Losing a Mandate

During World War Two, German prisoners of war were shipped across the Atlantic to stay in prison camps located in places like Fort Benning, Georgia. While these camps were no paradises, these German prisoners were treated according to international law. Under the Geneva Conventions, these Germans were required to be repatriated when the war ended. Under those same rules, they were not allowed to be tortured. And, finally, their location within the jurisdiction of the United States meant that the conditions they lived under were open to public scrutiny.

The same rules don’t seem to apply today. A recently leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross describing systematic prisoner abuses “tantamount to torture” at the United States’ main prisoner holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba has shattered the notion, advanced by the Bush Administration, that instances of U.S.-condoned torture are scarce to nonexistent. Instead, the report details the well-entrenched methods interrogators use to extract information from prisoners. Female interrogators bare their breasts and use sexual innuendo to shame their charges. Prisoners are subjected to loud noises, bright lights and stress positions to keep them from sleeping. And, most damning of all, the very medical officials responsible for the health of prisoners are passing on information about prisoners’ weaknesses and mental states to interrogators—undermining the trust between doctor and patient and obstructing treatment.

The information held by some of these detainees is no doubt valuable to the war effort against global terrorism. But extracting this information should not come at the cost of undercutting America’s legitimacy in fighting this war. In the eyes of many Americans, the War on Terror is forever justifiable on the black-and-white grounds that the U.S. is a good, moral nation and the terrorists are bad. And these citizens are not necessarily wrong: Prisoner brutality can never approach the viciousness and nihilism displayed by America’s terrorist enemies. But for many people living in the Middle East and the Muslim world—the very people whose hearts and minds America must appeal to—any missteps, torture or otherwise, fuels the notion that the U.S. is no different from its most brutal enemies.

America cannot afford to alienate Muslims, Arabs or any other ethnic or national group in its War on Terror. Success depends not on military victory but in persuading other nations and people to cooperate and share information in the interest of mutual security. A lasting solution to global terrorism will only come when America can both eradicate terrorism and unambiguously hold the moral high ground. Incidents like those described in this Red Cross report, then, handicap this country’s ability to defeat terror. Although torturing prisoners may yield some helpful strategic information, it is an indefensible and illegal practice. America’s reputation is weakened every time abuses like these are made public—which in turn likely mitigates the value of that information. Equally important, these practices strike at the very bedrock principles we claim for the basis of pride in our country. America cannot be a beacon of hope in the world if its actions are morally bankrupt, and we are filled with anger and disgust at the leaders in the U.S. government who seem willing to justify even the most egregious practices in the name of short-sighted national security.

The report confirms the extent to which the Bush administration has so decidedly set out to deceive its own citizens. In February 2002, President Bush publicly ordered that the prisoners at Guantanamo be treated “humanely and, to the extent appropriate with military necessity, in a manner consistent with” the Geneva Conventions. In recent months, American officials have cited the presence of Red Cross observers to deflect criticism for Guantanamo’s lack of accountability and transparency. But Tuesday’s New York Times article, which revealed some of the report’s findings, indicated that the Red Cross had all along been condemning many U.S. practices. The watchdog group had been granted access to detainees and the prison camp in exchange for keeping its findings confidential—a common arrangement for the Red Cross, but a practice that nonetheless allowed American officials to legitimize questionable detention practices and protocols without having to answer for specific abuses.

The damage is done, but the Bush administration can counteract the fallout somewhat by voluntarily releasing the Red Cross report in its entirety to the public. At this junction, however slight, any compromise with international opinion is bound to do America, and the War on Terror, a whole lot of good.