Tortured Reasoning?
Thursday, January 20, at 3 p.m., U.S. Eastern time
Long before the public ever heard about the prisoner abuses by American soldiers at Iraq's Abu Ghraib jail, officials in the Bush administration had written memoranda that laid the groundwork for the use of torture in the campaign against terrorism.
Now, in a new book compiled by a New York University researcher and a defense lawyer, readers will be able to see for themselves how a policy designed to extract information from suspected terrorists became a legal rationale for torture, the book asserts.
The 1,300-page book, titled The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib (Cambridge University Press), contains dozens of documents written by lawyers in the U.S. Departments of Defense and Justice.
The book's publication is timely both at home and abroad. In Iraq, a rising tide of terrorist violence is seeking to disrupt national elections scheduled for January 30. Meanwhile, American soldiers accused of torturing prisoners have been put on trial and the legal scholars responsible for the memos have drawn fire for their roles, particularly as some of them have sought to win jobs on university faculties and, in one notable case, to become attorney general of the United States.
In a time of war against ruthless enemies who have no qualms about committing brutal acts, should this book have been published? Does it, in a sense, help the enemies of freedom by undermining our efforts to defend against their attacks? Or does the book highlight the important American values and legal and constitutional principles that we are defending? Is The Chronicle giving the book appropriate, insufficient, or excessive attention?
» Torture's Paper Trail (1/21/2005)
Karen J. Greenberg, executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security, is a co-editor, with Joshua L. Dratel, a lawyer, of The Torture Papers. Ms. Greenberg, a former vice president of the Open Society Institute, teaches European studies at NYU and is the editor of the Archives of the Holocaust, a scholarly series. Her research focus is the United States and Europe during World War II.
Katherine S. Mangan (Moderator):
Hi, my guest today is Karen J. Greenberg, executive director of New York University's Center on Law and Security, and a co-editor of a new collection of memos called The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib. We're going to be talking about whether these memos show that the Bush Administration sanctioned the abuse of terror suspects or whether they are a reasonable response to a volatile and complex situation after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. We'll also look at whether the book's publication helps or hinders efforts to prevent future terrorist attacks.
Welcome, Karen, and thanks for being here today.
Karen J. Greenberg:
Welcome to the chat. Let me say by introduction that we published these memos and reports for the purpose of encouraging a public debate which takes into consideration the need for national security to be viewed as a critical concern for the American public and American policy makers. So I am open to a wide array of questions and perspectives.
Question from Katherine S. Mangan:
Did anyone in the Bush administration express any reservations or urge caution about the use of harsh interrogation tactics?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Yes. Notably Colin Powell in his January 26th 2002 memo and William Taft IV in his February 2 2002 memo of that year.
Question from Joel Stark, U. of Iowa:
Is there any evidence that the soldiers who abused Iraqi prisoners (and who have subsequently been charged in military courts) were actually conscious of the academic debate about the acceptability of torture as a policy matter? Or, is it more likely that there is little connection between the torture debate and occurrences on the ground, and such abuse as occurred at Abu Ghraib is more accurately linked to other problems, such as poor discipline, training, etc.?
Karen J. Greenberg:
This isn't an academic debate. The debate went on within the government.Rumsfeld issues his directive to the Joint Chiefes informing them that Al Qaeda and Taliban individuals were not entitled to prisoner of war status on Jn 19th 2002. Two star general Geoffrey Miller instituted the procedures at Gitmo and then "gitmo-ized Abu Ghraib."
Question from Katherine S. Mangan:
Is there a danger that publishing these documents could further harm our country's reputation and give terrorists one more reason to attack again?
Karen J. Greenberg:
These documents make further public the public record. Now declassified, these documents open up to the public the Administration's record on prisoner abuse and attempt to put into the past the level of secrecy that has characterized much of this Administration's behavior. The threat to national security that is represented in these documents is the degree to which the country has destablized its reputation abroad and compromised the rights of our own soldiers and citizens abroad.
Question from Theodore Hasse, UC Berkeley:
The question posed here seems to be a false dilemma. Could it not be asserted that the book should have been published but the conclusions drawn in the book are incorrect?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Absolutely. The purpose of this volume is to inspire debate. And the introductory matter, which is a few pages, gives a perspective meant to shed light on the extensive scholarly arguments laid out in the book by numerous legal minds. The book is not about conclusions but about opening up the debate. There is no assumption that national security is not a matter that demands a rethinking of legal matters in the current context.
Question from Brian Lucey, Trinity College- Dublin:
I'm confused? Who are the ruthless enemies....The al-quaeda who kill en masse, the iraqui nationalists who resent well meaning foreign interference, or the nervy ill-prepared troops who orphan kids? Simpler question : is the world not grey?
Simpler again: when did two wrongs make a (w)right?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Two wrongs don't make a right; the idea is that the rule of law, discussed out in the open, can help find grey area if it exists or is appropriate.
Question from Theodore Hasse, UC Berkeley:
It seems that the assertion by some administration officials and advisors (Professor John Yoo for example) that unlawful combatants are not protected by the Geneva Convention has been innacurately equated with a defense of torture. Is the denial of Geneva Convention protections to those who do not meet the criteria for such protections really tantamount to torture?
Karen J. Greenberg:
This is an excellent question and one I really like to hear John Yoo discuss. Deciding to move away from the Geneva Conventions is not the same thing as condoning torture or even suggesting a torture policy. In the case of these memos, however, the discussion inside the administration bases its later policies on the initial decision to separate Taliban and al Qaeda from prisoner of war status and therefore to not extend protections of the Geneva Convention. This may not have been intended to result in torture, but it set in motion perhaps unintended consequences.
Question from Katherine S. Mangan:
What do you make of the fact that the U.S. Justice Department retreated from its earlier, very narrow definition of torture shortly before Alberto Gonzales' confirmation hearing?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Gonzales has referred to the Comey memo of December 30 as a memo which redrafts the US definition of torture and has implied that therefore the discussion of prior policies is not important, now that is has been somewhat redefined. The Comey memo is a step in the right direction, but it was also of strategic value to quelling debate on the issue of Gonzales' role in producing the policy outlined by the Bybee memo.
Katherine S. Mangan (Moderator):
We're about half-way through our session. Please keep those questions coming.
Question from Alan Florence, personal:
Does the Bush Administration link the 'right to torture' prisoners and the right to incarcerate persons without trial? In an open ended war on terror, rather than war on another state, is torture inevitable?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Your first question brings up the extreme need for understanding the use of law in the current context of this war. There is no direct link between the right to torture and the right to incarcerate without trial, but there is a link between using war to push against traditional legal norms and in particular, the war powers of the executive.
Question from Andrew Mytelka, Chronicle of Higher Education:
Scholarship on current affairs is often not welcomed by people who are in the news. What has been the reaction, if any, from Bush-administration officials to your work in compiling this book? Did you need their cooperation in obtaining some of the documents?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Perhaps in the coming days as the book comes out, there will be some response. But I would be surprised. The Bush Adminstration knows that these documents exist. But wouldn't it be comforting to hear from both the administration and others that these earlier memos came at a time of national trauma and that after some time has passed and the sense of panic has subsided, there may be better solutions, better policies, and more agreement among participants.
Question from Patricia Pettijohn, Univ of South FLorida:
I have tried to follow this closely, and am grateful that you made these documents available. I have been very alarmed by the apparent role played by gender and sexuality in the torture techniques developed. Are there any documents that directly address the use of women interrogators, the use of nudity, pornography, etc.?
Karen J. Greenberg:
There have been incidents of sexual abuse by women and men scattered throughout these reports. There are no documents yet that are focused primarily on women, but there was a wonderful piece today posted on The American Prospect on line which discusses the abuse of women at Abu Ghraib. The piece is entitled "Unusual Suspects" and is by Tara McKelvey.
Question from Jonathan Voegele, NYU Dept. of Politics:
Do you think publishing the torture memos will have a deterrent effect on the use of torture?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Yes, because these policies took place in secret and those who enacted policy did not worry about accountability or outside scrutiny, and now the matter of accountability and oversight has at least been raised. Comey's recent memo is evidence that publicity has had an impact.
Question from Jake Gross, Indiana University:
If you are familiar at all with allegations of abuse in the Texan prison system under Governor Bush, I wonder if you see any connections between his policies as a Governor and his policies as President?
Karen J. Greenberg:
I think a better question is how was the culture of abuse (not necessarily torture/interrogation techniques) that existed in Abu Ghraib mirrored in the American penal system.
Question from Jonathan Voegele, NYU:
Reading these documents seems to be much more about how to avoid prosecution when these extreme interrogation procedures were to be exposed, as the Administration certainly realized they would be. This leads me to ask the following:
Do think that this is just the Bush Administration's Machiavellian attempt at extracting information, or just simply an exercise in cruelty?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Good question. One of the things about the recent Graner court martial is that it didn't really distinguish between cruelty and the attempt to get information. In general, the two types of behavior coincided with one another at Abu Ghraib as the intention of breaking down prisoners became prevalent.
Question from Katherine S. Mangan:
Why should people in academe care about the evolution of policies on torture? Are there any implications for higher education, particularly for law schools?
Karen J. Greenberg:
This is a question for Deans of Law Schools rather than for directors of research Centers. But policies on torture, particularly secretly made and enacted policies, are a concern for the public, inside and outside of the academy.
Question from Theodore Hasse, UC Berkeley:
What happened at Abu Ghraib is often referred to as "prisoner abuse" while some interrogation techniques that are reported to have been used at Guantanamo are alleged to be torture. Is there a difference between abuse and torture? Additionally, should psychological/emotional abuse be regarded as torture, and if so then what is a reasonable standard by which to judge what should be deemed torture? What is the administration's position on psychological torture?
Karen J. Greenberg:
On the question of prisoner abuse and torture, it's more a matter of inflammatory language versus a more euphemistic term. A better distinction would be between coecion and torture. Under the Torture Convention, any cruel,inhuman and degrading punishment is prohibited, and psychological abuse is considered torture. When the administration approved the broader definition of approved interrogation techniques, psychological techniques such as threats of imminent death to detainee or his family members were considered legally available but not approved for discretionary use and needed further approval for use.
Question from Carmen Hernandez, community college:
No insightful questions, but an observation. This thread does not seem to be generating a great deal of engagement. Why? Shouln't it?
Karen J. Greenberg:
Hmmmmm. Inauguration Day maybe, if you're talking about today. Generally, maybe people are just waiting to see the record for themselves, as they can in this volume, which is 1200 pages uninterrupted by comment.
Question from Katherine S. Mangan:
Is there anything you'd like to say in closing?
Karen J. Greenberg:
I hope that readers will consult the volume of essays that is coming out after these documents, entitled: Reasoning our Way: The Debate over Torture. The book consists of essays by legal experts representing a broad range of opinions in the matter of national security and coercive interrogation and will likely be the first full discussion of the issue.
Katherine S. Mangan (Moderator):
Thanks again for joining me today. I'm sure this debate is going to continue for a long time.
Copyright © 2008 by The Chronicle of Higher Education