Report says U.S.-sanctioned tortured methods are illegal

A new report on torture – principally written by Dr. Scott Allen, clinical assistant professor at Brown University and member of Physicians for Human Rights – has concluded that all personnel engaged in the CIA “enhanced interrogation” program are at serious risk of violating U.S. law. This means that there is a potential they could risk criminal prosecution under the War Crimes Act.

This report is an important step forward. Not only does it introduce an objective reading of the law in conjunction with undisputed medical evidence into the debate, it is a pragmatic attempt to warn interrogators on the front line that the methods they have been authorized to use are illegal, ultimately making them criminally liable. In the report, entitled “Leave No Marks, ‘Enhanced’ Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of Criminality,” Dr Allen clarifies that the sanctioned techniques leave indelible psychological marks - the long terms effects being things like post-traumatic stress disorder, psychosis, substance abuse, and suicide.

It focuses on 10 suspected torture methods - stress positions; beating; water-boarding (mock drowning); exposure to extreme cold or heat; threat of humiliation to self, family or friends; sleep deprivation; sensory bombardment; violent shaking, sexual humiliation, and prolonged isolation. It then goes on to make some key recommendations to the administration, such as prohibit the “enhanced” interrogation techniques; instruct all U.S. interrogators in effective, legal, non-harmful interrogation methods; and declassify and release all documents from all relevant U.S. agencies “which contain information on U.S. interrogation policy and practice, including but not limited to the ‘enhanced’ interrogation methods.”

It will be interesting to see what the response is to this report. The administration has continually defended the CIA’s enhanced interrogation program – the details of which are still highly classified – in the name of national security, even while key military and past and present CIA officials have been increasingly critical of such strategies and their effectiveness in garnering reliable information.

With an objective focus and strong scientific methodology, the Bush administration would do well to take note of a report of this nature, despite its application of Common Article 3. So too would the interrogators themselves.