Clara Gutteridge: These papers raise as many questions as they answer

Comment

Saturday 18 April 2009 00:00 BST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

The release of "top secret" torture memos by the US is welcome. But they raise far more questions than they answer and the picture remains incomplete.

Certainly, they demonstrate the extraordinary lengths Bush government lawyers went to in their efforts to legitimise barbarism. However, they only address a tiny strand of the global US detention programme – those prisoners held in the small, CIA-run prisons. They fail to mention the treatment of detainees held in prisons run by the US military, such as Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, or those sent for "proxy detention" and torture by third parties in countries like Morocco and Egypt.

Second, the memos demonstrate the extraordinary "professionalisation" of torture that has occurred under the Bush regime. The memos were drafted by top government lawyers, and the documented interrogation regime involves an on-site psychologist to monitor the responses of the victim. The torture techniques also require a medical professional to ensure that the victim doesn't actually die during interrogation, because (in the words of one of the drafters) "this would not be conducive to gathering intelligence".

Exactly how did members of the medical and psychological profession come to be involved in devising a programme aimed at breaking human beings? And how did top lawyers find themselves justifying techniques that they admit would make the reasonable person believe they are about to die?

But the final, unanswered question is that of accountability. No victim has received any kind of gesture from the Washington government, let alone help in getting back on their feet. Perhaps we should listen to those voices that have been silenced in the Dark Prisons and confined to the torture chamber. Surely, in deciding whom and how to prosecute, the decision should be theirs?

The writer is a renditions investigator for Reprieve

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in