The findings of a distinguished independent legal research and advocacy panel from the Constitution Project that the United States has practised “indisputable torture” on prisoners since the attacks on New York and Washington in September 2001 are deeply disturbing. They come when another terrorist attack in Boston and a hunger strike by prisoners in protest against being held indefinitely without charge in Guantanamo Bay show the conditions which gave rise to these state crimes have not gone away.
This bipartisan investigation, based on publicly available documents, originated when President Obama refused an official investigation into allegations of torture because he wanted to look to the future. The 11-member investigation panel was led by two former members of Congress with experience in the executive branch. The panel finds that the widespread use of torture techniques such as waterboarding by simulating drowning, sleep deprivation for days on end, and prolonged stress positions – and of even more extensive other cruel and inhuman treatments – were applied following "the kind of considered and detailed discussions that occurred after 9/11 directly involving a president and his top advisers on the wisdom, propriety and legality of inflicting pain and torment on some detainees in our custody." This confirms reportage and political argument at the time, as well as the huge international effort by the US government to pressure allied and aiddependent states into arresting, transporting, imprisoning and torturing prisoners in a "rendition" process spanning much of the world – including Ireland, which allegedly facilitated their passage through Shannon.
These practices cannot be justified in law, they argue, despite the legal acrobatics of the Bush administration. Citing 20 cases where the US government described similar techniques as torture when used by other states, and after an analysis of comparative legal definitions and international treaties to which the US itself is a signatory, they conclude that they damaged its global standing, reputation and soft power and undermined international law. Their finding is all the more devastating given their analysis showed torture and other techniques failed to reveal accurate information otherwise not available.
Power, vengeance and retribution help explain why this should have been so more than military efficiencies. It is a salutary conclusion given the security challenges facing the Obama administration. The continuing temptation for it to use extra-judicial methods such as drone assassinations and extra-territorial prisons like Guantanamo show it is vulnerable to informed and reasoned criticism such as this based on a civilised definition of the US public interest.