| U.S. use of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment in interrogating prisoners in the war on terror is well established. Linked to earlier harsh practices by the intelligence establishment, the U.S. established a torture culture in response to the "war on terrorism." So-called "harsh" or "alternative" interrogation techniques came to be accepted practices in the treatment of detainees. We have come to understand that, despite denials, this means using torture as an interrogation technique. Furthermore, revelations that the National Security Council, sitting in formal session, and with the specific approval by President Bush, micromanaged the interrogation of "high value" detainees, provides legal and political cover such that domestic and international prosecution will be difficult, if not impossible.;Finally, The United States knowingly and intentionally rendered people, some of whom were innocent of any connection to terrorism, to torture. Others simply disappeared. While the United States steadfastly denies that it rendered people to torture, evidence continues to accumulate that it indeed did so. These renditions have caused multiple legal, political and international problems for the United States. Although the Obama administration maintains the right to continue with extraordinary renditions, these international and domestic pressures make continuance of the Bush program unlikely. v;Moreover, passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA) retroactively excused certain potential breaches of the Geneva Conventions and provided some, but not absolute, insulation from prosecution by domestic courts. These specific interrogation techniques were vetted, case-by-case, in minute detail, by the nation's highest lawyers, and approved at the very top. Regardless of any potential gaps left by the MCA, domestic courts will not likely find that following such orders were "manifestly unlawful" as the law has developed since Nuremberg. Other nations will likely find it politically inexpedient to prosecute either high-level U.S. officials or low-level governmental employees. Thus, the U.S. may succeed in an end-run around any exercise of universal jurisdiction by any of the world's courts. However, this has not been without cost, and international pressures are combining to bring these practices to a halt. |
