The Unanswered Question

Weeks ago, the Obama administration made the controversial decision to release legal memorandums from the Bush administration Justice Department allowing for the use of harsh interrogation techniques including waterboarding and wall-slamming by the CIA. Since then, the New York Times and several other major newspapers have devoted a substantial amount of time and effort to detail every aspect of the unfolding drama. In fact, the New York Times reported today that an internal Justice Department inquiry released a 220-page draft report on the illegality of the techniques used, with recommendations for disciplinary action. The question that's getting lost, however, in the hurry to metaphorically "spank" those responsible, is where the line between acceptable and unacceptable interrogation methods is drawn.

International law provides no reprieve. The Third Geneva Convention (relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War) is excessively vague insofar as it allows for semantic arguments. It reads,

"No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind."

At face value, the treaty seems very straight-forward; at face value, it mandates that countries treat prisoners of war with humane respect. And yet individual countries are able to create loopholes with exclusionary interpretation of words like “torture”, “coercion” (see “enhanced interrogation techniques”), and “prisoner of war” (see “enemy combatant”). Even assuming this sort of action could be monitored or tracked, there remains no enforcement mechanism for the Geneva Conventions. There’s ultimately no consequence for countries that have signed the Conventions and continue to ignore their mandates.

Perhaps the point of the incessant focus on past actions is the result of a need to clean our record here at home before solving torture abroad. But central to that solution is a clarification of what does and does not constitute torture, what is and is not allowed under the 1950 agreement. In concert with their actions to investigate the actions of and potentially prosecute Bush Justice Department officials, President Obama should issue a statement ensuring the nation that his administration will stick to the letter of the law, as dictated by the Geneva Convention, concerning the torture of prisoners of war. Only after such a clarification can the U.S. legally proceed with its efforts to revitalize its image and restore order to the international community.