I am actually quite appalled at the level of juvenile equivocation made in this Washington Post article by Dana Milbank Bush’s Bill Suffers a Torturous Day in Committee. He opens this article with the following statement:
House Judiciary Chairman James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), fighting to preserve the use of harsh interrogation techniques, speaks with some authority on the subject: He was subjected to seven hours of cruel and unusual punishment as he tried to get the legislation through his committee yesterday.
Sensenbrenner can speak on authority about torture because he had a rough day in congress supporting the president’s de facto support of torture? Is this for real? This is the worst kind of nonsense journalism that is bringing this country down. Why the equivocation? Why can’t we be better served by our press and our government in addressing these issues seriously? The rest of the world must laugh at our feeble attempts to address the torture question. It seems that John McCain is about the only one who really brings gravitas to the discussion. And that must just make the republicans furious because really he is beyond reproach on the issue having spent years in a prison camp. McCain’s principled stand is such a marked contrast to the rest the chicken hawk crowd out there who feebly attempt to support the president and his reprehensible and duplicitous stand on torture policy. I applaud McCain for bringing seriousness to the issue because it is deadly serious.
But what I don’t understand is how someone like Milbank can even make a statement equivocating torture and a difficult congressional meeting. And then turn around and casually state that Sensenbrenner can speak “with authority” on the question of torture. I am sorry this is not authority. It is a gross equivocation in my mind. And does more to tarnish the Post’s reputation for serious journalism, than enhance the debate and inform the American public.
But I suppose there is always equivocation when confronted with difficult questions such as torture. It seems when you have nothing constructive to offer to the discussion the only recourse is to joke about it.
As a student in college I spent an academic quarter in South Africa towards the end of the Clinton administration. As part of my study there I looked into the Truth and Reconciliation commision set up to address human rights violations that occured under apartheid. The findings of the Turth commission are worth a read for anyone interested in torture and what can happen to a nation as it goes down that dark path.
Equivocation seems to be a truism when there is really no defensible position that can be taken, a position the republicans find themselves in because of Bush’s failed leadership. For me one of the most provocative moments in the truth commission was reading about the notorious Cape Town police chief Jeffrey Benzien and his now famous “wet bag” torture method, prized for its efficiency in breaking most victims in a matter of minutes. Here is the description as Benzien described it:
The suspect is made to lie on the ground on his stomach, with his hands handcuffed behind his back. Benzien then sits on the small of his back, with his feet between the victim’s arms. A bag soaked in water is then pulled over the head of the victim and twisted tightly around his neck, cutting off the air supply to the victim. The suspect is then questioned. From time to time, the bag is released to avoid the victim losing consciousness. The bag is only removed when the victim shows signs of wanting to talk.
According to the evidence of Benzien, his technique was so effective that he invariably got the desired results within a matter of thirty minutes. The suspect was usually undressed and sometimes he was blindfolded before the wet bag was put over his head. This was done to disorientate the suspect. The wet bag is held tight over the victim’s head and is released to prevent him from suffocating. The victim is usually under considerable distress. Benzien concedes saying to some of his victims that they would be treated like animals if they did not co-operate and refused to answer questions.
However more shocking than the graphic depictions of the torture itself, is the equivocation of the perpetrator when interrogated during the truth commission. While appearing before the truth commission Benzien astonished audiences when the following exchange occured between him and Ashley Forbes one of his survivors:
MR BENZIEN: May I just ask a moment here. You say you were arrested on what date?
MR FORBES: The 16th.
MR BENZIEN: And if I understand you correctly, you are saying subsequently the 16th of each month, I would assault you?
MR FORBES: The 16th, not of each month, yes, but on each month, that that would be the day on which I was to expect an assault?
MR BENZIEN: Sir, in the spirit of reconciliation and I have been trying to be as honest with this court as I can, I deny and Mr Forbes, if I am denying this, then one of us two are lying.Because after you initial arrest and your initial interrogation, I concede on the Saturday I assaulted you. I then assaulted you I think it was on the Monday evening, that was after that we went for the steak, am I correct?
After that, I took you on investigation to the Eastern Cape. Whereas to refresh your memory, and I am not saying it flippantly, as you said it was the most Kentucky Fried chicken you have ever eaten. Either after that or prior to that, we attempted to go to the Western Transvaal where you were going to do some pointing out.
Could you remember the time that you had seen snow for the first time? Can you remember what happened in the snow? The husband and the wife and the two children who were taking photo’s of you playing in the snow along the N1?
Your trip to Colesberg, where you braaied with me that night and with the rest of the Unit, therefore Mr Forbes, in the spirit of honesty and reconciliation, I am sure you are making a mistake about the 16th of every month was the day that I would assault you.
MR FORBES: Mr Benzien, maybe I will take you through the next time that I was assaulted and I will just see if there are aspects of that torture that you may remember.
For example on the second occasion do you remember that I was wrapped in the carpet?
MR BENZIEN: That was the Monday, the Monday night.
MR FORBES: Do you remember for example that my clothes were removed and that the wet bag method was again used on me?
MR BENZIEN: I would concede it could have happened.
MR FORBES: Do you remember after that, putting me onto a chair and then saying to me that you are going to break my eardrum and then hitting me against my ear?
MR BENZIEN: No, Sir. Not saying I am going to break your eardrum. I gave you a smack that evening on your ear and days later you told me that you think your eardrum was broken. You were examined by a District Surgeon in Queenstown if I am not mistaken, but you had also been sitting at the open window in the vehicle.
MR FORBES: Do you remember saying that you are going to give me a blue eye and then hitting me against my eye?
MR BENZIEN: No Sir. If I can again, please emphasise to the court, at that stage Mr Forbes had not been placed under Regulation 29 yet. I knew he had to be examined by a Doctor.
MR FORBES: Do you remember saying that you are going to break my nose and then putting both your thumbs into my nostrils and pulling it until the blood came out of my nose?
MR BENZIEN: I know you had a nose bleed. I thought it was as a result of the smack I gave you.
What is really remarkable is the reference to the chicken dinner. When confronted with the truth of his victim’s torture experience Benzien does the only thing he can equivocates and tries to paint a rosy picture.
Subscribe to our RSS Feed