[These articles were originally written around 2014-15 for a separate
outlet whose redesign has resulted in several of my pieces being lost.
I'm republishing a number of my favourites on this blog for posterity.]
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into the CIA’s use of torture is finally being published, albeit in heavily redacted form. To begin, let’s focus on what little positivity can be gleaned from a situation in which even our most forgiving hopes of living in a moral, compassionate society are surely set to be torn apart, piece by piece. Whatever this report may reveal and no matter how little of it is actually made public – supposedly no more than 600 pages out of 6,000 – some credit is due to the American government for the report existing at all.
Where I live, in the UK, the idea of our intelligence services being subject to any sort of accountability, or their actions challenged in any meaningful way, feels like a pipe dream at best. All we get are excuses, usually that such activities were legal – as though there has ever been an atrocity committed by a government and its agencies in history which wasn’t – or ‘necessary’, though providing any sort of justification for that claim would supposedly endanger us all. If you thought that line about spies ending every sentence with “…but then I’d have to kill you” was nothing but a ridiculous joke, try listening to a British politician discussing defence for more than five minutes.
The Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into the CIA’s use of torture is finally being published, albeit in heavily redacted form. To begin, let’s focus on what little positivity can be gleaned from a situation in which even our most forgiving hopes of living in a moral, compassionate society are surely set to be torn apart, piece by piece. Whatever this report may reveal and no matter how little of it is actually made public – supposedly no more than 600 pages out of 6,000 – some credit is due to the American government for the report existing at all.
Where I live, in the UK, the idea of our intelligence services being subject to any sort of accountability, or their actions challenged in any meaningful way, feels like a pipe dream at best. All we get are excuses, usually that such activities were legal – as though there has ever been an atrocity committed by a government and its agencies in history which wasn’t – or ‘necessary’, though providing any sort of justification for that claim would supposedly endanger us all. If you thought that line about spies ending every sentence with “…but then I’d have to kill you” was nothing but a ridiculous joke, try listening to a British politician discussing defence for more than five minutes.
There are no investigations currently taking place into the complicity of European nations in CIA rendition and torture. It is easier to sit back and moralize about big, bad America than admit that through collaboration and acceptance, our supposed ideals and values are no less blighted by the contents of the Sentate Committee’s report than our allies across the Atlantic. But let’s not skirt around the uncomfortable truth here. As the dominant superpower of Western society, the United States sets the moral standards by which most of the countries in which we live will operate.
There may be differences here and there, but the culture and values we have accepted since the country’s ascendancy in the aftermath of WW2 have been, at their core, defined by America. Freedom, democracy, capitalism, all ideas and institutions which have existed for a very long time, but been moulded into a shape which is today distinctly American. As we learn more about the horrors which have been perpetrated under the pretense of protecting those values, we must also admit that such actions have desecrated their meaning for all those who believe in them or live under their jurisdiction.
It is interesting to note that the report’s focus appears to have been more on whether the CIA’s extensive use of torture was effective as opposed to whether it was, on any level, moral. It’s not difficult to understand why: in reiterating how ineffective torture was in acquiring information, it exposes the unforgivable hypocrisy of the CIA’s repeated assertions to the contrary to justify their continued use of so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ even though they knew it wasn’t working. Not to mention that even in a society whose values are so clearly and frequently expressed as those of the US, the concept of ‘morality’ is nebulous at best. Make the right excuses, tell the right lies, and the definition of that word can be stretched about as far as you want it to.
Yet in framing the report around whether or not torture worked is to miss the point of why its use is so sickening. Had the CIA discovered some technique which, against all historical precedent, managed to deliver flawless intelligence each and every time, the fundamental question remains, inexorably, a moral one: is a society which allows one person to deliberately inflict pain on another a society in which we should be content to live?
My answer, unequivocally, is no. In the days and weeks to come, we will undoubtedly be repeatedly told that the use of torture saved many lives - though exactly how many, or under which circumstances, must of course remain a secret known only to the privileged few - and the people who perpetrated it were doing so to uphold our values and freedom. This is not true. The people who perpetrated torture have not upheld our values and freedom, but burnt them to the ground by using them as justification for the suffering of others. When it comes to saving lives, even if we disregard the efficacy question, the use of such grotesque actions will only serve to galvanize our enemies and those who might be persuaded by their cause. Perhaps in the short term, attacks were prevented. But how many more will have been seeded long into the future?
And of the supposedly moral grey area in which torture is justifiable under certain circumstances? I refuse to believe that in the time it takes for torture to produce results of any sort, accurate or not, it is impossible to find an alternate method which does not involve disgracing everything we stand for. Some people’s beliefs are so ingrained that they will never betray them no matter how hard they are pushed. On those people, torture is surely useless. For those whose beliefs are not so firmly set, inflicting pain will surely only reinforce the idea that such beliefs are justified and, in a state of otherwise total helplessness, resistance is the last form of victory possible. The CIA paid psychologists more than $80 million to develop torture techniques. Is it really so implausible that the same experts, with the same amount of money and the same knowledge of human psychology, could not have come up with a single more benevolent way of extracting information?
We must also not allow ourselves to believe that these events are somehow a one-off, which have never happened before and will never happen again. After all, you don’t need to look very deep to see the long line of precedents in the recent and not so recent history of the United States. Meanwhile, as part of the research for one of my novels, it was striking and shaming to see torture methods used by the British in Northern Ireland in the 70s – sleep and food deprivation, stress positions, sensory overload – reappearing as part of the Senate Committee’s report. From the days of Empire to WW2, the British relationship with torture goes back a shamefully long way.
Sadly, that’s true of human history in general: people’s willingness to inflict pain on others from a position of power is an unwavering constant no matter how far back you look. The difference these days is that the pleas of ignorance which have traditionally been used as a shield are slowly but surely losing credibility. Whatever faults social media may have, it has been unprecedented in lifting the veil on the cruelties and abuses which have gone unspoken for centuries. Today, the only way to ignore the institutional rot which has been festering in the heart of our establishments is to make the choice of deliberately turning away your head.
It is interesting to note that the report’s focus appears to have been more on whether the CIA’s extensive use of torture was effective as opposed to whether it was, on any level, moral. It’s not difficult to understand why: in reiterating how ineffective torture was in acquiring information, it exposes the unforgivable hypocrisy of the CIA’s repeated assertions to the contrary to justify their continued use of so-called ‘enhanced interrogation’ even though they knew it wasn’t working. Not to mention that even in a society whose values are so clearly and frequently expressed as those of the US, the concept of ‘morality’ is nebulous at best. Make the right excuses, tell the right lies, and the definition of that word can be stretched about as far as you want it to.
Yet in framing the report around whether or not torture worked is to miss the point of why its use is so sickening. Had the CIA discovered some technique which, against all historical precedent, managed to deliver flawless intelligence each and every time, the fundamental question remains, inexorably, a moral one: is a society which allows one person to deliberately inflict pain on another a society in which we should be content to live?
My answer, unequivocally, is no. In the days and weeks to come, we will undoubtedly be repeatedly told that the use of torture saved many lives - though exactly how many, or under which circumstances, must of course remain a secret known only to the privileged few - and the people who perpetrated it were doing so to uphold our values and freedom. This is not true. The people who perpetrated torture have not upheld our values and freedom, but burnt them to the ground by using them as justification for the suffering of others. When it comes to saving lives, even if we disregard the efficacy question, the use of such grotesque actions will only serve to galvanize our enemies and those who might be persuaded by their cause. Perhaps in the short term, attacks were prevented. But how many more will have been seeded long into the future?
And of the supposedly moral grey area in which torture is justifiable under certain circumstances? I refuse to believe that in the time it takes for torture to produce results of any sort, accurate or not, it is impossible to find an alternate method which does not involve disgracing everything we stand for. Some people’s beliefs are so ingrained that they will never betray them no matter how hard they are pushed. On those people, torture is surely useless. For those whose beliefs are not so firmly set, inflicting pain will surely only reinforce the idea that such beliefs are justified and, in a state of otherwise total helplessness, resistance is the last form of victory possible. The CIA paid psychologists more than $80 million to develop torture techniques. Is it really so implausible that the same experts, with the same amount of money and the same knowledge of human psychology, could not have come up with a single more benevolent way of extracting information?
We must also not allow ourselves to believe that these events are somehow a one-off, which have never happened before and will never happen again. After all, you don’t need to look very deep to see the long line of precedents in the recent and not so recent history of the United States. Meanwhile, as part of the research for one of my novels, it was striking and shaming to see torture methods used by the British in Northern Ireland in the 70s – sleep and food deprivation, stress positions, sensory overload – reappearing as part of the Senate Committee’s report. From the days of Empire to WW2, the British relationship with torture goes back a shamefully long way.
Sadly, that’s true of human history in general: people’s willingness to inflict pain on others from a position of power is an unwavering constant no matter how far back you look. The difference these days is that the pleas of ignorance which have traditionally been used as a shield are slowly but surely losing credibility. Whatever faults social media may have, it has been unprecedented in lifting the veil on the cruelties and abuses which have gone unspoken for centuries. Today, the only way to ignore the institutional rot which has been festering in the heart of our establishments is to make the choice of deliberately turning away your head.
We are at a crossroads where what can no longer be denied must either be rejected or accepted. That is why it is vital to not only speak up not only against torture, but other difficult subjects such as racism and the shaming of rape victims, while also arguing in favour of the values you want to see your society embodying going forward. Fairness; equal treatment for all; accountability and regulation of those in power.
Such half-hearted concessions as Barack Obama’s casual acknowledgment of his predecessor’s regime having ‘tortured some folks‘ or his refusal to speak out against institutional racism in American police forces are no longer good enough. Let’s stop accepting the culture of excusing rape; the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in an increasingly predatory version of capitalism; the way we accept vagaries as excuses when we are told torture is the only option, or when TV shows like 24 and video games like Splinter Cell present it as heroic and infallible. Let’s instead remember Star Trek: The Next Generation delivering one of the most powerful depictions of the inherent immorality and futility of torture in the 1992 episode, ‘Chain Of Command: Part II’.
I think most people accept that secrets and confidentiality are important for intelligence agencies to be able to do their jobs effectively. That should not however give them permission to lie to the public and commit atrocities while brushing off any concerns with the patronizing and dangerous insistence that they be blindly trusted no matter what. It means they should be given the powers necessary to do their difficult work while remaining subject to rigorous oversight preventing them from abusing those powers, particularly when it comes to issues of basic human rights, privacy and freedom.
Such half-hearted concessions as Barack Obama’s casual acknowledgment of his predecessor’s regime having ‘tortured some folks‘ or his refusal to speak out against institutional racism in American police forces are no longer good enough. Let’s stop accepting the culture of excusing rape; the redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich in an increasingly predatory version of capitalism; the way we accept vagaries as excuses when we are told torture is the only option, or when TV shows like 24 and video games like Splinter Cell present it as heroic and infallible. Let’s instead remember Star Trek: The Next Generation delivering one of the most powerful depictions of the inherent immorality and futility of torture in the 1992 episode, ‘Chain Of Command: Part II’.
I think most people accept that secrets and confidentiality are important for intelligence agencies to be able to do their jobs effectively. That should not however give them permission to lie to the public and commit atrocities while brushing off any concerns with the patronizing and dangerous insistence that they be blindly trusted no matter what. It means they should be given the powers necessary to do their difficult work while remaining subject to rigorous oversight preventing them from abusing those powers, particularly when it comes to issues of basic human rights, privacy and freedom.
On the evidence of the Snowden revelations or this latest report, it is clear that not only is that oversight not in place, but global intelligence agencies are either exploiting legal loopholes or simply lying to get around the few restrictions which do exist. It is telling and damning that the only person likely to see prison time as a result of this report is former CIA analyst John Kiriakou, the man who exposed the agency’s use of torture and is currently serving two and a half years at a facility in Loretto, Pennsylvania. Some perpetrators have even been rewarded: one official who interrogated detainee Gul Rahman, who died in 2002 of hypothermia as a result of conditions at the CIA site in Afghanistan where he was held and tortured, was awarded $2,500 for his ‘consistently superior work’.
The findings of the Senate Committee’s report have already irrevocably damaged the ideas of freedom and democracy that are central to our way of life and what we hope distinguishes us from those who believe in oppression, hatred and murder justified by extremist ideologies. Whether those findings are allowed to disappear quietly after a few weeks once the novelty wears off or if they will continue to inform discussion about what is and is not acceptable in defence of our values will ultimately be decided by our willingness to continue fighting to build the kind of society we aspire to live in and the principles that must be applied to all without exception. Torture is not employed by those who want to hear people talk, but by those who want to hear them scream. Whether those people are called patriots or criminals is a question we will all have to answer, and sooner rather than later.
The findings of the Senate Committee’s report have already irrevocably damaged the ideas of freedom and democracy that are central to our way of life and what we hope distinguishes us from those who believe in oppression, hatred and murder justified by extremist ideologies. Whether those findings are allowed to disappear quietly after a few weeks once the novelty wears off or if they will continue to inform discussion about what is and is not acceptable in defence of our values will ultimately be decided by our willingness to continue fighting to build the kind of society we aspire to live in and the principles that must be applied to all without exception. Torture is not employed by those who want to hear people talk, but by those who want to hear them scream. Whether those people are called patriots or criminals is a question we will all have to answer, and sooner rather than later.
