Just over the edge of 2011 and this fresh new decade, torture is now solidly installed in America’s repressive arsenal. Not in the shadows where it has always lurked, but up front and central, vigorously applauded by prominent politicians. Rituals of coercion and humiliation seep through the culture, to the extent that before Christmas, American travelers began to rebel at the invasive pat-down searches conducted by the TSA’s airport security teams groping around bosoms and crotches.
Covertly, there was always plenty of torture, just as there were assassinations. After World War II, the CIA’s predecessor, OSS, imported Nazi experts in interrogation techniques. But this was the era of Cold War competition: Uncle Sam the Good against the dirty Russians and Chinese. The U.S. government would go to desperate lengths to counter accusations that its agents in the CIA or USAID practiced torture.
One famous case was that of Dan Mitrione, working for the U.S. Agency for International Development, teaching refinements in torture techniques to Brazilian and Uruguayan interrogators. Mitrione was ultimately kidnapped by the Tupamaro guerillas and executed, becoming the subject of Costa-Gavras’ movie “State of Siege.” The CIA mounted major coverup operations to try to discredit the accusations against Mitrione, quoted as having said to his students: “The precise pain, in the precise place, in the precise amount, for the desired effect.”
The American liberal conscience began to make its accommodation with torture in June 1977, which was the month the London Sunday Times published a major expose of torture of Palestinians by the Israeli armed forces and the security agency Shin Bet. Suddenly, American supporters of Israel were arguing that certain techniques — sensory deprivation, prolonged stress positions while hooded, incarceration in “cells” the size of packing crates, etc. — somehow weren’t really torture or were morally justifiable torture under “ticking time bomb” theory.
Ahead lay the spectacle of Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, and a supposed liberal defender of civil rights, recommending to Israel the notion of “torture warrants,” with the targets of the warrants being “subjected to judicially monitored physical measures designed to cause excruciating pain without leaving any lasting damage.” One form of torture recommended by the Harvard professor was “the sterilized needle being shoved under the fingernails.”
With the Great War on Terror, launched after the World Trade Center attacks of 9/11, torture made its march into the full light of day.
The hands-on executive in this itinerary was George Bush’s Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. At Guantanamo, it was Rumsfeld who gave verbal and subsequently written approval to torture suspects, using the notorious techniques of isolation, sleep deprivation and psychic degradation, with Rumsfeld micromanaging the humiliations.
In the case of Abu Ghraib in Iraq, there is again a trail of evidence showing it was Rumsfeld who personally decreed and monitored stress positions, individual phobias — such as fear of dogs — sleep deprivation and waterboarding. One U.S. Army officer, Janis Karpinski, has described finding in Abu Ghraib a piece of paper stuck on a pole outside a little office used by the interrogators.
It was a memorandum signed by Rumsfeld, authorizing techniques such as use of dogs, stress positions, starvation … On the paper, in Rumsfeld’s handwriting, was the terse instruction, “Make sure this happens!!”
In a June 2010 speech in Grand Rapids, Mich., Bush declared, “Yeah, we waterboarded Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I’d do it again to save lives.” There is no independent evidence that Bush-era torture saved any American lives. As James Bovard wrote this week on our CounterPunch site, the fact that a former president can stand up in public and admit that he ordered torture is a sea change for the American republic.
On the home front, torture as a drastic mode of social control flowered luxuriantly in the America’s prison system, whose population began to rocket up in the 1970s to its present 2.5 million total. Informally licensed male rape went hand in hand with increasingly sadistic solitary confinement with prolonged sensory deprivation — a condition in which some 25,000 prisoners are currently being driven mad.
As the Bush years drew to a close, liberals dared hope that the rule of law would return and with it respect for internationally agreed prohibitions on torture and treatment of combatants. Anticipation grew that the torturers, with the Bush high command at the apex, would face formal charges. Candidate Obama fanned that hope.
In his first State of the Union address, Obama declared to the joint session of Congress that “I can stand here tonight and say without exception or equivocation that the United States of America does not torture. We can make that commitment here tonight.” Within days of this guarantee, Obama’s Justice Department lawyers were telling U.S. judges in explicit terms that the new administration would not be moving on from Bush’s policies on the legal status of renditions and of supposed enemy combatants.
The torture system is flourishing, and the boundaries of the American empire marked by overseas torture centers such as Bagram. There are still detainees in Guantanamo — as of November last year, 174 of them. They are supposedly destined for a Supermax in Illinois.
For the past seven months 23-year-old U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning, first in an Army prison in Kuwait; now in Quantico, Va., has been held 23 hours out of 24 in solitary confinement in his cell, under constant harassment. He faces months, if not years, of the same. Will he end up like accused Chicagoan Jose Padilla, four years in total isolation and silence before his trial in 2007 (convicted as a terrorist and given 17 years), with his lawyer informed by prison staff that Padilla had become docile and inactive to the point that he resembled “a piece of furniture.”
Alexander Cockburn is co-editor with Jeffrey St. Clair of the muckraking newsletter CounterPunch. He is also co-author of the new book “Dime’s Worth of Difference: Beyond the Lesser of Two Evils,” available through www.counterpunch.com. Copyright 2011, Creators.com
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.