Countering Arguments for Torture
To fully prepare for your Congressional district office visit(s), it is a good idea to familiarize yourself with the common arguments you might encounter as you seek support for a fully independent and impartial commission to publicly investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment of persons in U.S. custody around the world. Being able to anticipate what the counter arguments might allow you to more effectively sway their opinion with an intelligent, well thought-out response.
With any visit to the office of a Member of Congress or Senator during which you will be advocating on human rights issues you should try to (1) know what, if anything, the Representative or Senator has said about the issue on which you are addressing (perhaps they have made plain their position) and (2) learn and be able to present facts that will reinforce your lobby "ask" and provide them with more information.
Below are examples of common arguments you might encounter as well as responses we suggest. Feel free to put the responses into your own words. We provide this as guidance.
What are some common counter arguments?
Counter Argument 1: Instances of torture and ill-treatment are properly investigated and prosecuted by U.S. military personnel. Over 100 service members have been punished for their roles in the various abuses that have occurred. This proves that military investigations are effective, and there is no need for an independent investigation. Furthermore, the torture and ill-treatment seen at Abu Ghriab was committed by a few bad apples who have been held accountable.
Suggested Response: We appreciate the fact that the military continues to investigate and prosecute cases - those directly responsible for perpetrating abuses should be held accountable. However, the prosecutions have been limited mostly to lower ranking military members and have seldom addressed accountability or responsibility up the chain of command. In addition, we are concerned that many of the sentences given have been relatively short or others are receiving only administrative punishments. There continue to be allegations of torture and ill-treatment by U.S. agents around the world and it is not clear that all cases have been fully investigated. The striking similarities of these allegations of abuse being exposed point to the real possibility that these acts may have resulted from policies set in Washington that have created a climate where abuse has flourished. What is needed to fully uncover the truth and help being an end to these abuses is a fully independent and impartial commission that has the mandate to investigate all agencies in the U.S. Government and can assess responsibility of unlawful actions up the military and civilian chain of command.
Counter Argument 2: Since the Abu Ghraib scandal, the Department of Defense (DOD) and high-ranking military officials have dedicated countless hours to prevent further detainee abuse. Are you accusing members of the military of not doing their job?
Suggested Response: There is no question that the majority of military members are doing their jobs without incident. We are concerned with policies that have been put in place which have allowed torture and ill-treatment to occur and continue to make those in US custody vulnerable to abuse. We are also here today because we want to make sure that accountability and responsibility for the torture and ill-treatment that has occurred is assessed up the military and civilian chain of command and all involved are brought to justice. In order to ensure the greatest level of transparency and accountability, a fully independent commission is needed, the findings of which must be made public. Many of the Administration's policies are still unknown and unknowable because they are being concealed, reinforcing the need for an independent commission. Furthermore, we continue to have concerns that people are in U.S. custody that have not even had a visit by the International Committee for the Red Cross. The ICRC should be granted immediate and unrestricted access to all detainees in US custody and control. Additionally, human rights experts from the U.N. and independent human rights organizations like Amnesty International should be granted access to detainees as well.
Counter Argument 3: Let me give you a scenario. Suppose that the U.S. government has apprehended a suspect who they know can provide them with information that would prevent another 9/11 catastrophe from occurring. Don't you think in this case that the use of torture or at least ill-treatment is appropriate in order to get the information needed from the suspect?
Suggested Response: I agree that all governments have an obligation to protect their citizens from such attacks. However, the best way to achieve security is to promote human rights and the rule of law. The reality is that torture and ill-treatment is unlawful, immoral, ineffective and un-American. Federal statutes and international law have clearly outlawed the use of torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment under all circumstances. Furthermore, both civilian and military experts have long recognized that torture and ill-treatment does not elicit accurate information.
Counter Argument 4: The Senator cosponsored Senate Resolution 356 that condemned the abuse of Iraqi prisoners and urged a full and complete investigation. Isn't that enough?
Suggested Response: Senate Resolution 356 is praiseworthy and we thank the Senator for voting in favor of it. However, the resolution does not address a number of issues including, but not limited to: the vast network of detention facilities under U.S. control that are not in Iraq, accountability and responsibility for the abuses that occurred, recommendations to prevent future abuses, and the need for a fully independent and impartial commission to publicly investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment. By establishing an independent commission, we will help repair the damage to the U.S. image and strengthen federal statutes and international agreements that explicitly prohibit torture and other forms of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. By taking a strong stance against torture and ill-treatment and holding those accountable who are involved in these acts, we are also helping to protect our troops from facing this kind of abuse.
