Sharrock: A couple of things. I started it because I was interested in issues about prison rights, but then also America’s hypocrisy when it comes to our human rights record. So this was the perfect combination of those things.
My parents aren’t citizens, so a lot of the extreme patriotism that happened after 9/11 was a little bit foreign and fascinating to me. I don’t want to sound like I’m unpatriotic, but this story was sort of a way to tap into some of that.
I was surprised because when I set off to report it, I thought I was sort of speaking with the devil, confronting this evil person, someone who would engage in torture. And then as I found out more of these guys’ stories, it was fascinating on their individual levels, and they were the complete opposite of what I had expected. On my first reporting trip down to Cumberland, a soldier who had worked at Abu Ghraib, who was actually caught in some of the photos but wasn’t prosecuted, warned me that “once you start reporting on this, you are going to become obsessed and you won’t be able to stop.” I just sort of laughed, but now looking back I realize he was right, just because there’s so much there.
Rumpus: And not that many people are willing to uncover it, because you are dealing with high powers in our government.
Sharrock: And it’s also just looking at the ramifications the war has had on our country, it’s sort of a larger story beyond the story about the military.
Rumpus: To your knowledge, is there still a big international disagreement on a definition of torture? What’s your definition of torture?
Sharrock: I use the definition for torture that is laid out in the United Nations Convention Against Torture, which is the universally accepted definition worldwide.
The US uses their own definition which is very similar.
In the infamous “Torture Memos” the Justice Department wrote out legal arguments that could provide loopholes within that definition, basically trying to see how far they could push things before they are considered torture. They focused on two parts of the US definition: #1, There has to be a specific intention to inflict pain and #2, That the pain has to be severe. So they pulled apart the question of how bad does something have to be to be severe, and came up with the answer that it had to be equivalent to the pain of organ failure or even death.
These loopholes are the key to why they use the type of torture that they used [in Guantanamo and other prisons]. For example, if it could be argued that the soldiers weren’t intentionally inflicting severe pain– if they get soldiers to do so unwittingly by using methods of torture lite–they are off the hook. They also argued that if any medics or doctors are present, it automatically indicated that there is no intention to inflict pain.
I think that their legal arguments are highly faulty and I disagree with them (as do many). But that is where you get into sticky situations.
Rumpus: I am sure you you’ve been interested in whether there are instances of torture in Afghanistan, and why there hasn’t been much reform since Guantanamo. Have you found anything recently that is a continuation of all this?
Sharrock: When I was pitching the story to different editors, everyone was saying: this is fascinating, it’s really well written and researched, but torture is over. It’s an issue that’s going to be in the past by the time this comes out. And I was just like, you guys have to trust me, it’s not. This is going to keep going for a long time. And they’d say, well Guantanamo is supposed to close within a year and I’d respond, well what do you do with the detainees after that?
There are so many prisons besides Guantanamo. For instance, Bagram is still operating. And that was a place where there were even more abuses. Just because Guantanamo closes doesn’t mean it’s over.
I’m working now on some stories about the individual acts of reconciliation between guards and detainees. And looking at the larger question of: should we do a truth commission? Should we do prosecutions? How do you not just try to address it for our own reasons, for setting precedence, but how to you amend and change the view of America? I think we will be tarnished in terms of our international reputation forever.
Rumpus: In your conclusion, you stress how America might not be the same as it used to be, how “the flag no longer represented” what it used to. Is there a chance it was never a completely upstanding place to begin with, that the military has been covertly using these tactics for many years? Can you elaborate on what is so different now?
6 responses
This is a great interview, and I hope it urges people to read the book, or at least think about the effects of torture on detainees and soldiers in a more realistic way – past the photographs and immediate reactions. Thanks Maddie and Justine!
Come on. Torture has been part of US designs from its very Plymouth Rock beginnings. Indians, blacks, Mexicans in Arizona, ask any of them what they were and continue to be dealt in this continent. Torture is powerful people having their say over less powerful people. What bugs me is the total hypocracy of americans who think they are somehow above it. That somehow this lowers our esteem in the eyes of the world. Only gullible people still believe that america is some sort of beacon. Everyone else knows exactly what we are: an insatiable killing machine with the uncanny ability to smile. Whether it’s living forests, animals, or people, everyone who doesn’t do what we say better be ready to be visited by a drone, or a soldier who, because of a dysfunctional education system, a socialist free market system for the rich, and ten thousand sports channels blaring at them every minute of their lives, doesn’t know when they are being played.
There’s a lot here, so I’ll pick one vien to comment on. The Geneva Conventions, or, the Law of Land Warfare, is not habeas corpus. The COnventions were meant to protect the innocent, protect non-combatants and non-military structures, and to help beligerant parties distinguish between what is lawful and what is not. The Taliban, al Qaeda, soldiers of fortune, and mercinaries captured on the battlefield in the Global War on Terror, do not fit into any category of legal combatant because they are one, not signators to the Conventions, two, not compliant with the requirements of the Conventions. If they were signators and compliant they still wouldn’t be eligible for civil trials or release until all hostilities had ceased. This is the huge point not of the bleeding hearts can wrap their heads around. I’ll say it again, even if they had signed the Geneva Conventions they would not be eligible for release until the war was over. The illegal combatants have no rights under the law. In WW II the U.S> tried German spies caught in the U.S. by military commission, and they were not entitled to habeas corpus. In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln suspended the writ of habeas corpus, and formed military commissions to try civilians. So, what is president Obama doing? Apparently following in his hero Lincoln’s footsteps.
http://www.strategicpublishinggroup.com/title/SavingGraceAtGuantanamoBay.html
I hate to throw rocks, but there is a pretty obvious, glaring hole in Montgomery’s theory of indefinite detainment void of due process being in line with the spirit of the Geneva Convention.
A country unilaterally declaring a “Global” war is a pretty broad way of describing your enemy. If the “bleeding hearts” can’t wrap their minds around the more than fuzzy rules and law that justify endless detainment and torture, the average neocon would have a tough time wrapping their mind around the profile of a terrorist changing to white males (because of their penchant for attacking federal buildings) in this “Global” war.
You can’t have your cake and eat it too, if the Convention allows for the term of detention to be defined by the length of the conflict so be it, but the Convention is also pretty clear on the use of torture.
This is a fabulous interview on a very controversial topic. The author has done us a service, interviewing and capturing what it is like to be a sanctioned terrorist. She also makes critical observations about how the VA handles men and women who suffer from PTSD. Could they do more? Yes. That said, I would like to point out that the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress in Menlo Park is a amazing institution. I interned their as a chaplain. The men I worked with have severe challenges and the center helps in many ways to help them regain a semblance of their humanity. Many do take prescription drugs to ease their problems but the center does far more to help them reintegrate into society and back to their families. It is too bad that more men and women cannot be given the same treatment. Our nation owes them far more, given the horrors that we as a country subjected them to.
Bob-
Thanks for bringing up this organization. It seems like treatment options are getting better for those suffering from PTSD, and I am also hopeful about how PTSD seems to be more accepted by society in general as a disease and not just a weakness. Perhaps other centers in the US can look to the Menlo Center as a positive example of how to reintegrate vets who are suffering after combat. I agree with you that our country owes it to them! Thanks for reading and responding.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.