Torture: What's in a Name?

by Dr. Wilmer J. Leon III - Oct 13, 2007

In 1594, Shakespeare wrote, "'Tis but thy name that is my enemy. What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." As it is with roses, so it is with torture. Physical abuse or extreme measures of interrogation conducted by trained professionals in the administration of a counterterrorism program is still, by all accepted international standards, torture.

For months, President Bush has tried to defend the extreme tactics being used by the CIA to interrogate individuals suspected of terrorist activities. This, in spite of recently released documents from the Justice Department indicating that in 2005, then Attorney General Alberto Gonzales issued a secret opinion authorizing physical abuse to extract information. According to The New York Times, "The new opinion ... provided explicit authorization to barrage terror suspects with a combination of painful physical and psychological tactics, including head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures."

On Friday, October 5, President Bush said, "This government does not torture people." The problem with his statement is that it contradicts his attorney general's memos, Webster's definition of the term and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Webster's defines torture as "the infliction of intense pain." The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted by the UN in 1948, states, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." In my opinion, subjecting human beings to painful physical and psychological tactics is torture.

As further evidence of this contradiction, former President Jimmy Carter, when asked by Wolf Blitzer if President Bush's statement was accurate, said, it was not accurate if you use the accepted international norms of torture, as have been in place certainly in the last 60 years since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was promulgated. When asked if he thought the US had tortured individuals, former President Carter said emphatically, "I don't think it, I know it."

Carter went on to say, "You can make your own definition of human rights [... ] and you can make your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them." So, "What's in a name? That which we call a rose, by any other name would smell as sweet." So it is with torture.

What are to make of this and why does it matter?

First, most experts will tell you that using techniques such as induced hypothermia, long periods of forced standing, sleep deprivation, and sound and light manipulation do not result in obtaining useful information. According to Newsweek, "US intelligence officers say they have little - if any - evidence that useful intelligence has been obtained using techniques generally understood to be torture."

Second, because of policies such as extraordinary renditions and torture, America has lost its international moral authority as a protector of human rights and a defender of civil liberties. The September 11, 2001, attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, and United Flight 93's crash in Pennsylvania, galvanized international sympathy for the US. Mainstream media and governments worldwide denounced the attacks and supported America, as evidenced by the headline of France's Le Monde newspaper: "Nous sommes tous Americains" as translated, "We Are All Americans."

Instead of taking the moral high ground and using this tragedy to unite international efforts to work towards peace, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the other "Chicken Hawks" in the Bush administration exploited the circumstance and imposed their corrupt and vile ideology of unilateralism and militarism on the world. Instead of using restraint, moral suasion and diplomacy to find common ground, the Bush administration has become like the very people they called enemies. They have decimated habeas corpus, ignored the UN, used immoral and illegal tactics to invade a sovereign nation, and kidnapped and tortured people. This sounds more like the actions of a dictator than the president of a constitutional republic.

President Bush stated, "The American people expect their government to take action to protect them from further attack." This is true; the problem is, the tactics being used by this administration are not making American people safer; they are putting the American people in harm's way. As a direct result of the tactics used to execute the "War On Terror," The New York Times states, "The Iraq War has invigorated Islamic radicalism and worsened the global terrorist threat. The most recent National Intelligence Estimate, found that, rather than stemming the growth of terrorism, the war in Iraq helped fuel its spread across the globe." Is it any wonder why a majority of American's still don't feel safe, six years after 9/11? They are doing with the issue of torture what they have done with the invasion of Iraq and the so called "War on Terror": defend the indefensible.

Just as there were no WMD's, no coordinated efforts between Saddam and Osama, and no attempt by Saddam to buy yellowcake from Niger, you can't make your own definition of human rights and your own definition of torture and say we don't violate them.