The Policy Of Bad Intentions_the Bush’s Administration’s Flawed Approach In The Use Of Torture On The Gwot (global War On Terror)

The Policy of Bad Intentions: the Bush’s Administration’s Flawed Approach in the use of Torture on the GWOT (Global War on Terror) By Richard L. Dixon “No matter how many times they are reminded torture is against the law and the Geneva Convention and therefore the Constitution (Article VI) Republicans can’t seem to give up the notion that it was justifiable to break the laws in the interests of American security (and there is much evidence to suggest it wasn’t, or even that false confessions were forced to bring the U.S. into war with Iraq). While these Republicans forget the values they once stood for, and ignore the laws they themselves help put in place, they cannot ignore the deeper reasons of why our Founding Fathers forbid such heinous acts, or the repercussions allowing them will have on our society.” (Catherine Mullins, June 2, 2009). I purposely started off with a quote from the John Birch Society concerning the use of torture by the Past Bush Administration in order to dispel any myths, reservations, or accusations that the Universal condemnation of it by both the National and International community was strictly leftwing oriented in nature. The decision to use torture was a Command Decision by the Bush Administration and as such, He and former Vice-President Dick Cheney as well as anyone else that was involved should be held personally accountable for their actions. “Torture is at the heart of the deadly politics of national security. The former vice-president, as able and ruthless a politician as the country has yet produced, appears convinced of this. For if torture really was a necessary evil in what Mr. Cheney calls the "tough, mean, dirty, nasty business" of "keeping the country safe," then it follows that its abolition at the hands of the Obama administration will put the country once more at risk. It was Barack Obama, after all, who on his first full day as president issued a series of historic executive orders that closed the "black site" secret prisons

and halted the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques" that had been practiced there, and that provided that the offshore prison at Guantánamo would be closed within a year.” (April 30, 2009). The GWOT (Global War on Terror) is a war against a ruthless, invisible, and bloodthirsty enemy such as Al Qaeda, the Taliban, and other radical Islamic Terrorist. It is a war that not only the United States and its allies must be victorious, but also for the sake of Moderate Islamic states within the area for regional stability. With that said though, the use of torture to coerce confessions out of suspected terrorist has done more harm than good in that it has radicalized more susceptible youth easily indoctrinated by hardcore ideology from recruiters of Al Qaeda to join in the fight as they characterize as the Great Satan. These foot soldiers have come from such countries as Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt, Syria, Pakistan, and Chechnya. Even as ruthless and evil they have been and continues to be, it do not give Former President Bush and his cronies the right to violate International Law as was as the case of the Geneva Convention in authorizing torture as a weapon of opportunity. The Bush Administration knew the consequences and hazards in authorizing the use of torture in CIA Black Cell locations that involved various CIA, military, and third party contract personnel from such paramilitary organizations as Blackwater. In a recently declassified memo from the Justice Department to John Rizzo Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, the danger of using Waterboarding as an interrogation technique were explicitly spelled out. “We find that the use of the waterboard constitutes a threat of imminent death. As you have explained the waterboard procedure to us, it creates in the subject the uncontrollable physiological sensation that subject is drowning. Although the procedure will be monitored by personnel with medical training and extensive SERE school experience with this procedure that

will ensure the subject’s mental and physical safety, the subject is not aware of any of these precautions. From the vantage point of any reasonable person undergoing this procedure in such circumstances, he would feel as if he is drowning at very moment of the procedure due to the uncontrollable physiological sensation he is experiencing. Thus, this procedure cannot be viewed as too uncertain to satisfy the imminence requirement. Accordingly, it constitutes a threat of imminent death and fulfills the predicate act requirement under the statute.” (U.S. Department of Justice, August 1, 2002). The contents of that memo brings me to the next point, the decision to give the directive for the use of torture against known Al Qaeda operatives in order to coerce information from them was a command decision issued by Executive Decree and as such violated the legal precedence of Command Responsibility or the Yamashita standard as ruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in re Yamashita 327 U.S. 1 (1946). This ruling by the Supreme Court held the Japanese General Tomoyuki Yamashita was criminality liable for the actions of his soldiers in the torturing of both U.S. and British prisoners of War, and civilians in their custody. “Command responsibility is an omission mode of individual criminal liability: the superior is responsible for crimes committed by his subordinates and for failing to prevent or punish (as opposed to crimes he ordered). In Re Yamashita before a United States Military Commission, General Yamashita became the first to be charged solely on the basis of responsibility for an omission. He was commanding the 14th Area Army of Japan in the Philippines when some of the Japanese troops engaged in atrocities against thousands of civilians. As commanding officer, he was charged with "unlawfully disregarding and failing to discharge his duty as a commander to control the acts of members of his command by permitting them to commit war crimes." (Answers.com).

Based on this legal precedence, then all parties involved in the decision to purposely torture suspected Al Qaeda prisoners should be fully prosecuted to the fullest extent of U.S. law. Thus this list would include both the Former President and Vice-President of the United States. Doing anything less would put our service members in harm’s way if taken as Prisoners of War in future conflicts with adversaries who don’t look upon the Geneva Convention against torture in the same light as we do. The disturbing part about this whole affair is that the International Committee of the Red Cross tried on numerous occasions to contact the United States on the status of the 14 detainees that were in their custody. Even though the United States had national security prerogative (which is our right because of the dangers that pose) in terms of the incarceration of the 14 detainees for suspected terrorist connections, there were still issues of human rights in terms of family and contact with the outside world as cited in their report. “None of the fourteen had any contact with their families, either in written form or through family visits or telephone calls. They were therefore unable to inform their families of their fate. As such, the fourteen had become missing persons. In any context, such a situation, given its prolonged duration, is clearly a cause of extreme distress for both the detainees and families concerned and itself constitutes a form of ill-treatment.” (International Committee of the Red Cross, February 14, 2007). I know that there are those who will disagree with this essay; however, history has shown us that those who overstep the rules of international law when it comes to authorizing the use of torture for enemy combatants must face the scrutiny and judicial review from both our nation as well as the international community. The argument that torture was effective in extracting much needed information from the terrorist suspects is a fallacy because studies have shown that people under

the duress of pain will say anything in order for the pain to stop. When and where Attorney General Eric Holder will appoint a special prosecutor to investigate these allegations is anybody’s guess. Countries such as Spain have already initiated their own investigation because their national laws mandate the pursuit and prosecution of individuals who have committed War Crimes outside the jurisdiction of their country. “A senior Spanish judge has ordered prosecutors to investigate whether key Bush aides should be charged with crimes over the Guantanamo Bay detention center, a lawyer said Sunday. Investigating magistrate Baltasar Garzon has passed a 98page complaint to prosecutors that accuse former Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales and five others of being the legal architects of system that allowed torture in violation of international law, human rights lawyer Gonzalo Boye told CNN. Prosecutors will review the document to determine if a crime has been committed.”(Per Nyberg, March 29, 2009). To truly understand the Bush Administration’s flawed decision making process in its declared GWOT (Global War on Terror) within the context of the authorized use of torture as a weapon of opportunity, one needs to revisit Thomas Barnett’s essay entitled “The Core and the Gap.” In the article, Mr. Barnett makes mention of the Bush Administration’s dual minds on National Security objectives. “Understanding America's different security roles across these distinct venues goes a long way toward explaining what often seems like the Bush administration's split personality on national security. For example, when the administration proposes a pre-emptory-strike policy against states possessing dangerous WMD capabilities, does it intend to employ such a policy against fellow members of the Core?” (Thomas P.M. Barnett). Even though Mr. Barnett has a ready explanation of the split personality on national security (which in my opinion is a fallacy in its conclusion because it does not take into account the damage done to the image of the U.S in pursuit of a unilateral agenda), I would elaborate further

in defining the Bush Administration foreign policy objective. In my estimation the Bush doctrine in the foreign policy arena was unrealistic dogma which alienated our allies and hurt our ability to sway potential foes into neutral allies (the only exception was getting Libya to drop it nuclear weapons ambition in return for it being dropped off the State Department’s list of nations that sponsored terror). The Bush foreign policy objective was a two-headed hydra that emphasized a hard realism that was driven by a neo-conservative flavor. “Over the years, the neocons had developed a powerful, interlocking network of think tanks, organizations, and media outlets outside of government with the express purpose of influencing American foreign policy. By the end of the 1990s, the neoconservatives developed a complete blueprint for the remaking of the Middle East by military means, starting with Iraq. The problem they faced was how to transform their agenda into official United States policy. It was only by becoming an influential part of the administration of George W. Bush that they would be in a position to make their Israelocentric agenda actual American policy.” (Stephen J. Sniegoski). Its idealism was to spread democracy in the Middle East region in order to shore up America’s vital interest. It painted a world sphere of influence that was simplistic in its approach in the multiplex of factors that made up and defined the global community (simply defined from a unilateral perspective of them and us); they tag being defined as the “Axis of Evil” which consisted of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea. The Bush Administration’s pursuit on the war on terror was both neo-realism and idealism at the same time. The reality was that Islamic fundamentalism (radical Islamism) if left unchecked, would eventually threaten the Persian Gulf Region, American Interest, life, and culture. The idealism aspect was that the American ideology of Democracy was the best models of

government for the former totalitarian states of Iraqi and Afghanistan. In retrospect, the Bush Administration failed to recognize and define America’s proper role in the International community as the world’s only reining superpower. “In brief, America stands supreme in the four decisive domains of global power, militarily, it has an unmatched global reach; economically, it remains the main locomotive of global growth, even if challenged in some aspects by Japan and Germany (neither of which enjoys the other attributes of global might); technologically, it retains the overall lead in the cutting-edge areas of innovation; and culturally, despite some crassness, it enjoys an appeal that is unrivaled, especially among the world's youth—all of which gives the United States a political clout that no other state comes close to matching. It is the combination of all four that makes America the only comprehensive global superpower.” (Zbigniew Brzezinski, 1998). In failing to define American Hegemony in the Global community, the Bush Administration misused our supremacy by defining American foreign policy objectives based on a moral imperative or crusade. In the book entitled World Politics Trend & Transformation, the authors Charles W. Kegley, Jr. and Shannon L. Blanton, illustrates how conclusions made by Transnational Actors (Former President George W. Bush) called rational decisions can have either a positive or negative outcome on a country’s foreign policy objectives. “The quest for rational decision making was illuminated for example in the crisis that the closed circle of George W. Bush’s U.S. advisers faced in September 2001. They claimed that they were faithfully following the rules for rational choices in their declared war against global terrorism following 9/11 and in their decision to attack the dictator Saddam Hussein’s Iraq…..However, like beauty, rationality often lies in the eye of the beholder, and reasonable, clear-thinking people can disagree and often do disagree about the facts and about the wisdom of foreign policy goals.

Note that counterarguments again Bush’s war plans also were couched in terms of rationalitycriticisms that attacked the premises on which Bush’s big plans for a major war were based.” (Charles W. Kegley, Jr. & Shannon L. Blanton). In essence, the rationality to go to war in Iraq and the consequential fallout that followed is a clear cut example of how rational decisions based on cult personalities instead of traditionally defined foreign policy parameters hurt the credibility of the United States and its case for a unified Global War on Terror (GWOT). “The neoconservative position on the Middle East was the polar opposite of what had been the traditional United States foreign policy, set by what might be called the foreign policy establishment. The goal of the traditional policy was to promote stability in the Middle East in order to maintain the flow of oil. In contrast to the traditional goal of stability, the neccons called for destabilizing existing regimes.” (Stephen J. Sniegoski). Therefore, the question is asked, what then should be the foreign policy objectives of the World’s only verified Superpower? In what light do our allies and foes view us? Dr. Rod Lyon Program Director, Strategy and International of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) in his study entitled The Eagle In a Turbulent World: US And Its Global Role, states the proper path that the United States should pursue in its foreign policy objectives, “Indeed within the U.S. highly likely to remain an active global player, the test for Washington in coming decades will be what we might call the instrumentalist one: to identify those instruments effectively. The instrumentalist challenges are both political and military: the U.S. needs to rebuild lost influence and to nurture a new domestic and international consensus regarding the use of force to address contemporary strategic challenges.” (Rod Lyon, 2008).

In other words, the U.S. must recapture the lost momentum that it lost by reinforcing and redefining its strategic objectives that is multilateral focused in order to maintain its position as the dominant power. We find ourselves in a precarious position of having our dominance and influence being challenged by a surging China on political, economical, and military areas. Thus rational decisions made by transnational actors (in this case President Barack Obama) are decisions that must be realistic, comprehensive, and achievable. “In addition, determining what goals best serve an actor’s interest is difficult, especially in the realm of foreign policy, where risk is high and there is much uncertainty. Decision making often revolves around the difficult task of choosing among values, so that the choice of one option means the sacrifice of others. Furthermore, there is seldom a sufficient basis for confidently making choices, which is why so many decisions seem to produce unintended negative consequences.” (Charles W. Kegley, Jr. & Shannon L. Blanton). In conclusion, no Presidential Administration has defied the rule of law in the context of Human Rights, Torture, and the Geneva Convention as has been the case of George W. Bush. What the world has witnessed was the rise of an Imperial Presidency that stepped outside its jurisdiction in the pursuit of a ruthless Al Qaeda enemy but committed grave violations of international law that has and continues to have major repercussions for the United States and its continued efforts in the GWOT with the assistance of its reluctant allies.

Endnotes 1. Catherine Mullins, “The Road to Hell Is Paved with Good Intentions,” The John Birch Society, June 2, 2009, http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/4950 (accessed September 7, 2009). 2. Mark Danner, “The Red Cross Torture Report: What It Means,” New York Times Review

of Books, Volume 56, Number 7 · (April 30, 2009). 3. U.S. Department of justice, Office of The Assistant Attorney General, “Memorandum for

John Rizzo Acting General Counsel of the Central Intelligence Agency, Interrogation of Al Qaeda Operative, August 1, 2002, 15. 4. Answers.com, “Command Responsibility,” http://www.answers.com/topic/command-

responsibility (accessed September 7, 2009). 5. International Committee of the Red Cross (Regional Delegation for United States &

Canada), ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen “High Value Detainees” In Custody, February 14, 2007, 14. 6. Per Nyberg, “Judge OKs Probe of Torture Complaint against Bush Officials” CNN,

March 29, 2009, http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/03/29/gonzales.spain.gitmo/index.html (accessed September 7, 2009). 7. Thomas P. M. Barnett, “The Core and the Gap, Defining Rules in a Dangerous World.” 8. Stephen J. Sniegoski, The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War In the Middle East, And the National Interest of Israel, (Norfolk, VA: HIS Press, 2008), 6. 9. Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, (New York, NY: Basic Books, 1998), 14.

10. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. & Shannon L. Blanton, World Politics Trends & Transformation, (Boston, MA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2009), 59. 11. Stephen J. Sniegoski, 5. 12. Rod Lyon, “The Eagle in A Turbulent World: US and Its Global Role, Executive Summary (Barton, Australia: Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 2008), 3. 13. Charles W. Kegley, Jr. & Shannon L. Blanton, 61.