Will the next U.S. president revamp the Bush administration's policy on abusive interrogation of prisoners?

Will either U.S. presidential candidates dare change the Bush administration’s policy on abusive interrogation of prisoners suspected with links to terrorism? It doesn’t seem likely. The Republican candidate, John McCain seems bent on reaffirming most of President Geroge Bush’s notions on foreign policy, particularly the so-called "war against terrorism." The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, has expressed his desire for a revamping of treatment of prisoners, but...considers that for practical considerations that will have to be put off, maybe even until a possible second term in office.

As long ago as last April the Democratic candidate seemed to be kicking the issue to the wind: "If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated," he said on this campaign trail, adding "I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of the Republicans as a partisan witch hund, because I think we’ve got too many problems to solve." (As quoted in Salon Newsletter August 5th)

Power has its way of pushing and dragging would be reformers to the center, or at least to a position that safely avoids any direct confrontation with those who occupy the real positions of influence. Just two U.S. examples: President John F. Kennedy was shot in the midst of attempts to promote civil rights and start talks with the Soviet Union; President Clinton’s ambitious medical care reform never got off the ground.

In the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks against the Twin Towers, the Bush Administration not only declared "war" against terrorism but managed to legally introduce changes in the definition of torture and abuse of prisoners, so that practices such as "waterboarding", sleep prevention and the utilization of extremely high music for long hours were not considered "torture." Many of these practices have been denounced in the press, especially with respect to the detainees at the U.S. Guantánamo military base.

Probably a first step towards clarifying this issue will be taken by means of an investigation of a Congressional commission charged with determining the extend of abusive practices and those government functionaries implied in them. The road to alleged prosecution appears filled with thorns. The Justice Department approved the use of abuse and Congress changed the War Crimes Act in 2006 to make prosecutions more difficult. It appears likely enough that the Bush administration might attempt to obtain end-of-term presidential pardons for those likely to be accused or torture or other abuses.

As in the case of the commission called to investigate the assassination of President Kennedy, or the September 11 attack, any commission on the issue of abuse of prisoners would probably first focus on strictly getting the truth. That could include information concerning the detention, torture and extraordinary rendition, or the practice of sending detainees to a third country (known to be lax on civil rights) for abusive interrogations.

It is reasonable to assume that should such a commission be formed it would attempt to debunk the claims of top Bush administration officials that the utilization of abusive interrogations worked, saved lives and resulted in significant intelligence gains.

But there are strong vested interests that will certainly pressure against airing this issue too much. One of them: Newsweek. A recent article by Stuart Taylor Jr. went so far as to suggest that Bush "pardon any official from cabinet secretary on down who might plausibly face prosecution" for torture during the Bush administration. Theoretically that would encourage them to testify freely in front of any truth commission that might appear in the next administration.

An underlying debate, however, is not only whether torture was used and by whom but also whether it in fact is an effective tool for information gathering; whether it might backfire to contaminate the notion of justice itself; whether in a situation such as the present struggle against terrorism it is valid for government to resort to arguments such as "the ends justify the means"...? Likewise, questions might be raised concerning a more over-riding issue: the tactics of counter-insurgency and anti-terrorism advocated and taught by the Pentagon.   

 

.