Alfred McCoy from the U of Wisconsin at Madison was a guest on Democracy Now last night. He has studied the history of CIA interrogation experiments and the practices that proved successful -- practices he regards as psychologically destructive torture. He makes three points, worth investigating: (1) psychological stress techniques are explicitly excepted from U.S. agreements to refrain from torture, although there is good reason to believe they do as much or more long-term damage than more familiar tactics. (2) The sensational photos we see on television are read by people who understand history as clear, central cases of the implementation of long-established policies and techniques. They are not rogue, outlaw incidents but just what the manuals call for. (3) Torture tends to spread widely and quickly beyond its initial uses. These techniques are deeply tempting, and, once they are allowed in one place, for one sort of suspect, for one kind of interrogator, they quickly spread to other places, other suspects, other interrogators and even prison guards. These claims are worth following up.
My question is just this: suppose I am called to serve on a jury. In the normal case, my responsibility is limited to deciding the facts of the case in conformity to the judge's instructions. But, in a legal system in which torture has been condoned at the highest levels, can I assume that interrogators and prison guards and police will respect the constitutional rights of those entrusted to them, or that courts will enforce that respect. And, if I cannot assume that prisoners will be protected from torture, is it my constitutional responsibility as a juror to take responsibility for protecting them, by refraining from convicting?
Posted by shea0017 at February 18, 2006 10:51 AM