AP Photo by J. Scott Applewhite U. S. President George W. Bush adjusts his translation earpiece at a press conference with Panama's President Martin Torrijos, not pictured, at the Casa Amarilla in Panama City, Panama, Monday, Nov. 7, 2005. Bush vigorously defended U.S. interrogation practices in the war on terror and lobbied against a congressional drive to outlaw torture. Panama is the last stop in a week of Latin American diplomacy for Bush that included the Summit of the Americas in Argentina, and a visit to Brazil.

Tortured Logic: Interrogation and the U.S.
By Holly Wagner, 12.12.05

In a war against terror where suicide bombers and undercover attacks threaten millions of people, “the concept of war needs to be redefined,” said Jim Davids, assistant Dean of Government at Regent University.

Davids said that currently U.S. CIA interrogators overseas are permitted to use ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ where the term or act of torture has neither been defined nor banned.

“America strives to uphold moral standards with honor and respect in war, but the war on terror is an entirely different animal,” Davids said.

He explained that terrorists are unlawful murders without a uniform, and without convictions of their own; they can not be compared to uniformed lawful soldiers in conditions of combat.

“If millions of people can be saved from a ticking time bomb by intense interrogation tactics, do it! But, that is an extreme exception,” Davids said.

Douglass Walker, former United Nations specialist for international trade and world economic activity, said that terrorist are not soldiers and should not come under the same protection of the Geneva Conventions. The war is on terror, not on an organized group of trained soldiers.

Walker stated that we are fighting a war on terror and the definition of torture has not only changed, but remains unclear.

“There is deceit and hidden motives when dealing with terrorism. In an unconventional war on terror, the question remains if the Geneva Conventions still apply,” Walker said.

The Geneva Conventions are based on 19 th century efforts for more compassionate warfare. Walker said that the conventions were established with the intention of limiting the barbarity of war.

Mary Hall, a former military judge now in private practice, was quoted in the Christian Science Monitor as saying that the controversy revolves around who exactly falls under the rules of the Geneva Conventions.

“This war is not like WWI, where you knew the enemy by the different color uniform.” Hall said that conflicts like the one in Iraq make it difficult for a soldier to figure out who is a friend, and who is a foe.

Davids said that under the Geneva Conventions, a soldier must be treated humanely no matter what side he is fighting for. This means that prisoners of war, (POW’s) should be unharmed and released when the war is over.

In October, U.S. Senator John McCain proposed an Amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill.

The Amendment imposes uniform standards for interrogation both on the military and CIA officials under the Geneva Conventions.

The problem with the Geneva Conventions and the new war on terror lie in cases such as the ticking time bomb.

Newsweek proposed a case where there was a bomb waiting to explode, but only one person knew where. U.S Senator John Mc Cain was quoted as saying that the president should disobey the very law he is seeking to pass and “do what needs to be done.”

However, some question if torture even produces beneficial results.

David Wagner, professor of Law at Regent University and former senior writer for

“Insight Magazine” said that the ‘ticking time bomb’ scenario would be the least effective tactic under the pretenses that a terrorist is suicidal anyway.

“Torture is immoral, but I also do not like to recognize the human rights of a terrorist that wants to kill me and my family,” Wagner said.

America is said to be the standard for other countries to emulate.

“The American way is to uphold a higher standard of morality; however, the Supreme Court can not give judgment based on moral convictions,” Wagner said. “There has to be a law, but it is difficult to make a law without defining parameters on terms such as torture.”

Recent reports found in publications such as the Standard Weekly, the Washington Post, and the Christian Science Monitor, indicate that there are a number of overseas torture operations, however President Bush denies all allegations.

“We do not torture; but we do what we need to do,” He said.

Charles Krauthammer, from the Weekly Standard, said that the real argument should be over what constitutes a legitimate exception.

“The no torture mandate refuses to recognize the legitimacy of a moral calculus. Washington can not assume that the no torture ever policy is beyond doubt,” Krauthammer said.

Despite the opposition, the Washington Post reports that the use of torture to acquire information from suspects has become an important issue in fighting the war on terror. The U.S. Supreme Court, for example, has been confronted on numerous occasions to address the issue of torture.

Marjorie Cohn, a professor of law at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, and executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild said that the 1997 Chavez vs. Martinez case was one such occasion.

Cohn said that the District Court found that Martinez had been shot five times in the eye, spine and legs.

“He was screaming in pain, and coming in and out of consciousness while being repeatedly questioned about the details of the encounter with the police,” Cohn said.

The interrogation used techniques that could constitute as torture; however, Cohn said that the high court failed to take decisive action because the facts of this case were “outrageous.”

Cohn said that the Justices of the Supreme Court alluded to torture in reference to this case, but none of them mentioned the Geneva Conventions against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Reports from the Jurist Legal intelligence forum said that, “both of Martinez’s constitutional arguments, violation of his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights were sustained by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.”

The intelligence forum said that the Geneva Conventions definition of torture includes any act of a public official, where severe mental suffering is intentionally inflicted on a person to gain information or a confession, or to coerce him.

Cohn said that Chavez’s conduct fits the Convention’s definition of torture.

Bush however, denies all charges of abuse.

“We do not torture,” Bush said during a press conference in Panama. The job of the executive and legislative branch is to protect the American people. He said that the United States is doing every thing in its power to win the war on terror; and everything done by the U.S. is to bring justice and disrupt terrorist scheming.

“It is an effort under the law,” Bush said.

Tell A Friend