses have occurred,
the use of torture has been limited to only a select group of individuals at
that camp. Abuse rising to the level of torture seems to have been more
widespread at facilities in Kandahar and Bagram, in Afghanistan.
Was British territory used to transport persons to places where they would
be subjected to torture? If so, is it likely that members of the British
civil service and/or members of the British executive knew about it?
There are allegations that that the United Kingdom authorities may have been
complicit in the carrying out of torture. However, the facts have not yet
been established. It may be that these issues will come before a court of
law.
To what extent do you think the US Government is involved in the treatment
of terror suspects? Or is it just the actions of certain individuals who
believe they owe their country?
The Bush Administration has spun a narrative that says that the decision to
move to aggressive techniques on detainees came from the bottom up. My book
shows that in relation to one detainee, Detainee 063, the abuse was a result
of a decision making from the top and pressure imposed directly on people on
the front line. I explained this in my testimony
before Congress.
The Administration has identified some bad eggs; unfortunately, they are at
the upper echelons of the Administration.
What consequences would the use of controlled “legislative” violence in the
interrogation of suspects have for our present understanding of Human
Rights?
In my view, the move to abusive interrogation has deeply undermined the United
States' ability to promote respect for international human rights law. For
that reason I deeply regret what has happened and sincerely hope that the
United States will take corrective measure and bring its own house in order
before inaction compels prosecutors and judges in other jurisdictions feel
the need to intervene.
How do you feel about the fact that some of the supposedly innocent men
that have been freed from Guantanamo have gone back to rejoin Al Qaeda and
detonated explosives amongst innocent civilians in Iraq?
I am very troubled by this news. It is right to be concerned about news
reports that indicate that individuals released from Guantanamo may have
been involved in suicide bombings or other terrorist activities. That said,
it is not clear whether these individuals were already committed to such
activities or whether the experience they suffered in Guantanamo has turned
them into terrorists. The facts remain unclear; if I have learned anything
from writing Torture Team, as well as my previous book Lawless
World, it is that one should treat news reports and claims from various
parties with a great deal of scepticism before the facts have been properly
established.
Are European countries that allowed rendition-flights to Guantanamo
complicit in violating the absolute prohibition on torture under
international law? If so, how can these countries be held accountable?
Article 4 of the Convention prohibiting torture, criminalises "an act by
any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture".
What constitutes complicity or participation will turn on the facts of a
particular case. Knowing support for rendition flights, or turning a blind
eye in circumstances in which torture is seen as likely or reasonably
foreseeable, could constitute complicity or participation. Again, it turns
on the facts, which are to be established.
If it is widely accepted (and confirmed by psychiatrists and former
interrogators alike) that people will say pretty much anything under torture
then why is it still carried out by democratic governments that profess to
adhere to the rule of law?
Some have suggested that the use of torture in the "War on Terror"
has less to do with the desire to obtain reliable information than a macho
desire to show that the United States can be tough. This seems to be
reflected in President Bush's most recent intervention, when on March 8,
2008 he vetoed legislation that had passed through Congress that would have
prohibited the CIA from using techniques that I write about in my book.
What compensation has the British or American governments paid to
Guantanamo inmates who have been released, never having been charged, after
three or four years of incarceration? Are there any instances in
international law where a sovereign nation has been compelled to pay
compensation for wrongful imprisonment?
I am not aware that the United States or British governments have paid any
compensation to Guantanamo detainees. In principle, violations of
international and domestic laws prohibiting abusive interrogation and
torture may give rise to a right to compensation, and domestic and
international courts have on occasion ordered the payment of compensation.
Why doesn’t the international committee put more pressure on the US to
resolve this situation?
History shows that it can take time for countries to call to account abuses of
international law. Senator Pinochet was arrested in London eight years after
he had left office. But countries do seem to have turned a blind eye. On
April 17, 2008 British Prime Minister Gordon Brown stood next to President
Bush in the Rose Garden at the White House and said: “The world owes
President George Bush a huge debt of gratitude for leading the world in our
determination to root out terrorism, and to ensure that there is no safe
haven for terrorism and no hiding place for terrorists.” (Read
the transcript.)
President Bush has taken responsibility for approving techniques of
interrogation that, in my view, have amounted to torture. Just a few weeks
earlier President Bush vetoed legislation prohibiting the CIA from using the
very same techniques of interrogation I describe in my book. “The bill
Congress sent me,” President Bush said, “would take away one of the most
valuable tools in the war on terror — the CIA program to detain and question
key terrorist leaders and operatives”. (Click here
for the transcript.)
www.tortureteam.com
Surely an article universally condemning torture has more to do with humanity than left or right.
Rowena, Bruges, Belgium
This left-leaning article omits to two very important points.
1) There is a subjective element to what amounts to torture, i.e. what is tortuous to one person may not be tortuous to another; and
2) there is a big difference between torturing for info you know the victim knows, and "fishing".
Dominic Pearson, Dubai, UAE