U.S. Wrong To Pursue Torture Tactics

Since the start of the U.S.' global "war on terror", the abuse of detainees by U.S. officials and the confinement of suspected terrorists in secret locations without any trial or evidence have become common practice. These actions are justified by the claim that they help maintain the security of America's people. Indeed, Congress' passing of the new legislation on torture and military tribunals on Sept. 28, which essentially legalized these acts by the U.S. government, drew praise from President Bush for its promotion of national security, "As our troops risk their lives to fight terrorism, this bill will ensure they are prepared to defeat today's enemies and address tomorrow's threats." If only the torture, abuse and secret detainment of the few would bring about the security of the many. This new Military Commissions Act, as the recent legislation is called, has serious implications for global human rights and for the credibility of the United States in the eyes of the international community. The Military Commissions Act is focused around two main points - the detainment of suspects and their treatment while in U.S. custody. Under the new laws put in place by the Military Commissions Act, the President is given the power to decide who constitutes an "enemy combatant," and there are no criteria or any form of judicial review of the President's decision. Those considered enemy combatants can be detained indefinitely while knowledge of their alleged crime and evidence against them is withheld. They, under the new legislation, are stripped of their right of habeus corpus, meaning they cannot challenge the legality of their detention. The Military Commissions Act also allows that "extreme" forms of interrogation be used to extract information from the suspects, and that any confessions obtained by "cruel, inhuman or degrading" methods can be used against them. International standards, which prohibit such treatment of detainees, have no place in the new legislation. At first glance, the idea of apprehending and torturing terrorists to prevent another Sept. 11 and save thoudands of lives makes complete sense. In fact, it is even slightly appealing. But one must examine the pretext under which this idea is put forth to find the flaws in such an argument and see that torture should never be justified. The idea of using extreme methods to detain and interrogate suspects for the purpose of maintaining national security is based on the "ticking time-bomb" scenario, and all arguments for using torture and unlawful imprisonment start here - a bomb is planted in a densely populated American city, ready to go off at any moment. The government has the man who planted it. He will not speak. Surely any means necessary must be used to force him to disclose the bomb's location or countless lives will be lost. The ticking time-bomb scenario is compelling, but it is not representative of the world we live in. How many of the hundreds of detainees in U.S. custody have knowledge of imminent threats to U.S. security? How many of them have been involved in attacks, not yet carried out on U.S. soil? Does the U.S. government have the answer? This is not to say that the whole idea of a ticking time-bomb is unrealistic. In fact, in 1994, the torturing of a Pakistani bomb-maker by Philippine police helped foil an Al-Qaeda airline plot. The main difference between this scenario and the ticking time-bomb, though, is that the police had no idea that any plot was going to take place. They tortured the man for weeks until - they expressed great surprise that he remained alive - before he gave them information. This case raises some important questions. What if he had known nothing? Would they have tortured him indefinitely until he died? Now that the use of violent interrogation tactics is allowed by U.S. law, what happens when the government captures a man who may or may not have information useful to them? How long should they torture him? If any means necessary are used to gather vital information, what is to stop the government from detaining and torturing the friends, the spouses, the parents, even the children of the suspects? It is clear that the Bush administration's policy on the treatment of detainees constitute human rights violations. The government has had the power, and now has the authority, to kidnap anyone and hold them indefinitely without letting them know of the charges against them. Up until recently, these acts would have been considered clear violations of the rights of these men. The new legislation, though, has made such acts legal under U.S. law. The issue of torture and detainee rights in the face of national security may be complex, but the conclusion is a simple one - in torturing detainees, the U.S. violates human rights and risks becoming like those whom it criticizes. Some will claim that it is acceptable for America to torture because it is done in self-defense, while dictatorships, such as the former regime of Saddam Hussein, use it to create fear and terror. But there is no difference between a democracy using torture for "national security" and a dictatorship using it for the same reason. The U.S. risks losing whatever credibility it had in the fight for "democracy" and "freedom." The U.S. can still promote national security without the use of torture and terror tactics. Thousands of intelligence officers must be trained in the languages and embedded in the communities from which suspected terrorists emerge. The U.S. must show the world that it will not use violent means for its ends. This can be done by creating an atmosphere of trust among the peoples of the world. The London plane bomb plot was not foiled through the use of torture and interrogation, but rather because the neighbors of those who were to carry it out, who opposed the death of innocent civilians, reported to the British government. The U.S. needs to show the people of the world that it is committed to peace, just as the government claims it is. The British Foreign Secretary was correct in her recent assertion that "A counter-terrorism strategy which ignores human rights would fail because we know human rights abuse provides a fertile ground for radicalism and extremism." Torture will not solve the problem of terrorism, it will only exacerbate it.

Staff Columnist Arman Azimi is a 1st-semester undecided major.