Reading many comments on the diaries about or role in torture, I feel as if some definitions and clarifications are necessary.
Torture
a. Infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion.
b. An instrument or a method for inflicting such pain.
c. To cause (someone) mental anguish.
If you remember 1984 no physical damage was inflicted in the final breaking of Smith, it was far worse than that, his mind fled reality to escape the horror.
One could also argue that prolonged imprisonment without trial constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, especially when it is associated with solitary confinement.
Responsible
- Liable to be required to give account, as of one's actions or of the discharge of a duty or trust.
- Involving personal accountability or ability to act without guidance or superior authority: a responsible position within the firm.
- Being a source or cause.
- Able to make moral or rational decisions on one's own and therefore answerable for one's behavior.
- Able to be trusted or depended upon; reliable.
- Based on or characterized by good judgment or sound thinking: responsible journalism.
- Having the means to pay debts or fulfill obligations.
Responsibility
- The state, quality, or fact of being responsible.
- Something for which one is responsible; a duty, obligation, or burden.
The questions have to be asked throughout the system that lead to us torturing prisoners, where these responsibilities began and where and if they ended.
Accountable
- Liable to being called to account; answerable. See Synonyms at responsible.
- That can be explained: an accountable phenomenon.
Accountability:
The state of being accountable; liability to be called on to render an account; the obligation to bear the consequences for failure to perform as expected; accountableness.
Torture was carried out, this has been admitted, so who is being held to be accountable?
Contrition:
Sincere remorse for wrongdoing; repentance.
Has contrition been shown by any of those responsible?
The Nuremberg Defense
Essentially states that the defendant was "only following orders".
Nuremberg Principle IV
"The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him."
Uniform Code of Military Justice
Was modified with respect to this, essentially giving the right to personnel to refuse unlawful orders.
Nuremberg Principles: http://www.icrc.org/...
The Nuremberg defence was used with respect to the My Lai massacre and the abuse in Abu-Ghraib. The Nuremberg Principles however clarify the situation.
This was taken into consideration by the UNHRC:
A Summary of United Nations Agreements on Human Rights
Convention against Torture
This convention bans torture under all circumstances and establishes the UN Committee against Torture. In particular, it defines torture, requires states to take effective legal and other measures to prevent torture, declares that no state of emergency, other external threats, nor orders from a superior officer or authority may be invoked to justify torture. It forbids countries to return a refugee to his country if there is reason to believe he/she will be tortured, and requires host countries to consider the human rights record of the person's native country in making this decision.
----
Each state is obliged to provide training to law enforcement and military on torture prevention, keep its interrogation methods under review, and promptly investigate any allegations that its officials have committed torture in the course of their official duties.
http://www.hrweb.org/...
Fairly comprehensive I would say and very hard to misinterpret, and yes we signed up to its principles until the Bush Administration that decided to shun them. Again, they need to account for this action.
So we have to ask ourselves since we tortured and this has been documented widely as a fact, so:
Who do we hold responsible?
Will we hold them to account for there actions?
Have we shown contrition for our actions?
The answer must be nobody has been held responsible, we have not held anyone accountable, there has been a stunning lack of contrition.
Therefore: there is nothing to stop us doing it all over again.
Crime
- An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
- Unlawful activity.
- A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
- An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition:
A crime has been committed hence:
It is long past overdue that a special prosecutor was appointed, and these crimes fully investigated. Excuses for not pursuing torturers and their enablers are not morally acceptable even if they are politically expedient.
We have to ask ourselves what would we demand from another nation torturing our citizens, then apply this to ourselves.
I do not believe this is a party political question, I believe it is a defining moment and we must show the world our determination to never do this again. If we do not it will look as if we condone torture:
Condone
To overlook, excuse, forgive, or disregard an offence without protest or censure.
There is still some hope justice will be done as reported by France 24 [in English]