If “torture” is somehow or at least sometimes prohibited now, who can take a breather? Not the detainees. Cruelty, a step below torture, may continue.
The John F. Kennedy “Profiles in Courage” award for courageous actions in speaking truth to power went this year, besides to Congressman Murtha, to Alberto Mora for his valiant efforts to stop the abuse of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. Mr. Mora accepted the award with a warning against a policy of cruelty, a crime in many countries the United States needs as allies.
Whatever the ultimate historical judgment, [the] documents justifying and authorizing the abusive treatment of detainees during interrogation were approved and distributed. These authorizations rested on the three beliefs: that no law prohibited the application of cruelty; that no law should be adopted that would do so; and that our government could choose to apply the cruelty – or not – as a matter of policy depending on the dictates of perceived military necessity.
Until he returned to civilian life recently, Alberto Mora was General Counsel for the U.S. Navy. The story is revealed in his internal memo and further described in the New Yorker earlier this year. After first being alerted to the Army’s abusive interrogations by NCIS, Mora met with friend Steve Morello, general counsel of the Army, who showed him a package of secret military documents about the Guantanamo interrogation policy.
It began on October 11, 2002, with a request by J.T.F.-170’s commander, Major General Michael Dunlavey, to make interrogations more aggressive. A few weeks later, Major General Geoffrey Miller assumed command of Guantánamo Bay, and, on the assumption that prisoners… had been trained by Al Qaeda to resist questioning, he pushed his superiors hard for more flexibility in interrogations. On December 2nd, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gave formal approval for the use of hooding, exploitation of phobias, stress positions, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, and other coercive tactics ordinarily forbidden by the Army Field Manual.
No limits were placed on the extent or combination of these cruel tactics. The path to torture had no obstacles.
Mora went to Gordon England, then Secretary of the Navy, now Deputy Secretary of Defense. Then he confronted William Haynes, general counsel for the Pentagon and protege of David Addington, Dick Cheney’s secrecy-cum-power czar and promoter of detainee interrogation policy. At the time, Mora was unaware that similar interrogation techniques were being practiced outside Guantanamo, such as at Abu Ghraib or the Bagram military base in Afghanistan.
Mora pushed and argued. He threatened to sign a memo depicting the interrogations as “at a minimum cruel and unusual treatment, and at worst, torture.”
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s response was
- to suspend his authorization of the techniques and form a special working group of lawyers, including Mora, to develop interrogation guidelines
- solicit a separate opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel at the DOJ, drafted by another Addingtonian, conservative scholar John Yoo; it effectively superseded the special group — and did not ban cruel treatment of detainees
- sign a report a year later — making it a military order. The report was from the working group and conformed to Yoo’s faulty legal analysis; it was created without the knowledge of Mora or other internal legal critics.
Without Mora’s knowledge, the Pentagon had pursued a secret detention policy. There was one version…aimed at critics. And there was another, giving the operations officers legal indemnity to engage in cruel interrogations, and, when the Commander-in-Chief deemed it necessary, in torture.
The secret detention policy had a secret parallel policy: con the legal critics within the Administration into believing they were making contributions. Lull ’em, shut ’em up. Then blindside ’em.
At an ACLU conference yesterday, Mora stressed the need to eliminate cruelty, in addition to torture. The detention center at Guantanamo Bay is beyond repair from the abusive treatment of its residents. It should be closed altogether, he said.
With the signing of the Military Commissions Act on October 17, 2006, our President continues to govern in arrogant secrecy from his know-nothing bubble. Isolated from clear-headed considerations of national interest, Cheney’s extremist crewmaster and sidekicks may have celebrated prematurely. The law is certain to be challenged, some portions headed for the head.
Which Democrat will lie low, a pragmatic Brer Fox watching Republicans get stuck in the tar baby of electoral politics? Which Democrat will continue to condemn the interrogation policies fostered by this Administration? Who will demand closure of Guantanamo Bay?
Cruelty disfigures our national character. It is incompatible with our constitutional order, with our laws, and with our most prized values. … there is no more fundamental right than to be safe from cruel and inhumane treatment. Where cruelty exists, law does not.
Alberto Mora said it best, tempered lawyerly passion and all.
