"T-word": torture.
Col. James Hickey, who commanded the capture operation, tells the story a bit
differently, according to the Chicago Sun-Times: "'Once in our custody
the informant was cooperative, and he did provide the crucial information. But
will he receive the $25 million?' he laughed. 'I seriously doubt it.'"
If he cooperated voluntarily, why not give him the reward? The guy who
fingered Saddam's two sons got $30 million, because he came forward
voluntarily. Apparently, the guy who fingered Saddam cooperated involuntarily.
CNN explained: "It is unclear whether anyone will receive the $25 million
bounty because the information leading to his capture came under duress."
A "senior administration official" confirmed to Newsday that the
man "didn't provide any information willingly." Col. Hickey told
reporters
that the informant first gave false information, and "there was three or
four hours of questioning before he blurted Saddam's location."
What happened in those three or four (some reports say five or more) hours?
Probably not torture, in the technical jargon of U.S. officialdom. No electric
shock, no hot irons, no fingernails pulled. At least that's what U.S.
officials insist.
They say it was just "interrogation," which is torture lite. Things
like bags over the head, tight handcuffs, no light (or constant bright light),
no food or bathroom, endless shouting or blaring music or noise, bits of light
violence. And, of course, the constant psychological torture of fearing that
serious physical pain might start at any moment.
But it wasn't only this one key informant who got torture lite. According to
Newsday: "Weeks ago, U.S. forces decided to identify anyone who might
have
current knowledge of where Hussein was, including former bodyguards, and then
to go after them with a vengeance, rounding up their families and friends --
women, children, grandparents, everyone. Many of the key clues came in
involuntary interrogations of informants."
A U.S. official told the L. A. Times: "Some people were impossible to
find,
but we'd find their relatives. One interrogation led to another raid, which
led to another interrogation." Another official (who "asked not to
be named") told the Chicago Sun-Times: ''You'd squeeze them: 'Where is
Saddam?'
They'd say, 'I don't know, but my cousin knows somebody who knows somebody
else who might know.'"
That's how The Good Guys hunted down the Number One Bad Guy,
"squeezing"
children and grandparents. It's the same kind of "squeezing" they do
at
Guantanamo Bay -- all sorts of unpleasant things done to people merely
suspected of some undefined link with some undefined evil.
Of course, the U.S. also ships some suspects out to third countries that
definitely do torture. And the models for the more aggressive U.S. policies in
Iraq, the Phoenix Program and the Israeli occupation of Palestine, certainly
involve torture. The line between torture lite and torture heavy can be very
thin, indeed.
Was it crossed in those last hours before the capture of Saddam, in the heat
of the chase? What made the informant change his story and blurt out the
truth, knowing that his friends and family might forever hate him for it? What
methods were used to persuade him to "cooperate"? We will never
know. But we do know that plenty of innocent people were terrified with
torture
lite to get to that point. And it was all done in our name, by our employees,
paid with our tax dollars.
It is time to have a full open debate about the policies our employees follow.
If we had that debate, no doubt the pro-torture side would win, here in the
land of the free and home of the brave. Isn't it worth a little bit of torture
to capture one of the world's great torturers? That argument would probably
prevail. But at least we would have to consider the moral issues involved.
No one would equate the U.S. military with Saddam's torture squads. I am
certainly not arguing that our side is as bad as Saddam. Imagine, though, that
it was your grandmother or grandfather or spouse or child, seized by the
secret police as bait, to lure you in for "interrogation." You would
not know for sure that they were being tortured. But you would not know for
sure they weren't. I bet you would turn yourself in.
Once you call that ethically OK, where does it stop? Once you torture or
threaten to torture the first person, once you say, "Well, it's only a
little bit of torture," you are on a slippery slope that leads nowhere
but down. If morality is a just matter of degree, who gets to say how much
evil a moral person can do and still remain moral? How do you justify just a
little torture, or even the threat of a little torture? If that is OK, then
what about a little murder, or a little rape, or just a little sexual assault
lite on somebody's daughter?
Saddam Hussein is evil, but he's not stupid. He understands all this. When
he sits in the defendant's dock and hears the charges against him, he can say:
"Yes, I had people tortured. But those people were a threat to the good
society I was trying to create. Sometimes, unfortunately, one must use bad
means to achieve a good end. Every government leader knows that. Surely George
W. Bush knows it."
If we respond, "Yeah, but we only used a little torture, and you are
REALLY evil," we will flunk Ethics 101. Until we demand to know the truth
about Saddam's capture and are prepared to speak the dirty little T-word, we
have already flunked Ethics 101.
Ira Chernus is Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Colorado
at Boulder
chernus@colorado.edu
