Human Rights

They're rounding up reporters again in Iran. Since the June 12 "election," "At least 100 journalists and bloggers have been arrested ... and 23 are still being held," states a group that tracks journalistic freedom. "At the same time, around 50 have been forced to flee the country to escape the relentless repression."

Meantime, my wife and I were walking past an Egyptian diplomatic office in downtown DC the other day when we encountered a bunch of very polite demonstrators protesting the imprisonment of Kareem Amer, an Egyptian blogger who was arrested for writing things not unlike some of the comments you see posted here every day. 

So I want to pause to give a major tip of this blog's hat to the American Bill of Rights, especially my favorite one:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ... "

BrentDPayne/Flickr

We've been hearing from the League of Concerned Former CIA Directors recently, so I was interested to see in the new issue of Parameters, one of the Army's professional magazines, an empassioned article by John Wahlquist supporting the Obama administration's recent moves to curtail the American government's use of torture.

Wahlquist, a veteran interrogator who now teaches at the National Defense Intelligence College, writes that:

President Obama's executive order on interrogation provides an excellent opportunity to end abusive practices and to propose a new agenda for intelligence interviewing that increases the capability to collect accurate information from enemy detainees effectively and humanely. Seizing this opportunity is essential to increasing the chances of success for counterterrorism operations worldwide and reducing risks to the lives of American service members and civilians, as well as detainees. Doing so enhances the broader national security agenda without sacrificing American values.

In other words, treating detainees decently improves our intelligence, makes us safer, and protects our system. 'Nuff said.

This is why I think it is essential to conduct a thorough investigation of the U.S. government's unfortunate record of officially-sanctioned torture over the last eight years: Bushies argue that they may have done bad things, but at least, when they made torture national policy, they kept the country safe from attack.

What has got me stewing about this, oddly enough, is the British government's stalwart reaction to losing the American Revolution. In the aftermath of that wrenching disaster, British officials conducted a painful and thorough examination of how to better provide for the security of their nation. It was fortunate they did, because the consequent reforms helped them get in shape to withstand Napoleon two decades later. As Kevin Phillips puts it in his terrific book The Cousins' Wars, "Much of the change that helped to beat Napoleon in Europe was seeded by frustration over defeat in North America."

Bottom line? Just because you have an embarrassing problem, you shouldn't try to hide it, because dealing with it may prepare you for an even bigger challenge down the road. So let's get the torture and interrogation situation straightened out before the next big terrorist attack. My preference, as I've stated before, is for a truth and reconciliation commission that offers an amnesty period during which people would be invited to step forward. Anyone not 'fessing up during that time would face the possibility of prosecution. Again, I think this effort should target those who departed from American history and made torture national policy.

(And follow-up on yesterday: Yes, I do believe torture has two victims, the human suffering it and the human inflicting it. I believe there is a pretty good body of evidence collected on how torturers often are haunted and eroded by their long past acts.) 

Here is a note an Army National Guard lieutenant colonel I know sent to the columnist Charles Krauthammer, who didn't respond:

Mr. Krauthammer,

I don't usually make a point of responding to the talking-head proselytizers in my Sunday paper but your column prompted me to do so.

I'll make this simple. There are NO circumstances under which torture is acceptable. Jack Bauer's "24" makes for great TV but even in a ticking timebomb situation such behavior is inappropriate and illegal. Torture is counter to our moral code, a violation of the Geneva and Hague conventions to which we subscribe and perhaps least understood, but most significantly, counterproductive and ineffective. Nothing else really needs to be said, but if you want more details read on.

I have friends who have been to SERE and instructed SERE students and acted as interrogators. All agree that waterboarding and other such 'enhanced' techniques are good for training (in a strictly controlled environment) our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines on what to expect in captivity. They also agree that it is torture to anyone outside that training environment. Finally, they all agree that torture rarely results in actionable intelligence, as the victim is willing to say most anything to end the torture.

So you must wonder, by what authority is this letter writer speaking? Well, as a Lieutenant Colonel and Combat Arms Battalion Commander in the Army I am responsible for the welfare, training, good order, and discipline of my soldiers. I am responsible for everything they do or fail to do. I am also responsible to follow and issue only those orders that are legal, ethical and moral. Torture of another human being is illegal, unethical and immoral, and I would be duty bound to disobey any such order...just as PFC Lynndie England and SPC Charles Graner (and their many counterparts, senior officers and NCOs at Abu Ghraib) should have done...just as any of my soldiers should disobey should I give such an order. We all have the lessons of Nuremburg to rely upon anytime such questions come to mind; "I was just following orders" is never justification for committing crimes against other human beings.

Before deploying to Iraq last year, I explained these things to my troopers. It is difficult to explain to young (practically) kids, with little experience, and poor knowledge of the world...but if you are caring and committed, and repeat yourself often enough they learn and understand. I told them the most important thing they needed to take away from all their preparations was that while it would be terrible to lose one of them or have one of them seriously physically injured, it would be worse to have them come home physically well and mentally broken because they had somehow lost their humanity. Torture destroys our humanity, and any equivocation (feel free to exercise the Kantian absolutist vs utilitarian argument to your heart's content) on the matter is just bullshit.

. . . If captured I would honor our Armed Forces Code of Conduct to the best of my ability and go to whatever my fate, resolute in the knowledge that our nation remains a last bastion of what is right (or ought to be right) in the world. Torture has no place in America, and Americans have no reason to employ it. War ain't fair, but we have to fight it while maintaining a level of dignity and humanity, jus in bello. This is rough work for people bound to a code of Duty, Honor, Country. Proselytizers, who say but do not act, need not apply. 

To summarize: Those who endorse torture need to think twice about the effect it has on the moral and discipline of our troops. Also, think about his point that torture has two victims: the person suffering it, and the person inflicting it.  

Billie/PartsnPieces/flickr 

This note should remove any doubt that old Obama intends eventually to lift the "don't ask, don't tell" ban on being openly gay in the military.

I think it also is clear that he wants to do it as non-controversially as possible, with all the groundwork laid quietly. The funny thing is, I am pretty sure I have met many openly gay people in the military.

Windy City Times

Atrocities happen in war -- got it. We have the military chain of command and justice system to handle those violations. So the goal should be to go after those who crossed the line and made torture official policy. That was wrong, and I think illegal. 

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images

People have been tortured in our names. That is a fact. If you disagree, what do you know that the Red Cross doesn't?:

The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."

This makes me think more than ever that we need a truth and reconciliation commission -- not to punish the low-level guys who inflicted torture, but to set the record straight on who thought it was a good idea to make the use of torture U.S. national policy. Those are the people who dragged this country's name through the mud, and who also didn't understand that we can't win a war for our values by undermining them.

I was on a panel last night in Manhattan with retired Gen. Barry McCaffrey, the bane of the New York media, and Alex de Waal. McCaffrey was his usual interesting self. Darfur expert De Waal made a comment that struck me: When catastrophe is averted -- famine, civil war, genocide -- the media tends to shrug and ignore the good outcome. The implication, I think, is that successes tend to be neglected while failures are overemphasized, and bureaucrats and diplomats wind up looking more incompetent than they are. I think he is right. As of this morning I don't have any good ideas about how the media might do better in this area, but I'd be interested in suggestions.

De Waal also was quite critical of the International Criminal Court's issuance of an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. Nothing good will come of it, he said, if I am summarizing his views correctly.

ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images