A Controversial Turn in Torture Debate

This week, in strange contradictions, the U.S. displayed both the repudiation and confluence between U.S. and international law, and possibly narrowed the U.S. interpretation of the Geneva Conventions while directly applying them in other contexts. The newly proposed U.S. policies on torture and the treatment of terrorism suspects would permit the CIA to use tough, controversial, and undefined methods of interrogation on some detainees. The new approach would legitimize certain actions and provide immunity from prosecution under the War Crimes Act of 1996 for CIA interrogators who utilize extreme techniques against suspected terrorists in custody. CIA interrogators would have freedom to operate beyond the confines of the Geneva Conventions. At the same time, the U.S. military announced revisions of the Army Field Manual which would further restrict military interrogators form using questionable tactics that led to Abu Ghraib and provide Geneva Convention protections for all detainees. Both actions follow the Supreme Court’s June ruling in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, which held that the provisions of the Geneva Conventions concerning humane treatment of prisoners applied to members of al Qaeda captured by the U.S. The result is that the U.S. military will be compliant with provisions of international law regarding treatment of prisoners and not use certain harsh tactics, while the CIA will still employ unspecified aggressive techniques.

All of this also follows the recent admission by the Bush administration that the government has indeed been rendering high profile prisoners to secret prisons throughout the world in countries that may utilize torture techniques. These so-called “black sites” have led to a European investigation that could mar transatlantic relations and marks a controversial turn in the debate over detainee rights.

Thus, the U.S. government has put itself in the awkward position, both legally and politically, of permitting tactics that have created outrage and may have damaged foreign relations, while saying unambiguously that it is illegal for anyone else to use these same techniques.

For an overview of the government debate documents related to interrogation techniques, Findlaw has a fairly detailed database.