On October 22nd and 23rd, we here at Occidental College were lucky enough to have ACLU attorney
Ben Wizner come speak. Ben Wizner joined the ACLU directly before the September 11th attacks, and has been working largely on cases regarding torture and Guantanamo bay since the beginning of the so-called "war on terror". I will be splitting up my summary and analysis of the two talks into three posts, one for his Oct. 22nd lecture, one for his Oct. 22nd Q+A session, and one for his Oct. 23rd conversation with the Torture class.
On the 22nd, I came to the lecture hall expecting minimal turnout. From my experience as an RA, I know that anything less than an all-out advertising blitz usually results in low turnout. Thankfully, this was not the case. The hall was packed, and I was glad to know all the questions for Mr. Wizner would not be my own.
The beginning of Mr. Wizner's lecture was spent alternating between reading John Yoo's infamous "you would like" torture memo and reading the Red Cross testimony of Abu Zubaydah. Wizner provided a striking contrast between all of the forms of torture Yoo authorized in the memo with the actual memories and suffering endured by Abu Zubaydah. Part of what was truly horrifying about hearing the two pieces together was realizing how sterile and deceptive Yoo's methodical descriptions of the techniques he authorized were in comparison to the deeds that were actually committed.
To quote John Yoo's 2002 memo, "You would like to place Zubaydah in a cramped confinement box with an insect. You have informed us that he appears to have a fear of insects... As we understand it, you plan to inform Zubaydah that you are going to place a stinging insect into the box, but you will actually place a harmless insect in the box, such as a caterpillar. If you do so, to ensure you are outside the predicate death requirement, you must inform him that the insects will not have a sting that would produce death or severe pain. If, however, you were to place the insect in the box without informing him that you are doing so, you should not affirmatively lead him to believe that any insect is present which has a sting that could produce severe pain or suffering or even cause his death...". The fact that this extremely Orwellian authorization failed in any way to capture the horrors of Zubaydah's experience is testament to the true nature of the memos. The torture endured by Zubaydah, by insects among other things, was far worse than even the disturbing "guidelines" established in the memo.
Wizner noted that Yoo's and the other torture memos were not truly legitimate legal opinons for the supposedly impartial White House Office of Legal Counsel, but rather a defense against later retribution. Arguing that the Bush administration knew the illegality of its actions, Wizner said the memos were "an effort to protect [the administration] from prosecution, from universally recognized war crimes". Wizner used the example of the "golden shield" provided by the OLC: if individuals were following OLC guidelines for legality and constitutionality, they would be extremely difficult to prosecute. These secret laws, guidelines and legal opinions not only gave authorization for the military to use torture, but first and foremost provided protection for administration and military officials from prosecution. For this reason, Wizner argues it is critical to directly challenge the memo authors, like Yoo and Bibey, and those who commissioned them in the Bush administration.
One of the problems Wizner said was most troublesome is how there has been no debate surrounding torture, only narratives. By discovering our torture program in a piecemeal fashion, Wizner argued that the Bush administration was able to frame torture as an acceptable national security necessity. There were two competing and mutually exclusive narratives said Wizner, a "bad apples" frame in which America does not torture but a few "bad apples" do, and the "ticking time bomb" narrative wherein torture is a necessity. As Wizner pointed out, these two frames are abusrdly opposed: one articulates torture as a moral wrong used only by a few moral degenerates (as the Bush administration characterized the Guantanamo Bay torture), while the other argues that torture is both morally correct and necessary for national security. These two narratives existed at the same time, and unfortunately never caused a media debate or public outrage.
In conclusion, Wizner said that the only way to "look forward" (in Obama's words) is by addressing the omnipresent specter of our recent past. For Wizner, the only way to restore the United States' reputation is if we actively uphold our international treaties and conventions surrounding torture. This means, in other words, not attempting to avoid prosecutions of Bush administration officials out fear that it will grind Washington politics to a halt. Wizner argued that it was this exclusion of certain politicians from legal retribution politicizes the legal system.
I couldn't agree more: not prosecuting obvious war crimes ruins our international credibility, makes us hypocrites on issues of morality, allows other countries to use us an excuse to torture, and establishes that political power can put you outside the reach of the law. Nothing could be more antithetical to what I perceive to be the promise of the United states. Moving on means facing our collective demons and showing to the world that we can be its moral compass. That is true leadership. After the Bush years, that would be change I can believe in.
