We Don't Torture?

The Senate recently voted on an amendment to an appropriations bill which would prohibit all United States entities such as the military and CIA from torturing any enemy combatants or prisoners of war. The amendment sponsored by Senator John McCain (R-AZ) passed overwhelmingly (90-9). The White House, however, was opposed to the amendment. The President has said that the United States is following the law, and it is not torturing any of the prisoners or detainees it is holding. For this reason, the White House opposed the amendment and has even threatened to veto the bill in the event the amendment remains apart of the bill. (It should first be noted that this President has not vetoed any legislation to date, so the threat of a veto seems empty at best.) The White House opposed the amendment to the point that it made a point of having VP Cheney go to the Hill to try and whip votes.

It is disingenuous for a White House to say that it is following the law, not torturing anyone, (although it was caught red handed when it tortured prisoners in Abu Gharib), and being opposed to an amendment which requires the administration to continue to do exactly what the administration says it is doing. In other words, the administration says it is complying with the proposed bill. If it is complying with the proposed law, why would the administration be concerned with it becoming law? If what the administration is telling the public is truthful, then the administration is opposed to a law requiring it to continue operating in the exact fashion that it is currently acting.

Opposition to something that would require no change should make people suspect that what the administration is telling the public is not truthful. On this topic specifically, the administration’s credibility is already low. When the War in Afghanistan started and Camp X-ray in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba was first set up, the Administration argued that the detainees were not covered by the Geneva Convention because they did not belong to a national army. Rather, the Administration argued that it was in its own discretion what to do with the detainees. This argument seems to have been, for the most part, died away as the Administration received a significant amount of political pressure from home and abroad. Nonetheless, we know that there were memos circulated within the White House which redefined torture to be only that activity which would cause organ failure or death. It is clear that there is a great deal more that could constitute torture than just these activities. Is this the definition of torture the President uses when he says we don’t torture?

Considering the Administration was opposed to following the mandates of the Geneva Convention from the outset of the military actions, and it has given such an expansive definition to what is permissible, it is unlikely that the Administration is following the Convention regarding torture. It is unlikely that the Senate Amendment would impose any new obligations on the Administration that the Geneva Convention does not already impose. Thus, opposing the amendment is akin to opposing the Geneva Convention, again.

The Washington Post recently reported that there are black-op prisons in various parts of the world including Eastern Europe. The prisoners who are being held there are likely not documented such that the Red Cross can visit them and confirm their health and treatment. (Another requirement of the Geneva Convention). These "ghost detainees" are especially susceptible to being tortured and there is no recourse for them since no one knows of their existence.

It is a disgrace that the Administration opposes following the Geneva Convention and the proposed law. Such opposition establishes the strong inference that a great deal of torture is going on and if this country was appalled by Abu Grahib, then we should prepare ourselves for when the truth comes out about what has been occurring in Gitmo and other detention centers.