Torture Is...

It Depends Upon What
The Meaning of the Word “Torture” Is


President Bush has said flatly that the US “does not torture.” Yet, he says that, because of a Supreme Court ruling, there is a need for more “clarity.” Bush wants to make sure that there is an agreement in congress that certain interrogation techniques are given legal protection via new laws. These techniques, according to Bush, are essential for the continuation of a “program” that has been successful in producing valuable information. Bush argues that these interrogation techniques may be “harsh,” but that they do not comprise “torture.”

At his 15 September 2006 press conference, Bush said:
"This debate is occurring because the Supreme Court ruling said that we must conduct ourselves under the common article three of the Geneva Convention. And that common article three says that--you know--there will be no outrages upon human dignity. That's like very vague. What does that mean? Outrages upon human dignity? That's a statement that's wide open to interpretation."

It appears that Bush is acting on a fear that the interrogation practices that his “program,” evidently, has used for some time, needs legal protection via new laws -- because, if a jury simply applied Geneva Convention standards, as a basis to evaluate the legality of current interrogation techniques, without “clarification,” via new congressional action, then he and his chain of command could be held criminally liable.

The Geneva Convention provision, that Bush cited, prohibits "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment." It is amazing that Bush would argue that what constitutes “outrages upon human dignity” is vague and open to interpretation. Don't we know an "outrage upon human dignity" when we see it? Anyone looking at the pictures from Abu Ghraib would not be confused whether those pictures reveal such “outrages.”

Far from fearing that the Geneva standard is too “vague,” that someone might not really understand if a specific practice is an “outrage upon personal dignity,” or not, it seems obvious that Bush is afraid that the Geneva standard is, in fact, too definitive. His interrogators, evidently, very well know that their “harsh” methods would be universally condemned as an “outrage,” therefore against the Geneva Convention, and, therefore against US law. So, the interrogators must have legal protection, via laws that give more "clarity," the story goes, or the program will need to end.

Do we torture? Bush says “no,” and now we can see how Bush justifies that “no,” regardless of his certain knowledge of many outrageous interrogation practices that his administration has sanctioned. The Bush justification goes something like this: We do not torture prisoners, because, the word “torture” means to treat prisoners in such a way as to violate the Geneva Convention. And we do not violate the Geneva Convention, because our interrogation practices are not an “outrage to human dignity.”

What Bush seeks to do is to buttress his weak justification, a justification that no jury would buy, with this additional statement: “And the congress has clarified, via law, that our practices do not violate the Geneva Convention -- therefore we do not torture.”

The arrogance is amazing. And the cynical political calculation is amazing. The fact that this issue is coming to a head six weeks before election is not a happenstance. But surprisingly, and refreshingly, Rove's playbook is not working quite like planned because Republican senators, rather than Democratic senators, are leading the opposition to the proposed Bush legislation. These Republican senators are receiving grief, but nothing like the insult, accusation and venom that certainly was planned for the Democrats had Democrats led the opposition.