No Comment, Six Questions — February 8, 2011, 3:04 pm

The Institutionalization of Torture: Six Questions for Cherif Bassiouni

Cherif Bassiouni, a law professor at DePaul University in Chicago, was one of the key authors of the Convention Against Torture and is one of the world’s preeminent experts in international criminal law, particularly from the prosecutor’s perspective. He has just published The Institutionalization of Torture by the Bush Administration: Is Anyone Responsible?, a scholarly work that documents the development of torture policy in the Bush Administration and presents a roadmap for the use of future prosecutors. I put six questions to Professor Bassiouni about his book:

1. It’s often argued that the Bush Administration’s institutionalization of torture, regrettable though it may be, does not rise to the level of what was done by the regime of Augusto Pinochet in Chile, for example. Does the relatively limited nature of the Bush-era torture program in comparison with other systematic torturers of the last century justify a decision not to investigate or prosecute the use of torture?

bassiouni2

In 1994, when I chaired the Security Council Commission to Investigate War Crimes in the former Yugoslavia, I reported at a press conference on the mass rape policy as part of ethnic cleansing. A journalist asked if the estimated figure of 20,000 was good news insofar as prior journalistic reports put the number of estimated rape victims at 50,000. My answer was that one is too many, especially when it is part of an “institutionalized policy.” It is a fundamental moral question, and we must reject any relativism and comparisons with other regimes as a way of determining the criminality of the conduct in question.

Having said that, the numbers are quite staggering. It is not only the 820 or so Guantánamo detainees, and those that were outsourced through the euphemistically called “extraordinary rendition,” but also the estimated 150,000 persons who have gone through physical mistreatment and torture in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last 9 years. To exempt those in the Bush Administration who are criminally responsible only on the basis that there aren’t too many people who have been tortured, or because among them are some who would cause us harm if they could, is immoral and illegal. Our Constitution makes us a government of laws and not of opportunistic or selective choice of what laws to obey or not.

2. The Spanish Audiencia Nacional issued an interim decision last year concluding that the “intellectual authors” of the Bush torture program should be the focus of criminal investigations. It defined that group to include Alberto Gonzales, Douglas Feith, William J. Haynes II, Jay Bybee, John Yoo and David Addington. From a prosecutorial perspective, is it correct to focus the case on the lawyers, and particularly those who issued advice inside the Justice Department?

A prosecutorial decision in Spain based on universal jurisdiction of the U.N. Anti-Torture Convention must necessarily focus on the makers of the criminal policy as opposed to individual perpetrators. This type of prosecutorial policy is followed by the International Criminal Court as well as other international tribunals because it is impossible for these tribunals to prosecute all perpetrators of international crimes. That is different from what has to occur in states where crimes have taken place. United States criminal laws and military laws do not provide for this type of discretionary and selective prosecution. The Attorney General, U.S. Attorneys, and the military justice system cannot focus exclusively on senior policy-makers while ignoring other lower-level perpetrators. There is, nevertheless, some prosecutorial discretion. In organized crime and white-collar crime cases, the prosecution will focus on the decision-makers and senior perpetrators, but in practice, these cases start bottom-up and not top-down. This has proven effective in building stronger cases against the bosses.

3. The U.S. Justice Department not only failed to conduct a meaningful investigation into criminal acts associated with the torture program but also refused to cooperate with the criminal investigations pursued by other nations. This week Spanish judge Eloy Velasco enumerated a series of requests put to Justice which went ignored. He set a final deadline for the Americans to answer. Polish, German, and Italian prosecutors have similarly complained about evasive responses or non-responses from the Justice Department. Does the Justice Department’s failure to comply with its treaty obligations to assist foreign prosecutors have any consequence under international law?

The Justice Department has failed to conduct investigations into allegations of torture on the basis of questionable legal considerations, but mostly for political reasons. One such claim is that those who engaged in torture while in service are covered by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but not after they leave service. The claim, however, fails to take into account the War Crimes Act, under which there is civilian federal jurisdiction. This also extends to Defense Department private contractors. Another claim is that CIA agents acted outside the territory of the United States and that U.S. law does not apply extra-territorially. These are only some of the questionable claims advanced by those in the Obama Administration who are covering up for crimes committed during the Bush Administration. President Obama has made the political decision not to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the Bush Administration policy of torture, and he is reported not to have authorized Attorney General Eric Holder to conduct individual criminal investigations. In fact, Holder did not even investigate the CIA’s destruction of the torture tapes, which were protected by a court order. Destruction of evidence is a crime. This reflects the adage that “power protects power.”

There was a special prosecutor appointed to investigate a handful of specific incidents involving CIA personnel, but then the bar was set so low that nothing could come out of it. The bar was the legal opinions issued by Bybee and Yoo, even though they are in violation of international and U.S. law. These two have been given a pass by the Justice Department’s ethics review process, which concluded that their memos reflected only “error in judgment” and not “misconduct.” It should be noted that the professional ethics experts at the Justice Department who actually conducted the investigation concluded that it was professional misconduct. That finding was lowered by a special reviewer appointed by the Deputy Attorney General–a person who specialized in U.S. organized crime and lacked experience with international law. None of the state bar associations that have licensed Bush Administration lawyers who have given improper legal advice have opened ethics investigations.

Various international investigations and prosecutions, including those in Spain, Italy, Germany, and Poland, have all sought legal assistance from the United States on the basis of international treaty obligations. Basically, the Justice and State Departments have stonewalled these inquiries, and that could only have occurred with instructions from the White House. This position violates U.S. treaty obligations, and we should not be surprised if these countries are less than cooperative when we put in our requests for cooperation.

The Obama Administration’s conduct so far amounts to every bit as much of a cover-up of the torture crimes as we witnessed in the Bush years. By taking this course, responsible senior officials have made themselves accomplices or accessories after the fact. They may not be obligated to prosecute, because that turns on the outcome of a criminal investigation, but they are obligated to investigate under U.S. law, and failed to do so. What’s worse, they apparently did all this for political reasons.

4. Der Spiegel in Germany and El País in Spain have secured and published a number of secret cables revealing that American diplomats and politicians schemed to block the criminal investigations in Spain and Germany into the kidnapping and torture of German and Spanish citizens by American agents. Is this appropriate conduct for diplomats?

Washington’s hubris demands that other governments cover up certain crimes in order to benefit the United States. At times this is done through the Justice Department’s Office of International Affairs or its representatives in different foreign embassies. Most of the time it is done by the CIA station chief in a given country, and whenever needed our diplomats weigh in. In all three cases, it is improper conduct which goes beyond the scope of these public officials’ mission. The WikiLeaks disclosures concerning the role of U.S. diplomats and CIA agents in Spain, Italy, Germany and the U.K. add an element of embarrassment to the impropriety of these actions, and in some cases, of their violations of international law. One can only imagine the hue and cry in the United States if similar conduct by diplomats from Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran were discovered. The Obama Administration, like its predecessor, is still acting as if it can make its own exceptions to international obligations and get away with its own tailor-made double standard.

5. A lawyer for the CIA has recently published a law review article arguing that there is nothing unlawful about the CIA’s program of extraordinary renditions, including “disappearing” people into black sites beyond legal accountability, torturing them using Justice Department-authorized torture techniques, and having them subjected to still more brutal torture methods in the hands of foreign collaborators. What do you think of such legal arguments?

Legal advisors to the Justice Department and the CIA have relied in their analysis on some U.S. Supreme Court cases holding that the Constitution does not apply extra-territorially. Similarly there are arguments to the effect that our criminal laws don’t apply extra-territorially. These positions are partially true. However, there are many U.S. criminal laws that apply to U.S. citizens extra-territorially, like treason and tax law. It would be impossible to argue that the prohibition of murder and other crimes by the CIA and other public agents (such as the FBI and DEA) is limited to U.S. territory. For example, a CIA agent cannot kill or torture U.S. citizens overseas and claim that because it is outside the territory of the United States, the conduct does not constitute a crime under U.S. law. Moreover, any criminal conduct committed by U.S. military personnel overseas is a crime under the UCMJ. The U.S. War Crimes Act specifically applies extraterritorially, and torture as a war crime falls under it. Admittedly there is no specific interpretation by the Supreme Court that places express limitations on CIA and other U.S. law enforcement agents acting outside the territory of the U.S. when their conduct is not directed against U.S. citizens. But that does not apply to torture because the United States is a party to the Convention Against Torture. Arguments advanced by some people at the CIA and the Justice Department on the subject are often misleading.

6. As head of Egypt’s international intelligence service, Omar Suleiman has been repeatedly identified as the key foreign counterpart for the CIA’s extraordinary renditions program. Now Suleiman has become Egypt’s vice president and presumptive successor to President Hosni Mubarak. Will Suleiman’s intimate role in the CIA’s torture-by-proxy system complicate efforts to stabilize the political situation in Egypt?

institutionalizationoftorture

In his former capacity, Suleiman was the counterpart to the CIA’s director, and he was necessarily involved in any type of extraordinary rendition to Egypt. Whether torture of those who were kidnapped and turned over to Egypt was done by Egyptian general intelligence agents or by state security police has not been established. If it was done by those in intelligence then the head of the agency would be involved and responsible. Egypt is a party to the U.N. anti-torture convention (as is the United States) and has adopted national implementing legislation since 1985 making it a crime under Egyptian law for anyone to engage in torture.

Egypt’s state security police are well known for their widespread and systematic practice of torture against political opponents of the regime not only under Mubarak but also under Sadat and Nasser, when it actually all started. During the Nasser regime, general intelligence was also very active in torturing political dissidents and mere opponents to the military regime. The United States has under some administrations registered its diplomatic disapproval of torture but has done nothing more. The same is true concerning various forms of human rights violations in Egypt. It should be noted that U.S. law prohibits foreign aid to countries that violate human rights, but no administration has stopped foreign aid to Egypt for these reasons. If the United States announced the end of military and economic assistance to Egypt unless the regime changes and reforms adopted, that would have immediate positive consequences. But that argument does not appear to be in the plans of the Obama administration, which is, however, pressing for change and reforms.

Share
Single Page

More from Scott Horton:

Conversation August 5, 2016, 12:08 pm

Lincoln’s Party

Sidney Blumenthal on the origins of the Republican Party, the fallout from Clinton’s emails, and his new biography of Abraham Lincoln

Conversation March 30, 2016, 3:44 pm

Burn Pits

Joseph Hickman discusses his new book, The Burn Pits, which tells the story of thousands of U.S. soldiers who, after returning from Iraq and Afghanistan, have developed rare cancers and respiratory diseases.

Context, No Comment August 28, 2015, 12:16 pm

Beltway Secrecy

In five easy lessons

Get access to 165 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

January 2017

The Monument Wars

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Trouble with Defectors

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Over the River

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

House Hunters Transnational

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Lords of Lambeau

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

A Window To The World

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Post
Illustration (detail) by Lincoln Agnew
Article
Over the River·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ashley arrived for her prenatal appointment at Black Hills Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Rapid City, South Dakota, wearing a black zip-up hoodie and Converse sneakers.1 To explain her absence from work that morning — a Tuesday in April 2015 — she had told a co-worker that she was having “female issues.” She was twenty-five years old and eight weeks pregnant. She had been separated from her husband, with whom she had a five-year-old son, for the better part of a year. The guy who’d gotten her pregnant was someone she’d met at the gym, and he’d made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing more to do with her. Ashley found herself hoping that the doctor would discover some kind of fetal defect, so that her decision would be easier. She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. “Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.”

In the exam room, she perched on the table with her feet crossed at the ankles, her blond hair brushing the back of her pink hospital gown. “I don’t know what’s available for me here,” she told her doctor, Katherine Degen, who sat facing her on a stool. “I figured nothing.”

 Some names and identifying details have been changed. 

“Big, fat zero, unfortunately,” Degen said, making a 0 with her fingers. The last doctor who provided abortions in Rapid City retired in 1986, three years before Ashley was born.

The baby was due in November, when Ashley, who was a nurse, hoped to be enrolled in a graduate program to become a nurse practitioner. Getting pregnant as a teenager had forced her to put that dream on hold, but she had thought that she was finally ready; she had even submitted her application shortly before the March 15 deadline. For the first time in her adult life, Ashley felt as if her plans were coming together. Then she missed her period.

It would be too difficult to attend school as a single mother of two, Ashley knew. She had made an appointment for three weeks from now at the nearest abortion clinic, in Billings, Montana, 318 miles away. But just a week and a half ago, her husband had said he wanted to get back together and offered to raise the child as his own. Was it a sign that she was meant to continue the pregnancy? As a rule, Ashley approached her problems with resolve. She was capable and tough; she liked shooting guns and lifting weights. She kept track of her stats and checked off her goals as she achieved them one by one. Yet the dilemma before her had shaken her confidence. She leaned back and turned to watch the ultrasound screen. The black-and-white image danced. A sharp, fast thumping emerged from the machine. As Degen removed the wand, Ashley wiped the corner of her eye.

Photograph (detail) by Brian Frank
Article
A Window To The World·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ashley arrived for her prenatal appointment at Black Hills Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Rapid City, South Dakota, wearing a black zip-up hoodie and Converse sneakers.1 To explain her absence from work that morning — a Tuesday in April 2015 — she had told a co-worker that she was having “female issues.” She was twenty-five years old and eight weeks pregnant. She had been separated from her husband, with whom she had a five-year-old son, for the better part of a year. The guy who’d gotten her pregnant was someone she’d met at the gym, and he’d made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing more to do with her. Ashley found herself hoping that the doctor would discover some kind of fetal defect, so that her decision would be easier. She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. “Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.”

In the exam room, she perched on the table with her feet crossed at the ankles, her blond hair brushing the back of her pink hospital gown. “I don’t know what’s available for me here,” she told her doctor, Katherine Degen, who sat facing her on a stool. “I figured nothing.”

 Some names and identifying details have been changed. 

“Big, fat zero, unfortunately,” Degen said, making a 0 with her fingers. The last doctor who provided abortions in Rapid City retired in 1986, three years before Ashley was born.

The baby was due in November, when Ashley, who was a nurse, hoped to be enrolled in a graduate program to become a nurse practitioner. Getting pregnant as a teenager had forced her to put that dream on hold, but she had thought that she was finally ready; she had even submitted her application shortly before the March 15 deadline. For the first time in her adult life, Ashley felt as if her plans were coming together. Then she missed her period.

It would be too difficult to attend school as a single mother of two, Ashley knew. She had made an appointment for three weeks from now at the nearest abortion clinic, in Billings, Montana, 318 miles away. But just a week and a half ago, her husband had said he wanted to get back together and offered to raise the child as his own. Was it a sign that she was meant to continue the pregnancy? As a rule, Ashley approached her problems with resolve. She was capable and tough; she liked shooting guns and lifting weights. She kept track of her stats and checked off her goals as she achieved them one by one. Yet the dilemma before her had shaken her confidence. She leaned back and turned to watch the ultrasound screen. The black-and-white image danced. A sharp, fast thumping emerged from the machine. As Degen removed the wand, Ashley wiped the corner of her eye.

Artwork by Imre Kinszki © Imre Kinszki Estate
Article
The Lords of Lambeau·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Ashley arrived for her prenatal appointment at Black Hills Obstetrics and Gynecology, in Rapid City, South Dakota, wearing a black zip-up hoodie and Converse sneakers.1 To explain her absence from work that morning — a Tuesday in April 2015 — she had told a co-worker that she was having “female issues.” She was twenty-five years old and eight weeks pregnant. She had been separated from her husband, with whom she had a five-year-old son, for the better part of a year. The guy who’d gotten her pregnant was someone she’d met at the gym, and he’d made it abundantly clear that he wanted nothing more to do with her. Ashley found herself hoping that the doctor would discover some kind of fetal defect, so that her decision would be easier. She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. “Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.”

In the exam room, she perched on the table with her feet crossed at the ankles, her blond hair brushing the back of her pink hospital gown. “I don’t know what’s available for me here,” she told her doctor, Katherine Degen, who sat facing her on a stool. “I figured nothing.”

 Some names and identifying details have been changed. 

“Big, fat zero, unfortunately,” Degen said, making a 0 with her fingers. The last doctor who provided abortions in Rapid City retired in 1986, three years before Ashley was born.

The baby was due in November, when Ashley, who was a nurse, hoped to be enrolled in a graduate program to become a nurse practitioner. Getting pregnant as a teenager had forced her to put that dream on hold, but she had thought that she was finally ready; she had even submitted her application shortly before the March 15 deadline. For the first time in her adult life, Ashley felt as if her plans were coming together. Then she missed her period.

It would be too difficult to attend school as a single mother of two, Ashley knew. She had made an appointment for three weeks from now at the nearest abortion clinic, in Billings, Montana, 318 miles away. But just a week and a half ago, her husband had said he wanted to get back together and offered to raise the child as his own. Was it a sign that she was meant to continue the pregnancy? As a rule, Ashley approached her problems with resolve. She was capable and tough; she liked shooting guns and lifting weights. She kept track of her stats and checked off her goals as she achieved them one by one. Yet the dilemma before her had shaken her confidence. She leaned back and turned to watch the ultrasound screen. The black-and-white image danced. A sharp, fast thumping emerged from the machine. As Degen removed the wand, Ashley wiped the corner of her eye.

Photograph (detail) by Balazs Gardi
Article
With Child·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

"She glanced across the waiting room at a television playing a birth-control ad and laughed darkly. 'Jesus, Lord, it would be so nice if someone just pushed me down a flight of stairs.'"
Photograph (detail) by Lara Shipley

Price of ten pencils made from “recycled twigs,” from the Nature Company:

$39.50

A loggerhead turtle in a Kobe aquarium at last achieved swimming success with her twenty-seventh set of prosthetic fins. “When her children hatch,” said the aquarium’s director, “well, I just feel that would make all the trauma in her life worthwhile.”

In Colombia, U.N. delegates sent to serve as impartial observers of the peace process aimed at ending the half-century-long war between the FARC and the Colombian government were chastised after they were filmed dancing and getting drunk with FARC fighters at a New Year’s Eve party.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Who Goes Nazi?

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"It is an interesting and somewhat macabre parlor game to play at a large gathering of one’s acquaintances: to speculate who in a showdown would go Nazi. By now, I think I know. I have gone through the experience many times—in Germany, in Austria, and in France. I have come to know the types: the born Nazis, the Nazis whom democracy itself has created, the certain-to-be fellow-travelers. And I also know those who never, under any conceivable circumstances, would become Nazis."

Subscribe Today