[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6216-6217]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           TORTURE IS A CRIME

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today to speak 
about an issue that has been discussed in the press recently, which is 
the use of torture to obtain information from persons who are suspected 
of being terrorists.
  It is well-established that torture is a violation of international 
law, by which our country is bound. It is also a violation of our own 
laws. Yet commentators have been quoted by the press saying that in 
certain limited circumstances, when the threat is a possible terrorist 
attack, the use of torture is justified. Some have even suggested that 
since torture is used, why not simply admit it and accept it as a fact 
of life?
  These are not easy questions. Who does not want to do everything 
possible to save innocent lives? We all do. But the United States is a 
nation of laws, and I reject the view that torture, even in such 
compelling circumstances, can be justified. I would hope all countries 
would uphold their obligations under international law, but that is not 
the case. It is the 21st century, and yet torture is used by government 
security forces in some 150 countries.
  We have often spoken about how important it is not to let the 
terrorists win. We try not to let ourselves be intimidated. We take 
precautions, but we go about our daily lives.
  The same holds true of the tactics terrorists use. If we don't 
protect the civil liberties that distinguish us from terrorists, then 
the terrorists have won.
  Torture is among the most heinous crimes, and there is no 
justification for its use. One need only review history to understand 
why there can be no exception to torture. The torture of criminal 
suspects flagrantly violates the presumption of innocence on which our 
criminal jurisprudence is based, and confessions extracted as a result 
of torture are notoriously unreliable.
  Also, history has shown that once an exception is made for torture, 
it is impossible to draw the line. If we can justify torture in the 
United States, then what is to prevent its use in China, Iraq, Chile, 
or anywhere else? If torture is justified to obtain information from a 
suspected terrorist, then why not torture the terrorist's wife and 
children, or his friends and acquaintances who may know about his 
activities or his whereabouts? In fact, that is what happens in many 
countries.
  There is also the issue of what constitutes torture versus 
acceptable, albeit harsh, treatment.
  Torture is defined in the Convention Against Torture, which the 
United States ratified, as ``any act by which severe pain or suffering, 
whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted upon a person 
for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information 
or a confession . . .''.
  A March 4 article in the New York Times described the treatment of 
Afghan prisoners at the Bagram air base. Two former prisoners, both of 
young

[[Page 6217]]

age, recently died in U.S. military custody. Other prisoners described 
being forced to stand naked in a cold room for 10 days without 
interruption, with their arms raised and chained to the ceiling and 
their swollen ankles shackled. They also said they were denied sleep 
for days and forced to wear hoods that cut off the supply of oxygen.
  I do not believe that prisoners of war, some of whom are suspected of 
having killed or attempted to kill Americans, should be rewarded with 
comforts. Harsh treatment may, at times, be justified.
  However, while I cannot say whether the treatment described by these 
Afghan prisoners amounts to torture under international law, it does 
sound cruel and inhumane. The inhumane treatment of prisoners, whoever 
they are, is beneath a great nation. It is also illegal. That is the 
law whether U.S. military officers engage in such conduct themselves, 
or they turn over prisoners to the government agents of another country 
where torture is commonly used, in order to let others do the dirty 
work.
  Some of these Afghan prisoners may be guilty of war crimes. Some may 
be members of al-Qaida but may have never fired a shot. Others may be 
completely innocent. But regardless, I was not proud when I read that 
article, and when I think of how often I and other Members of Congress 
have criticized other governments for treating prisoners that way. It 
undermines our reputation as a Nation of laws, it hurts our credibility 
with other nations, and it invites others to use similar tactics.
  I am encouraged that the Department of Defense is conducting a review 
of the deaths of the two Afghans at Bagram, both of which were ruled 
homicides by an American pathologist. Those responsible for what 
happened must be held accountable. But I also urge the Department to 
review whether the interrogation techniques used there, and at other 
U.S. military facilities are fully consistent with international law. 
It should not take a homicide to reveal that prisoners in U.S. custody 
are being mistreated.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________