2008 Presidential Campaign
From American Gulag
Just a few months ago, the use of torture by U.S. interrogators was truly a hot-button topic. Candidates engaged in lively discussion of tactics like waterboarding and sleep deprivation. The treatment of suspected terrorists seemed poised to become a major issue in the 2008 electoral campaign. But now, as primary season comes to a close, these issues are largely absent from the public debate. What happened?
Contents |
[edit] The 2004 Presidential Campaign
The pictures of naked, contorted detainees at Abu Ghraib and reports of further prisoner abuses surfaced in late April 2004, a month and a half after John Kerry sealed the 2004 Democratic nomination, presenting a seemingly ripe opportunity for criticism of the Bush administration’s harsh tactics. Initially, Kerry condemned the abuses and attempted to link them more broadly to the administration’s approach to foreign policy. The prisoner abuse was the product of “an attitude that comes out of America's overall arrogance in its policy that is alienating countries all around the world,” he declared. But the Republican National Committee fought back, attributing the abuses at Abu Ghraib to the actions of a few “bad apples” and vilifying Kerry for what it called his exploitation of a tragic situation. Concerned that he would be perceived as weak on national security, Kerry backed off.
[edit] The 2008 Presidential Campaign
[edit] The Primaries
"“In the primaries, they’re addressing a very rarified spectrum of the party,” pointed out Morris Fiorina, a professor of political science who studies American political behavior at Stanford. The primary audience, Fiorina noted, has more defined views on torture than the general population.
Republicans
In the May 15, 2007 Republican debate in South Carolina, moderator Brit Hume posed a scenario that he described as “fictional” yet “plausible.” He asked the candidates how aggressively they would question an Al Qaeda operative with information about a bomb about to go off in a U.S. shopping center.
John McCain answered first. When he stated that the United States “could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion,” he was met with dead silence from the audience.
Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani’s endorsement of “any method [the interrogators] could think of,” on the other hand, was met with wild applause. So was former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s declaration that he would “double Guantanamo.”
Representative Tom Tancredo finished off the round by announcing that if the time bomb were ticking, he would be “looking for Jack Bauer,” the implication being that he would torture the answers out of the suspect in custody.
In another debate, on November 28, 2007, Mitt Romney and John McCain argued over whether waterboarding is torture. Most experts, including Allen Weiner, a international law professor who studies human rights at Stanford, believe that "unequivocally, waterboarding qualifies as torture."
Democrats
In the September 26, 2007, Democratic debate in New Hampshire, moderator Tim Russert asked candidates what they would do if they had a top Al Qaeda operative in custody who knew the location of a bomb set to go off in three days. The candidates’ responses were markedly different from those given by the Republicans, with all candidates stating that they would not use torture.
In a speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, John Edwards stated that he would “close Guantanamo Bay, restore habeas corpus and ban torture.” Barack Obama gave a speech on “The War We Need to Win,” and criticized the Bush administration’s use of harsh interrogation tactics, saying “torture and secrecy betray core American values.” Dennis Kucinich stated, “Torture degrades us as a people… Torture breeds torture and brutality. Torture is a slope no American should step onto.”
[edit] The Remaining Candidates
The three candidates hold remarkably similar positions on the most salient issues classifed under the broad umbrella of “human rights:” all are opposed to torture in even the most dire circumstances; all claim opposition to the practice of extraordinary rendition, in which terrorism suspects are sent to countries that practice torture; and all are in favor of closing Guantanamo Bay. As a result, there has been little debate over these issues in the past few months.
Hillary Clinton
- Formerly supported torture in "ticking time bomb" scenarios; stated that she changed her position after meeting with retired generals who told her that torture is ineffective and puts captured American troops at risk of receiving similar treatment.
- Opposed Attorney General nomination of Michael Mukasey, who came under fire from the left for his refusal to unequivocally classify waterboarding as torture.
- Voted for a bill that would have banned the CIA from using “cruel, inhumane or degrading” interrogation techniques, including waterboarding and sleep deprivation, that are prohibited by the Army Field Manual (President Bush has since vetoed it).
- Has advocated the reestablishment of habeas corpus for detainees.
Barack Obama
- Has consistently spoken out against torture; accused Clinton of “changing positions when the politics of the moment changed" with respect to torture.
- Opposed Mukasey nomination.
- Voted for bill to ban the CIA from using techniques that are prohibited by the Army Field Manual.
- Has advocated the reestablishment of habeas corpus for detainees; is supported by the “Habeas Lawyers,” a group of attorneys who have been defending Guantanamo detainees pro bono.
John McCain
- Victim of torture in Vietnam, has consistently spoken out against its use.
- Has sponsored several pieces of anti-torture legislation, including bills that would limit the United States to actions that fall within the scope of international treaties and an amendment to the 2005 Defense Authorization Bill that required all military detainees to be interrogated according to the stringent standards of the Army Field Manual.
- Symbolically important issue to McCain throughout his political career: both a mark of his carefully cultivated maverick image and a reminder of his military service and sacrifices.
- Voted nay on legislation that would have restored the right of habeas corpus to those detained by the United States.
- Supported President Bush’s veto of a bill banning the CIA’s use of torture; stated that the CIA should be able to use interrogation methods that are not publicly known. Human rights groups condemned McCain’s stance as a betrayal: “People in the human rights community really looked to McCain as a leader on human rights issues and it was really a disappointment that he voted the way he did,” said Sharon Kelly, manager of the Elect to End Torture ’08 campaign at nonprofit advocacy group Human Rights First.
- Approved the Mukasey nomination.
The Debate So Far
Even when McCain has seemingly wavered, the Democratic candidates have been reluctant to press the torture issue, perhaps sensing that attacking a consistently anti-torture former prisoner of war on this issue is not a winning political strategy.
McCain, for his part, has also downplayed the torture question since winning the Republican nomination. With both Democratic candidates avowedly opposed to torture, the issue is no longer one in which McCain can take a principled stand against the crowd. McCain is likely also wary of reminding the American public of the more controversial aspects of the War on Terror perpetrated by the Bush administration that he would succeed, and is no doubt aware that many in the Republican base are supportive of the administrations use of “enhanced interrogation techniques.”
The nomination of McCain complicates the torture issue. Had a would-be Jack Bauer champion like Romney or Giuliani won the nomination, the media would have had an opening to question candidates on torture issues. The difference between Giuliani and Obama’s stances on torture could have illuminated differences in how those candidates see the world. But in a campaign with two antitorture candidates, questions about torture are unlikely to help voters understand the candidates and their worldviews better. In some sense, the torture question has already been resolved.
In another sense, however, issues still remain. Even if the next president enacts strict legislation prohibiting torture and restoring civil liberties, the heart of the matter will be left unresolved without a broader discussion of moral and practical concerns. Reforms enacted by a principled individual might not survive the next terrorist attack.
Even if all three candidates would support a ban on torture and close Guantanamo, it seems highly unlikely that any would seek to hold those responsible for past abuses accountable for their actions. Yet without accountability, future officials are likely to act with impunity, knowing that they may well escape the consequences of their actions.
“I can see either an Obama or McCain administration instructing investigations to figure out who did what,” said Allen Weiner, a professor at Stanford Law School. “At the end of the day, though, I’m pretty skeptical that anyone will be criminally prosecuted. Some people might be relieved of their jobs.”
[edit] Terms of the Debate
Politics and 24
It’s 2 a.m. in Los Angeles, and somewhere in the city a nuclear device is ticking towards zero. Only one man stands in the way of total obliteration. But Jack Bauer has a problem. The man in his custody knows where the bomb is, but he’s not talking. Should Bauer torture the man until he talks and save L.A., or stick to conventional interrogation methods and risk letting three million people die? For Bauer, the choice is clear: whatever it takes.
Of course, the choice is fictional. It’s a key element in the plotline of the third season of the popular television show 24. The show portrays consummate action hero Jack Bauer as he works to stop terrorist plots against the United States. In the course of a season, which depicts a single thrill-packed day second by second, Bauer often faces scenarios in which he must brutally torture a suspect for information or let innocent Americans perish. Bauer always chooses torture, and nearly always saves the day, although admittedly with some collateral damage along the way.
The show has become so salient in public life that it has given birth to the term “the 24 torture exception.” This refers to so-called “ticking time bomb” situations in which torture is necessary to get information to save lives. Yet counterterrorism experts have repeatedly stated that such situations are practically nonexistent, and that if one did occur, torture would be an ineffective method of securing accurate information.
Still, the current presidential debate has largely been framed by the fictional paradigm of 24. In the early days of the primaries, the specter of 24 loomed large over the debate. Ticking time bombs were everywhere, and several presidential candidates invoked Jack Bauer in describing their counterterrorism strategies.
24 subscribes to individually-driven idea of torture rather than placing blame higher up the chain of command: Jack Bauer must temporarily quit to disobey the chain of command and torture a suspect. In real life, however, the administration is pushing torture at the discomfort of the military. On the show, civil liberties and legality are often brushed aside cavalierly. In response to a civil liberties lawyer's concerns about unwarranted detentions, a presidential aide responds, “Well! You’ve got the makings of a splendid law-review article here. I’ll pass it on to the President.”
Most political issues call for careful maneuvering and cautious phrasing of positions. The debate about torture, however, has taken that wordplay to a whole new level. No one wants to be the pro-torture candidate, so those seeking to demonstrate that they would be tough on terrorists say that they would approve “enhanced interrogation techniques” or “high pressure techniques” or “aggressive interrogation tactics.” Alternately, candidates say that they would do “whatever it takes,” “what is necessary” or “every method” to keep Americans safe. The similarities to Jack Bauer’s actions on 24 have been striking.
In one exchange on the television show, the fictional president asks Bauer, “You’re talking about torturing this man?”
Bauer responds, “I’m talking about doing what’s necessary.”
Compare this to the September 5, 2007 Republican debate in New Hampshire, in which moderator Wendell Goler asked Tancredo, “Would you approve the use of torture if you felt it would prevent a terrorist attack?”
“I would do -- certainly waterboard -- I don’t believe that that is, quote, ‘torture.’ I would do what is necessary to protect this country,” Tancredo responded.
The language, and the sentiments, are remarkably similar: torture is not okay, but actions that look like torture are justified when American lives are at risk. Candidates have also sought to downplay the physical impact of abusive tactics. Rudy Giuliani joked, “They talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States. That’s plain silly. That’s silly.”
Giuliani has also said that the question of whether waterboarding is torture “depends on who does it,” and that “liberal newspapers have exaggerated” the severity of the tactic. Candidates have tried to walk the thin line between being labeled a “torture enthusiast” and appearing weak in comparison to opponents who claim that they will keep America safe at all costs.
Even Supreme Court justices have been caught up in the 24 spell: in an international panel discussion of torture and terrorism law, Justice Antonin Scalia argued "Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles...Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so."
[edit] Public Opinion
The views of the general population have been difficult to ascertain. A poll commissioned by the ACLU found that a significant majority of Americans opposed torture in U.S. policy, supported the Geneva Conventions, believed habeas corpus rights should be restored to Guantanamo detainees, wanted the government to obtain a warrant before monitoring citizens’ communications, and supported the closing of the Guantanamo Bay facility.
But a PEW poll released in March 2007 found Americans to be much more divided on whether torture can be justified to secure critical information from terrorists. Thirty-one percent believed torture is sometimes justified, 25% believed it is rarely justified, and 29% believed it is never justified. These percentages have remained relatively consistent since July 2004 despite revelations since about the extent of abuses overseas and at home.
Slight differences in wording can result in significantly different results. Like the presidential candidates, few people are likely to declare that they support torture outright, but many seem reluctant to exclude it altogether. Presumably the 31% who believe torture is “sometimes” justified have a ticking time bomb scenario in mind. It’s not difficult to imagine that if another terrorist attack were to occur, a public outcry would result upon learning that a suspected operative had been held in custody but not tortured for information.
Other surveys suggest torture and human rights are hardly salient in voters’ minds. A poll conducted by ABC News and The Washington Post in May 2008 found the economy to be the top concern of 36% of potential voters. Only 4% named terrorism and national security as their most important issue, and a mere 3% cited ethics in government.
An online petition calling on presidential candidates to end torture, circulated by Human Rights First, has accumulated over 65,000 signatures. “There are going to be a lot of competing issues on the agenda this fall, and we want to let them know that the American people really expect action on this issue,” explained Kelly. That number, however, represents a miniscule percentage of likely voters. With neither party’s candidates eager to reinstate the debate over the use of torture or other questionable tactics in the War on Terror, the issue has faded from public view.
“If any of them thought they could make it a big deal, they would,” said Fiorina. “It just doesn’t have the characteristics of an issue that appeals to a lot of people.” Torture, Fiorina explained, does not affect many people directly in the way that domestic issues like the economy and healthcare do. “People just don’t care,” he said.
[edit] Relevant Articles
Whatever It Takes Jane Mayer investigates the use of torture on the hit TV show "24" by interviewing creator Joel Surnow
The Waterboard Test: Where John McCain, Rudy Giuliani, Barack Obama et al. Stand on Torture James Ridgeway looks at where the presidential candidates stand on torture.
The GOP's Torture Enthusiasts Presidential candidates give their responses to a "ticking time bomb" scenario--one even calls upon Jack Bauer
Debate moderators overlook key questions Jamison Foser criticizes the substance of the primary debates.
The Guantanamo Debate Comes Home Jefferson Morley discusses the differences in American and foreign coverage of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and human rights abuses in the War on Terror.
