The Waterboarding controversy

Barack Obama last month completed his first 100 days in the Oval Office. ‘So far so good’ seemed to be the majority verdict. But now, Obama faces his toughest job yet. Before his election, he said “brutal interrogations [are] an outrageous betrayal of our core values”. Now he is President, is he bold enough to punish those who tortured in America’s name?

Last month, Obama spurred debate on this question when he made public four classified CIA memos, dating back to 2002. Marc Thiessen, who wrote Bush’s speeches, said “President Obama’s decision to release these documents is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible acts ever by an American president during a time of war.” This reaction from Bush’s inner circle is unsurprising, since the texts outlined ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’; the Bush administration’s euphemism for torture, and detailed their use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere.

“I had imagined an experience similar to holding your breath underwater; that was not the case The body is torn between the reflex to inhale and to expel the water rushing into the airway.”

In 2006 we were outraged when a handful of images of torture and abuse at Abu Ghraib prison, in Iraq emerged. The photo which has become emblematic of the scandal is of a hooded, cloaked detainee standing on a box, electrode wires trailing from his fingers. More shocking photos were used less by the news agencies; you might not remember the man smeared with his own faeces. Or the soldiers posing proudly with the corpse of Manadel al-Jamadi. A CIA interrogator called Mark Swanner tortured him to death. He has never faced charges, much like al-Jamadi himself.

There was a flurry of international outrage over the Abu Ghraib abuse photos. Images so degrading do not ‘win hearts and minds’. In the West, it threatened the image of Good vs. Evil that the Bush Administration had projected since 9/11. But public opinion, and the threat of rebellion among the allies in the ‘War on Terror’, was calmed by instant assurances that this was a one-off; the work of “a few bad apples”, as Paul Wolfowitz, then Deputy Defense Secretary said. I preferred to believe that Abu Ghraib was uniquely corrupt amongst the worldwide constellation of American prisons, known and secret. But evidence has built up that proves me wrong in my naivety. Last month, the Senate inquiry into the treatment of detainees in the War on Terror published a 232-page report. It states; “The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own. The fact is that senior officials in the United States government solicited information on how to use aggressive techniques, redefined the law to create the appearance of their legality, and authorised their use against detainees. Those efforts damaged our ability to collect accurate intelligence that could save lives, strengthened the hand of our enemies, and compromised our moral authority.”

“The sensations I felt cannot adequately be put into writing, because I felt them all at once as one rush of terror.”

After losing a second Freedom of Information Act case last month, The Pentagon will release hundreds more images of abuse under the last administration before a deadline of May 28th. Given the outcry over Abu Ghraib, what will the response to these photos be? David Rehbein, national commander of the American Legion, wrote, “Other than self-flagellation by certain Americans, riots and future terrorist acts, what else do people expect…[?]” The real answer depends on Obama’s moral ambition, and the conscience of his attorney general Eric Holder. On the one hand, they can hope hard that any fresh surge of anger the latest photos cause will bounce off Obama’s wall of anti-torture rhetoric. They can wish that people will believe the new guys in Washington are nothing like the old ones. They can pray that when the world heard this President say that America “does not torture”, it was true, having heard Bush use the very same words. But the President has an alternative to wishful thinking. He can seek to prosecute all those who sought to legitimize torture, and those who conducted it, taking the moral stance that his rhetoric promises. That action would send out a clear message that he believes what he said upon his inauguration, “our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example”.

The findings of the Senate inquiry, the memos, and the photos all seem to open the door to prosecution. ‘Even if Obama backs down in order to keep the peace with the Republicans, or simply to avoid the headache, there will still be legal action. Ironically, these will be cases to overturn convictions of the handful of soldiers found guilty of abuses in the Bush years, since they now can demonstrate that they were following orders from the highest level. Charles Graner, photographed giving the thumbs up next to Manadel al Jamadi’s bloody corpse, and next to a pile of naked detainees, is serving 10 years for various gut-churning acts. His lawyer is now seeking a Presidential pardon for this conviction. It would be truly catastrophic if Barack Obama’s only act, prompted by the current torture debacle, was to apologise to convicted torturers.

“My short-lived experiment leaves me still totally unable to conceive of the “pain and suffering” inflicted by genuine, prolonged use of this technique, or how anyone could feel morally justified in doing that.”

The President has got off to a curious start on “the work of remaking America”. On the 20th of April, he assured the CIA that there would be no charges for, in Obama-speak, “operations within the four corners of legal opinions or guidance that had been provided from the White House”. Does following orders constitute a moral defence? I doubt it. But the possibility remains for convictions right up the documented chain of command, which ultimately means George Bush, Condoleezza Rice, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Obama insists that no-one is “above the law” but he cannot afford the political fallout from anything resembling an American Nuremberg trials. If anyone is brought to account, it will be likely be one of the following; Alberto Gonzales, a former White House counsel and attorney general; David Addington, former vice-president Dick Cheney’s chief of staff; Douglas Feith, who was under-secretary of defence; William Haynes, formerly the Pentagon’s general counsel; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, who were both senior justice department legal advisers. These people all had central roles in Bush’s legal team. They planned legislation and manipulated the interpretation of existing laws, such as The UN Convention Against Torture, to shift the boundaries as to what interrogators could get away with. From the president’s viewpoint, they also have a degree of anonymity that would make convicting them less politically explosive than locking up Bush.

The legal territory surrounding this issue is extremely swampy. Obama’s administration considers waterboarding, the most controversial of the ‘Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’, torture. However, according to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, no-one may be prosecuted for something that was ‘legal’ at the time they did it. Of course torture is illegal, but when recently asked by a student whether waterboarding was torture, Condoleezza Rice carefully replied “By definition, if it was authorised by the president, it did not violate our obligations under the Convention Against Torture.”

“The abuse of detainees in US custody cannot simply be attributed to the actions of “a few bad apples” acting on their own.”

Having read the opinions of Cheney, Rice and the rest justifying waterboarding, I became curious to compare my own standards of what torture is to that of the last US administration. There was just one way to do this. I asked three friends to waterboard me, according to the CIA method set out in the Bybee memo. It hardly needs noting that what I underwent was merely a pantomime of the ordeal endured by the real victims at Guantanamo; for the simple reason that I dictated when it began, and when it ceased. I also did not believe my friends intended to kill me.

The experiment

With objects in my hand that I could drop as a signal to stop, I was restrained on a tilted board, my head lowered. Tom Rickard then poured cold water from a height onto a cloth over my face. The sensations I felt cannot adequately be put into writing, because I felt them all at once as one rush of terror. I had imagined an experience similar to holding your breath underwater; that was not the case. The sudden cold water triggers a gasping reflex, but drawing air through the cloth is impossible. Your chest muscles spasm hard against the vacuum. The body is torn between the reflex to inhale and to expel the water rushing into the airway.

I lasted just a few moments, thinking nothing but “!!!!!” before I remembered to give the signal, and the test was stopped. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times by the CIA. Each ‘time’ constitutes up to 40 seconds of pouring before the victim is permitted a couple of free breaths and the torture begins again. My short-lived experiment leaves me still totally unable to conceive of the “pain and suffering” inflicted by genuine, prolonged use of this technique, or how anyone could feel morally justified in doing that. It is obviously illegal under any sane reading of the Convention Against Torture. Obama said such interrogation was symptomatic of America “losing our bearings”. He had better find them again soon; convicting those responsible of these war crimes would be a good place to start.