Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to speak about an issue
that has been discussed in the press recently, which is the use of torture
to obtain information from persons who are suspected of being terrorists.
It has been pointed out that torture is not only a violation of
international law, which our country is bound by, but also a violation of
United States law. And yet, several commentators have been quoted by the
press saying that in certain limited circumstances, when the threat is a
possible terrorist attack that could mean the loss of hundreds or
thousands of innocent lives, the use of torture is justified. Some have
even suggested that since torture is used, why not simply admit it and
accept it as a fact of life.
These are difficult questions with no simple answers. Who would not
want to do everything possible to save innocent lives? We all would. But
the United States is a nation of laws, and I categorically reject the view
that torture, even in such compelling circumstances, can be justified. I
would hope that all countries would uphold their obligations under
international law, but of course that is not the case. It is the 21st
Century, and yet torture is used by government security forces in some 150
countries.
Mr. President, we often speak of how important it is that we not let
the terrorists win. We try not to let ourselves be intimidated. We take
precautions, but we go about our daily lives.
The same holds true of the tactics terrorists use. If we do not protect
the civil liberties that distinguish us from terrorists, the terrorists
have also won. Torture is among the most heinous crimes, and there is no
justification, in law or otherwise, for its use.
One need only review history to understand why there can be no
exception for torture. The torture of criminal suspects flagrantly
violates the presumption of innocence on which our criminal jurisprudence
is based, and confessions extracted as a result of torture are notoriously
unreliable.
The other obvious problem, which has been demonstrated throughout
history, is that once an exception is made for torture it is impossible to
draw the line. If torture is justified here, why is it not justified in
China, or Iraq, or Chile, or anywhere else? If torture is justified to
obtain information from a terrorist, why not from the terrorist’s wife or
children, or from his friends or acquaintances who might know about his
activities or his whereabouts? In fact, this is what has happened in many
countries.
There is also the issue of what constitutes torture versus acceptable,
albeit harsh, techniques of interrogation of suspects or witnesses.
Torture is defined in the Convention Against Torture, which the United
States ratified, as "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person for such
purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a
confession . . .".
A March 4 article in the New York Times described
the treatment of Afghan prisoners at the Bagram air base. Two former
prisoners, both of young age, recently died in U.S. military custody.
Other prisoners described being forced to stand naked in a cold room for
10 days without interruption, with their arms raised and chained to the
ceiling and their swollen ankles shackled. They also said they were denied
sleep for days and forced to wear hoods that cut off the supply of oxygen.
I do not believe that prisoners of war, some of whom are suspected of
having killed or attempted to kill Americans, should be rewarded with
comforts. Harsh treatment may, at times, be justified.
However, while I cannot say whether the treatment described by these
Afghan prisoners amounts to torture under international law, it does sound
cruel and inhumane. The inhumane treatment of prisoners, whoever they are,
is beneath a great nation. It is also illegal. That is the law whether
U.S. military officers engage in such conduct themselves, or they turn
over prisoners to the government agents of another country where torture
is commonly used, in order to let others do the dirty work.
Some of these Afghan prisoners may be guilty of war crimes. Some may be
members of al Queda but may have never fired a shot. Others may be
completely innocent. But regardless, I was not proud of my country when I
read that article, and when I think of how often I and other Members of
Congress have criticized other governments for treating prisoners that
way. It undermines our reputation as a nation of laws, it hurts our
credibility with other nations, and it invites others to use similar
tactics.
I am encouraged that the Department of Defense is conducting a review
of the deaths of the two Afghans at Bagram, both of which were ruled
homicides by an American pathologist. Those responsible for what happened
must be held accountable. But I also urge the Department to review whether
the interrogation techniques used there, and at other U.S. military
facilities are fully consistent with international law. It should not take
a homicide to reveal that prisoners in U.S. custody are being mistreated.
# # # # #
