Torture apologists have already declared victory in the debate over torture, and with the press' singular focus on torture as political sport rather than a question of the rule of law, it's easy to see why. But the failure to properly address the issue has less to do with the compelling arguments of torture supporters than it does with a lack of political will among political figures who are most likely to represent those who oppose torture.
During the Senate subcommittee hearing on torture yesterday, only two senators were present for most of the hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham, and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse. Two of the most prominent opponents of torture, Sen. Patrick Leahy and Sen. Russ Feingold, left early in the hearing. The result was that the hearing descended into the Lindsey Graham Show, with Graham stating his opposition to torture but then making outrageous pronouncements about legal obligations that restrict it, at one point stating, "You can't firmly say hello under the Geneva Conventions." At another moment, he demanded of legal expert David Luban whether it would be torture to "put a spider in a jail cell" of someone who was afraid of spiders. Never mind that what Bybee's original memo described was a "confinement box," not a jail cell, and that a false threat of imminent death is universally recognized as a violation of the Geneva Conventions.
Several times during the hearing, Graham openly disrespected FBI interrogator Ali Soufan, a typical exchange was captured by Spencer Ackerman. After rudely interrupting Soufan, who would attempt to answer Graham's rhetorical questions, Graham would attempt to save face by telling Soufan what a "great American" he was or how much he respected his service. At one point, Graham tried to cite the words of former CIA agent John Kiriakou to argue for the effectiveness of waterboarding--Soufan gently reminded Graham that Kiriakou had recently recanted his statement that Abu Zubayda had cracked under waterboarding in "30, 35 seconds" and that he had no firsthand knowledge of Zubayda's interrogation. In fact, Zubayda had been waterboarded more than 80 times.
Some people have suggested that the Obama administration went back on its decision to release photographs of detainee abuse because of the administration's concern over the effect on its new policies in Afghanistan in Iraq. Possibly, but I believe the administration made a political decision--they were unprepared for the fallout over the release of the torture memos, which dominated the agenda for weeks after their release. They don't want to lose control over the debate again, especially since there is so little political will to do anything further on the issue of torture, reflected by the empty seats in yesterday's hearing. In their view, they would be burning political oxygen for an issue destined to go nowhere. Still the administration's decision may do nothing more than stall the release of the photos, depending on how their arguments hold up in court. Protecting the government's right to obscure its own illegal behavior would set an incredibly dangerous precedent.
In at least one sense, the right may be correct that opposition to torture is about grandstanding--not for the civil libertarians who have been pursuing justice for years but for the politicians who have characterized the Bush administration's behavior as illegal and inhumane, and have shown little interest in doing anything beyond that.
-- A. Serwer
