Torture is everywhere the U.S. sets eyes it seems. The CIA has secret prisons and extraordinary extradition. The U.S. military seems to have "bad apples" all over the place. Now, the Iraqi forces that the U.S. "trained" are also using secret prisons and torture. Of course, those Iraqi's are still under the control and responsibility of the U.S. military. What have we created? We have created and fostered an environment of human rights atrocities: nurtured by an ideology of the ends justifies the means, and that brutality is acceptable; fertilized by secrecy and "disappearing" people; watered by the denial of any rights to those detained - whether known or unknown.

Jane Mayer wrote Can the C.I.A. legally kill a prisoner?. The answer is "Yes we can and do." Mayer's article discusses the case of a civilian contractor, hired by the CIA, who participated in an interrogation that ended in the murder of a "detainee." There are no criminal charges for the contractor, and he is still contracted to the CIA. Meanwhile Cheney has lobbied and bullied the Congress to allow the CIA to continue its policies of using torture as a legal interrogation method.

"Senior Administration officials have led a fierce, and increasingly visible, fight to protect the C.I.A.'s classified interrogation protocol. Late last month, Cheney and Porter Goss, the C.I.A. director, had an unusual forty-five-minute private meeting on Capitol Hill with Senator McCain, who was tortured as a P.O.W. during the Vietnam War. They argued that the C.I.A. sometimes needs the “flexibility” to treat detainees in the war on terrorism in “cruel, inhuman, and degrading” ways. Cheney sought to add an exemption to McCain's bill, permitting brutal methods when “such operations are vital to the protection of the United States or its citizens from terrorist attack.” A Washington Post editorial decried Cheney's visit, calling him the “Vice-President for Torture.” In the coming weeks, a conference committee of the House and the Senate will decide whether McCain's proposal becomes law; three of the nine senators who voted against the measure are on the committee."

Brian Ross and Richard Esposito of ABC News report that these interrogation methods lead to poor intelligence information:

Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.

They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corroborated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General's report."

We are told that the techniques used are 1) not torture, 2) necessary to "quickly" extract crucial intelligence, 3) not as "bad" as what the "enemy" is doing, and 4) that only "insurgents" and "terrorists" are being treated in this manner. Each and every one of these is not true. Groups that are taking hostages and murdering them in front of the cameras are not interrogating those hostages. They are making a political statement. Further, their participation in atrocity is no justification for the U.S. to participate in atrocity.

The cloak of secrecy only makes torture much more likely. The Iraqi torturers, like the CIA, hid their prisoners away while starving and beating them. Now it is highly likely that these Iraqi torture practices could be more widespread. Certainly they are likely widespread, and it is also highly likely that the U.S. is turning prisoners over to these groups knowing full well they will be tortured.

"Speaking from Amman, Mr Sadoun, a 38-year-old engineer, said: "They kicked down our door and asked about a neighbour. When I said I did not know where the man was, they started kicking me and beating me. The soldiers had paint on their faces and did not have same uniforms as other troops. The Americans did not take part, but they saw what was happening.

"But this was nothing. When they took me to their base I was blindfolded and beaten very, very badly with metal rods. They then hung me up on hooks by my wrists until I thought they would tear off. I think that stopped because one of the Americans said something. I could hear English spoken in an angry voice. But this happened again later." From the Independent (11/20/05) The Dirty War: Torture and mutilation used on Iraqi insurgents

Everyone who the U.S. chooses to "detainee" or attack, or kill, is an "insurgent." None are innocent bystanders. There are no civilians in this "war." It is critical to understand this because those who are aroused against the United States (and its allies) also define a conflict where there are no "civilians;" no "innocents." That is the justification for random bombings in Iraq, Spain, and London. It is the purported justification for the events of September 11, 2001. It is the justification for the targeting of journalists and aid workers. In sharing that definition of the scope of the "battlefield," we only legitimate its use by militants (and others). By practicing and legitimating secrecy, torture, and denying any legitimate international standards or laws, we legitimate them for others. This "policy" does not make anyone safer.

The United States is neither setting an example of democracy, nor are setting up a democracy in Iraq. Voting does not a democracy make. Heck, there were elections under Saddam Hussein, and no one quibbles that was a "democratic" government. Democracy requires openness and information. It requires protection of citizens by the laws of the land from the abuses of government. It should occur in an environment of standards recognized as humane in the international environment, and under international laws and agreements. None of that is true in the case of the actions of the United States in the "war on terrorism" wither inside or outside the U.S. What we are doing, and what we are creating in Iraq and Afghanistan are models of repressive rogue regimes. What has been created in the United States is also a repressive rogue regime - with barely present velvet gloves.

What is happening on the world stage cannot be hidden or legitimated by cute turns of phrase. Certainly the consequences of these actions, under whatever name, will haunt us for generations.

Side Note

I highly recommend reading the article by Kim Sengupta " The Dirty War: Torture and mutilation used on Iraqi 'insurgents'" in the Independent. You can access it at The Independent, or at this link