Congressman Buyer's Position on Torture Allegations

Originally posted on A contrario on 27 May 2008

On 2 May, I received a response from Congressman Steve Buyer to my 16 April letter requesting an independent investigation into the abuse and torture of prisoners by U.S. forces. He included an 'Issue Position Statement' with his response, which I have reproduced in its entirety below1:

CONGRESSMAN STEVE BUYER
"Working For Indiana"

Issue Position Statement:
Treatment of Enemy Combatants & Terrorist Suspects

As you know, there has been controversy surrounding the U.S. treatment of enemy combatants and terrorist suspects detained on U.S. soil and abroad and whether such treatment complies with U.S. statutes and treaties including U.N.

Conventions and the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In 2005, Congress approved additional guidelines concerning the treatment of detainees via the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA). Provisions of the DTA, first introduced by Senator John McCain (often referred to as the "McCain Amendment") include the requirement for Department of Defense (DOD) personnel to employ United States Army Field Manual guidelines while interrogating detainees, and prohibits the "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment of persons under the detention, custody, or control of the United States Government." Furthermore, the McCain Amendment prohibits persons under U.S. custody or control from being subjected to "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" of any kind prohibited by the Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments, regardless of their geographic location or nationality.

Any act that inflicts serious and non-transitory mental harm has been specifically prohibited by the 2006 Military Commissions Act (MCA), a law that applies to all agencies of the United States government. During the formulation of the statutory language, it was agreed upon by Administration officials that waterboarding is an act expressly prohibited by the MCA. I voted for this law when it was passed by the House on September 29, 2006, by a vote of 250 to 170. It was signed into law by the President on October 17 of that year. Additionally, I believe that the current CIA interrogation program is an appropriately aggressive, effective, and lawful guide for that agency to carry out their prescribed duties combating terror around the globe.

In the course of recent discussions surrounding the treatment of prisoners, it has come to my attention that the terms "torture" and "interrogation" have mistakenly been used interchangeably in the media and in other places. Those terms are exclusively defined and should not be considered synonymous. As previously described, "torture" is clearly an illegal act or acts while an "interrogation" is the methodical questioning of a prisoner according to legal and prescribed techniques and procedures.

For over twenty-five years I have served as a Judge Advocate General (JAG) officer in the Army Reserve. In that capacity I personally conducted interrogations of officers of the Iraqi military high command during the first Gulf War. No torture took place during those interrogations and I am convinced that torture is by no means an effective method of extracting timely and credible information from prisoners. Rather, there are well-established interrogation techniques and methods that conform to our laws and international convention and are proven to be effective to gather useful information from an enemy prisoner.

Conclusively, torture is against federal law. While there have been unfortunate examples of U.S. forces deviating from these principles in recent conflicts, it is incumbent upon us as a nation to stand by our values and defend those inalienable rights upon which this country was founded. Those who have brazenly violated our rules and standards of conduct in this regard should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, whether their actions took place on the battlefield or a more controlled environment. It the right thing to do; the rest of the world expects it of us as do our own citizens.

1. 1. To the best of my knowledge, a position statement is by definition intended for public distribution, and can therefore be freely distributed. As it claims to reflect the views of its original author, however, any intentional alteration to such a statement could probably be construed as libel.