[A-List] Torture Is Not an Option - Washington Post Editorial December 27, 2002

["Ralph Johansen" <michele@xxxxxxxx>]

Washington Post Editorial
Friday, December 27, 2002; Page A24

Torture Is Not an Option

WHEN ISRAEL had a policy of applying what it euphemistically termed
"moderate physical pressure" to detainees suspected of terrorist links, the
United States knew what to call it. "Israeli security forces abuse, and in
some cases torture, Palestinians suspected of security offenses," reads the
State Department's human rights report for 1998. Times have changed. The
Israeli High Court of Justice in 1999 struck down the policy that the State
Department had described as "often [leading] to excesses." But the United
States -- suddenly engaged in a struggle against Islamic terrorism -- now
has detained thousands of suspected Islamic terrorists abroad. And suddenly,
practices that bear a striking resemblance to the old Israeli policy are
taking on an American face.

That, at least, is the concern induced by an eye-opening story by Post staff
writers Dana Priest and Barton Gellman. They report that CIA interrogations
of captured al Qaeda and Taliban fighters employ tactics such as depriving
them of sleep, forcing them to assume "awkward, painful positions," and
"softening them up" with beatings by military police and soldiers.
Interrogators may threaten to turn over noncooperative detainees to brutal
foreign intelligence services, and in some instances they have actually done
so. Interrogators have also selectively withheld pain medication from those
already wounded when captured, the story reports.

But unlike the Israelis, for whom moderate physical pressure was open public
policy, the new tactics -- whatever they may be -- are being kept secret.
The government, in fact, denies it is torturing anyone, insisting that all
detainees are being held in a manner consistent with the principles of
international law. But what, then, to make of anonymous comments from
officials involved in the detentions? One is quoted in the story as saying,
"If you don't violate someone's human rights some of the time, you probably
aren't doing your job"? Another says that "our guys may kick them around a
little bit in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath" of their capture.
And while the government denies that its purpose in transferring prisoners
to foreign custody is so that other intelligence services can torture them,
still another official says, "We don't kick the [expletive] out of them, we
send them to other countries so they can kick the [expletive] out of them."

Al Qaeda terrorists mean America great harm, and it is essential that
intelligence operatives obtain as much information as possible from them.
That process, at times, will not be easy. These grillings may not be
governed by the same rules that cover domestic criminal investigative
interrogations. Foreigners detained abroad fighting against the United
States are not entitled to the protections of the Bill of Rights, after all.

But there are certain things democracies don't do, even under duress, and
torture is high on the list. Some of the alleged tactics, while aggressive,
may be legitimate: deceptions, for example, or psychological pressure.
Others -- bright lights and lengthy interrogations that interfere with
sleep -- straddle the line between acceptable and unacceptable conduct.
Without knowing more about what exactly is happening, it's hard to judge.
But beating prisoners is entirely out of bounds. The critical first step is
for the administration to clarify what tactics it is using and which are
still off limits. If administration officials have decided that moderate
physical pressure -- once an abuse -- is now to be the norm in terrorism
cases, the American people ought to know and ought to be able to respond
through their representatives and through individual and organizational
voices. It shouldn't be the administration's unilateral call.


© 2002 The Washington Post Company