Torture as a form of weapon has been in practice since ancient times and is a common tool used by the military to extract crucial information from enemy informants and spies. In the US, torture takes place at several different levels. Domestically, the US prison systems are the primary locations where select prisoners can be elaborately tortured in many different ways without the outside world having any knowledge of such happenings. This paper, however, will focus on the known use of torture in the past administrations, torture methods used by the US Military (especially offshore), some of the rules and regulations in effect to prevent torture and probable reasons for the human rights abuse due to torture.
Historical Use of Torture
While the US took place in many armed conflicts beginning with the two World Wars, most of the torture began in the US military as early as 1901. This occurred when the US military tortured and slaughtered prisoners in the Philippines in the Philippine-American war of 1901. (Woodard) In fact, Colin Woodard makes an interesting observation when he says that torture almost disappeared in the 19th century, only to make a vengeful comeback in the 20th century.
In the early wars, most torture techniques focused on providing a higher level of physical pain. Most officers were accustomed to using methods such as third-degree, use of the garrote or similar devices to inflict pain et.al. The idea was that a prisoner would confess or divulge secrets being unable to bear the sheer intensity of the pain. The US military used a combination of physical and psychological torture throughout the Cold War era. However, post the Cold War, Washington resumed advocating the importance of human rights by ratifying the U.N Convention against Torture in 1994. It was President Bill Clinton, who included language in the draft bill to include the word ‘mental.’(McCoy) In this manner, Washington allowed the ban on physical torture, but ensured that psychological forms of torture as well as sensory deprivation and self-inflicted pain stayed out of the scope of the convention. (McCoy) One must, however, note that International Law as well as the Geneva Convention together bans all forms of torture, whether physical or psychological.
The last decade and a half saw important, yet undesirable, events unfolding such as 9/11 that led President Bush to push for extreme methods including torture to gain critical information. In accordance with Bush’s ideas, the administration attorneys drafted the following orders – “(1) The U.S President is beyond the law, (2) Torture is acceptable in national interests, and (3) the US Navy base at Guantanamo Bay would hereby not be counted as US territory.” (McCoy) These, and similar rules, laid the groundwork for the CIA and the military researching and introducing newer and more horrible forms of torture. The next section will discuss in details some of the torture methods used by the US Military at their offshore bases.
U.S Military Torture Methods & Tactics
As mentioned, the 60s and 70s saw more of a physical form of torture in the wars that the US Military got involved. One should note that just as the US Military tortured the suspects or Prisoners of War (PoW’s) that they captured the enemy side did the same to US soldiers as well. The only difference, however, was that the US carried out some of these programs in a well planned operation and sometimes under the guise of counterinsurgency.
In Vietnam, for instance, (under President Nixon) the US military adopted a policy of carrying out extreme acts of torture through the Saigon Police and Military under the infamous ‘Phoenix Program.’ In the process, the US government bankrolled various uniformed people and trained them in acts of torture that happened under the watchful eye of the US military. (Luce) Standard acts of torture included locking a person’s head between two steel bars and forcing water down the throat, beatings, administering of electric shocks designed to lead a person to insanity. (Luce) These acts of torture resulted in the victims either dying from the wounds received or being driven to insanity. Most activists, therefore, accuse the US military of using Nam as a trial ground.
After Vietnam, the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 was the next major theatre. However, the US military in this case did not get directly involved but supported the Kuwaiti forces. In case of the US, the next major war was the post 9/11 War on Terror that provided an apt theater for the US forces to continue the policy of torturing certain high value operatives who had knowledge of terrorist groups or their agendas. Although, torture had been outlawed both under International Law as well as the United States Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Bush administration legalized some of the torture methods given the urgency of the situation and the armed forces followed the new ground rules to the letter. (Fish)
In response to George Bush’s call for military retaliation, the US military established certain facilities or detention centers whose main aim would be to house those prisoners who could provide valuable input to the war effort in the form of intelligence.
Abu Ghraib – The city is home to the Abu Ghraib prison. After the Iraqi war, the prison fell into the hands of the US military in 2003. The military officers guarding the prison perpetrated some of the worst forms of torture and human abuse under the name of ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques,’ which was, in fact, a sophisticated name for systematic mental and physical torture. (McCoy) The forms of torture used in the Abu Ghraib facility under this technique included rape, sodomy with foreign objects, the use of un-muzzled dogs to bite and severely injure prisoners, and beating prisoners to death. (Cohn) In addition, the US military also implemented techniques such as ‘stress positions’ where certain prisoners were made to stand or kneel or maintain just one position for days on end. (McCoy) In most other cases, other similar forms of torture were carried out including physical beating, showing gay porn, long interrogation hours, being asked the same questions over and again by different interrogators et.al. The worst violations occurred when prisoners were made to stand naked or piled up naked on one another in grotesque positions.
Camp Nama – During the War on Terror in Iraq, the US Military opened a secret prison at the Baghdad International Airport. Most of the captives were brought to the prison by squads formed from the Special Air Service and Special Boat Service squadrons. This was a joint US-UK military operation. The level of torture at this facility (largely run and perpetrated solely by the US Military) was so horrible that even members of the Pentagon and British personnel found it unacceptable. Torture methods included being held in cells the size of dog kennels, prisoners being hooded, and subjected to electric shocks. The military officers randomly took prisoners to sound proof shipping containers for extended periods of time – no one knew or heard anything about what might have taken place in those containers. (Cobain) The reason why Camp Nama did not turn as notorious as Abu Ghraib was because photography was banned and there is no documentary evidence as to the happenings in that place.
According to an inquiry by the New York-based NGO - Human Rights Watch, detainees were subjected to "beatings, exposure to extreme cold, threats of death, humiliation and various forms of psychological abuse or torture" at the JOC. The New York Times has reported that prisoners were beaten with rifle butts and had paintball guns fired at them for target practice. (Cobain) But these are not backed with the kind of evidence that was obtained from Abu Ghraib or the Guantanamo Bay facility.
Guantanamo Bay – This offshore facility located in Cuba was one of the most secure locations to house hundreds of detainees and terrorist suspects from Afghanistan, possibly from Al-Qaeda. The location of the facility primarily meant that the US did not run the risk of prison breaks and since the facility was not on US soil any violations that occurred during interrogation could not be tried in the US courts. (Herman) The most important point about this prison was that its inmates were not there to serve time under a court sentencing, but rather to provide crucial inputs to the military on the future plans of the Al-Qaeda.
Under the aegis of the CIA, the interrogators came up with new ways of torture that were deeply disturbing at a psychological level. The inmates at Gitmo were subjected to various tortures such as Waterboarding, where the victim is tilted at a slight angle with the face covered and water is poured slowly on the face to give a feeling that the victim is drowning. This technique makes it difficult for the victim to breathe and eventually leads to the victim vomiting or in extreme cases suffering from severe lung infections. But in all cases, the victim experiences a ‘near death’ feeling. (McCoy) Other techniques of torture included the ones at the Abu Ghraib facility, including induced sleep deprivation, loud music played in the room, cranking up the cooling system in the room and in some cases even willful killing or summary executions.
In all, whether it was the Abu Ghraib facility or Gitmo, the CIA perfected its three pronged psychological torture formula, namely a joint attack on a person’s individual psyche, sensory receptors, and cultural identity. But one cannot say with certainty that the CIA has moved its torture mechanisms entirely from psychological to physical. Professor Marjorie Cohn illustrates this as follows: “A military consultant with close ties to Special Operations told Hersh that war crimes were committed in Iraq and no action was taken. “People were beaten to death,” he said. "What do you call it when people are tortured and going to die and the soldiers know it, but do not treat their injuries?" the consultant asked rhetorically. ‘Execution.’ (2004) This statement is self explanatory about the nature of torture that might have taken place in these prisons. This statement also tells the reader that the US committed possible war crimes in breach of the Geneva Convention and other International Laws.
Effects of Torture
Most people believe that torture affects only the victims. While this is true, it also affects the person perpetrating the torture. In his review, Colin Woodard states that medical and psychiatric studies of torture victims in Ireland, Argentina and elsewhere found that torture frequently led to lifetime mental health disorders among its victims. Similarly, the very act of torturing over and over again dulled human sensitivity and produced callous and sadistic human beings among the torturers. Torture is nothing less than the very destruction of the human spirit. (Woodard)
Therefore, when a nation allows its soldiers to torture others, it is, in fact, creating a bigger problem for its own self by producing sadistic human beings. Post-war when these people go back home, they could likely be a threat to their own communities since they too undergo a similar kind of alteration in their thinking and conscience. As for victims of the torture, the effects are far worse since the kind of degrading and inhuman treatment meted out during torture tends to scar people for life and lead them to extreme ends. For instance, they could turn insane or, on the other hand, turn into criminals or terrorists to avenge the torture they faced at the hands of the enemy.
Regulations against Torture
Torture in any form or manner amounts to human rights abuse is ingrained in various international laws. Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, both of which provide that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. (HREA1) This Convention was adopted as far back as 1984 and has been in force since 1987. The term ‘Torture’ includes a wide variety of acts including, but not limited to, brutal beatings, electric shocks, possible sexual exploitation and rape, prolonged solitary detention, hard labor, near drowning and/or suffocation (as in waterboarding), mutilation, and hanging for prolonged periods. While international law does not list out these acts, it is unequivocal in its stance on torture as any act that cruel, inhuman and degrading to a victim or a detainee. (HREA2) In addition, the Geneva Convention also calls for the humane treatment of prisoners of war and other civilians during a military conflict.
In the US law, the Bill of Rights prohibited torture as far back as 1890. However, in 2004, the Immigration and Nationality Act was amended to make aliens who, while overseas, have committed torture, extrajudicial killings, or particularly severe violations of religious freedom, inadmissible to the United States, and therefore deportable. (American Journal of International Law 503) Further, the US is also a signatory to a number of international conventions and agreements against prevention of torture, including the UN Convention against Torture, Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (HREA1) Further, the US Military’s own field manuals expressly prohibit all of the torture techniques that were used against detainees in its offshore prison camps.
However, the incidents that did happen at these facilities prove beyond doubt that while rules and regulations were in their place, nothing could be done when the administration of the particular country was hand in glove with the people who perpetrated torture in these facilities. When President Barack Obama took over, the facilities at Guantanamo Bay were still in place. In order to appease activists, the President in his initial days in office issued an Executive Order prohibiting cruelty, but did not take the action that was expected. Although, the Democrats could have taken strong steps in the direction of the International Law, they did not do so for fear being seen by the public as a weak administration with a diluted stand. Recently, President Obama formally endorsed provisions of an international treaty banning torture and the inhuman and cruel treatment of detainees held by the US overseas, thus, repealing the legal interpretation of the George W. Bush administration that US Laws did not apply to detainees held overseas by the US Military and allied organizations. (DeYoung) With the signing of this treaty, the State Department has also agreed that that the definition of ‘U.S Territory’ covers all areas under U.S. jurisdiction and area that the United States “controls as a governmental authority,” including the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and “with respect to U.S.-registered ships and aircraft.” (DeYoung) This modification in the definition is important since there were also a number of instances when the US Military detained prisoners on its warship and, subsequently, carried out torture and related acts on these ships.
However, the acts at Abu Ghraib (and Camp Nama) went over and beyond the techniques sanctioned by the Bush Administration. The acts of torture in these facilities destroyed all sense of human dignity and respect among the captives; many died in custody while those who survived suffered from long term physical and mental damage. (McCoy) From this perspective, if one examines the fate of those who perpetrated such acts, one sees that newer rules and regulations are of no apparent use. The whole incident culminated in the prosecution of nine low level US military solider, but no charges were pressed on any of their superiors or other higher ranking officials. It, then, becomes the duty of the administration to bring these perpetrators to the courts and try them in a proper and befitting way.
Human Rights Abuse - Reasons
Clearly, the US Military has violated Human Rights in all the detention camps mentioned as well as in many other battle situations around the world. There are various reasons for administering torture in both war and war-like situations. In order to understand the reasons for torture and consequent human rights abuse, we must take into account the arguments presented by pro-torture supporters. Mirko Bagaric states in his article three reasons in favor of torture and alleged abuse of human rights: “First, no right or interest is absolute. Secondly, rights must always yield to consequences, which are the ultimate criteria upon which the soundness of a decision is gauged. Lost lives hurt a lot more than bent principles. Thirdly, we must take responsibility not only for the things that we do, but also for the things that we can - but fail to - prevent.” (Case for Torture). Bagric’s argument primarily hinges on the fact that human rights have no place in a scenario where there is a real and evident threat to a nation, its people and their well-being. His argument is based on the Utilitarian ethics that states that the interest of the majority is paramount to the interests of a few people. Further, Bagric claims that not using torture in life and death situations is not only highly absurd but absolutely necessary. Having read this, one cannot entirely deny his claim, but how does one determine that the prisoner in captivity is, in fact, the person with the right knowledge to prevent an incident. This claim might hold true in cases where a few men of the Al-Qaeda or the Taliban are caught and tortured for information, but still does not explain why prisoners in Abu-Ghraib and Afghanistan with little knowledge (some even innocent) were subjected to horrible tortures with at least some of them arguably innocent (as found later). The US Military officers did not bother finding out about their culpability before torturing them and Bagric’s argument cannot hold true here since it was not a situation where a city or a community was at stake (it was a war scenario).
One can only say that torture that exceeds the limits of decency and that stands in violation of human dignity should be censured by state administrations (although that never happens even globally).
Conclusion
In conclusion, one can understand the US administration has historically condemned the use of torture publicly, but has never shied away from using it in a war theatre or even when the situation was not dire. However, the gross violations of all conventions that occurred in Abu Ghraib and Gitmo, as well as the subsequent cover up that the government undertook clearly points to the problem. The methods of torture were not only brutal, but also inhuman and degrading. While torture in reasonable limits is standard as per the Utilitarian view, unjustified torture on probable innocents would not be expected from a civilized country like the US. The case with the US government is that it’s easier said than done. Even the Obama government, has not been successful in entirely closing Gitmo, although it has signed treaties ratifying the prevention of torture on US territories. While rules, treaties and regulations are all acceptable, implementation is a problem since it requires a strong will from the US administration to enforce the same.
Works Cited
Bagaric, Mirko. “A Case for Torture.” The Age Online. 17 May 2005. Web. 25 Nov 2014.
Cobain, Ian. “Camp Nama: British personnel reveal horrors of secret US base in Baghdad.” The Guardian. 1 Apr 2013. Web. 25 Nov 2014.
Cohn, Marjorie. “Torture of Prisoners in US Custody.” Historians against the War. 24 May 2004. Web. 24 Nov 2014.
“Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.” Human Rights Education Association. (HREA1) n.d. Web. 25 Nov 2014
DeYoung, Karen. “Obama administration endorses treaty banning torture.” The Washington Post. 12 Nov 2014. Web. 25 Nov 2014.
Fish, George. “The CIA and Questions of Torture.” Solidarity. Dec 2007. Web. 24 Nov 2014.
Herman, Arthur. “The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard.” Commentary Magazine. 01 Jun 2009. Web. 25 Nov 2014.
Luce, Don. “The Tiger cages of Vietnam.” Historians against the War. 30 Nov 2004. Web. 24 Nov 2014.
McCoy, Alfred. “The US has a history of using Torture.” Global Research. 07 Dec 2006. Web. 24 Nov 2014.
"New U.S. Legislation Excludes Alien Torturers, Extrajudicial Killers, and Abusers of Religious Freedom". The American Journal of International Law (American Society of International Law) 99 (2): 502–503. 2005.
“Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment.” Human Rights Education Association. (HREA2) n.d. Web. 25 Nov 2014.
Woodard, Colin. “The History of Torture – Why we can’t give it up?” The Quarterly Journal of Military History (MHQ). 09 Aug 2011. Web. 24 Nov 2014.
