Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 6 Share on Twitter Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
Exclusive to OpEd News:
OpEdNews Op Eds   

In Our Name: The Bush Administration and Torture

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)   No comments
The Bush Administration argues that Democrats are so soft they’d prescribe therapy for terrorists.  The quip seems too preposterous to rebut, but apparently enough Americans believed it that George W. Bush received more votes for president in 2004 than any candidate in history.  That fact doesn’t say much for the American people, though at least most of the public has now flip-flopped on the war:  they were for the war before they were against it.  Much of the public has lent its support to the Bush Administration’s blatantly illegal activities, including the administration’s use of cruel, inhumane, and degrading interrogation methods, but this to may change when the truth comes out.  Put simply, the Bush Administration has been utilizing torture methods that would make even the Marquis de Sade blanche. 

The Bush Administration has turned to psychologists in developing interrogation techniques designed to reduce terror suspects to a state of infantile dependency.  These methods arguably fall short of torture in the conventional sense.  That is, they don’t necessarily involve rubber hoses, thumbscrews, and cattle prods.  But in so far as they are designed to create a complete psychological breakdown they rank as some of the most repulsive methods for treating prisoners ever devised. 


The methods of enhanced interrogation approved by Bush, which the administration refuses to discuss, center on sensory deprivation, sleep deprivation, and psychological humiliation.  Each individual method may seem borderline acceptable  (e.g., what is wrong with keeping a terrorist awake indefinitely?), but the cumulative effect of all techniques used in total constitutes such a radical departure from American norms that one is virtually compelled to call them un-American.


A picture of the interrogation methods approved by Bush/Cheney has emerged from several sources, including terror suspects that were wrongfully detained and tortured.  What follows is something of a composite, but it accurately reflects the methods employed by the CIA at so-called “black sites,” sites that for all intents and purposes are outside any legal jurisdiction whatsoever.  The suspects are typically denied human contact, with the exception of black hooded guards and handlers.  Efforts are made to keep them as uncomfortable as possible, which may include methods like confining suspects in cages so small it is impossible to stand up or sit down.  The aim here is to deny the suspects any sense of control.  To this end, suppositories are used regularly to insure that suspects even lose control of their bodily functions.


In conditions of complete sensory and sleep deprivation suspects will reach a state of complete dependency, they will suffer hallucinations, and ultimately a complete mental breakdown.  They will undoubtedly reveal valuable information, but they will also tell their captors what they want to hear.  The administration claims it has foiled plots using its harsh interrogation methods.  However, suspects have also confessed to crimes they didn’t commit.  For instance, it is clear that a false confession was taken as confirmation by Bush/Cheney that Saddam possessed WMD and was intent on sharing them with al-Qaeda.  It is horribly ironic to think that the Bush administration’s dubious interrogation methods could be at least partly responsible for the fiasco in Iraq.


The Bush Administration claims that its interrogation methods have saved lives.  But without transparency it is not possible to weigh the potential costs and benefits.  One cost, little acknowledged, is that over time extremely dehumanizing interrogation methods have the effect of brutalizing both the suspects and their captors.  The administration has taken to legalistic hairsplitting to justify its coercive interrogation methods.  Within their framework, breaking bones is taboo, but breaking minds is perfectly ok.  But if U.S. service personnel were treated in an equivalent fashion you can be sure their captors would be described as barbarous.  Terrorists may not deserve therapy, but expanding interrogation methods to include psychological forms of torture will inevitably shrink America’s humanity.

Rate It | View Ratings

Scott O'Reilly Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

About the Author -- Scott D. O'Reilly is an independent writer with degrees in philosophy and psychology. His work has been published in The Humanist, Philosophy Now, Intervention Magazine, Think, and The Philosopher's Magazine. He is a (more...)
Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEd News Newsletter
   (Opens new browser window)

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Is George Bush a Sociopath?

Bush Loses His Mojo, and His Mind

Character is Destiny

Top Ten Reasons Dick Cheney Should Run for President in 2008

Bush vs. History and the Future of Iraq

Sean Hannity's America: The Politics of Hate

To View Comments or Join the Conversation:

Tell A Friend