Which will Trump: human rights and professional ethics, or torture redux?

Abstract

Recent political developments in the United States raise concerns about the potential return of aggressive interrogation strategies, particularly in the event of another large-scale terror attack on the U.S. mainland. This essay reviews various legal, ethical and policy responses to revelations of torture during the Bush administration. It asks whether they improve the prospect that, in future, human rights will trump torture, not vice versa. The essay argues that physicians could help prevent further abuses – especially given their access, social status and expertise – but that insufficient steps have been taken to empower them to do so.

Keywords:

• Torture
• Interrogation
• Human Rights
• Professional Ethics
• Health Professions
• Institutional Ethics

Notes

1. I use the term ‘aggressive interrogation’ to describe practices that the Bush administration characterised as ‘enhanced interrogation techniques.’ I do so for two reasons. Most importantly, the consensus among experienced interrogators (e.g. Soufan 2009) is that these techniques are not reliable, let alone enhanced. Second, although many of the techniques constitute torture – especially when used cumulatively and repeatedly – the use of the word torture alone may be insufficient to capture individual techniques that do not rise to the level of torture under international law, but constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment (CID). Such conduct is, of course, also prohibited by international law. Interrogation covers not only techniques used during questioning; it includes interventions (such as changes in detention environments) that are made with the intention or effect of weakening detainees physically or psychologically.

2. Although I was called upon to share my views with the committee, I did not participate in the committee’s decision-making process, and I was not responsible for the drafting of its report.

3. For the purpose of this essay, I focus on the role that the prospect of accountability might have in empowering physicians to stand up in the future, and I leave to one side the question of who should be held liable and in what ways for detainee abuses in the Bush administration’s war on terror.