Kayyem on Torture
Melanie Roe
Issue date: 10/25/06 Section: KSG News
The US Supreme Court ruled in June that the Geneva Conventions apply to the treatment of detainees held as part of the War on Terror. The Citizen asked Professor Juliette Kayyem, Lecturer in Public Policy and former appointee to the National Commission on Terrorism, to shed some light on the debates surrounding the case.
The ruling on the case, brought against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by Osama Bin Laden's driver Salim Hamdan, also invalidated the Military Commission procedure set up to try the handful of detainees that have been charged. Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions and Interrogation Act of 2006, which sought to define interrogation tactics and who could be subjected to them. Professor Kayyem believes this legislation will be reexamined in next few years.
The Citizen: How do we draw the line between interrogation tactics and torture?
Juliette Kayyem: My personal feeling is you cannot draw a line until you are willing to talk about the tactics that are being used, and that's the problem. Everyone can be against torture. This legislation created a class of interrogation tactics that are clearly torture and therefore, we will not use. But we need to create a class of what we might call "harsh interrogation treatments" that may be used, but only in limited circumstances. The compromise in the debates was that the President can decide what constitutes "harsh treatment."
TC: Why the focus on waterboarding versus other tactics?
JK: Probably because of two things. First of all, it is truly a shocking physical act to perform. The amazing thing about [MPP2 Kaj Larsen's] film is seeing it done - especially, for those of us who talk about waterboarding. I had actually never seen it. It does make you think "we are doing that to human beings?" The second thing is: the sensation of death probably comes as close as we would ever want it to.
TC: Is this the worst interrogation tactic the US is using, that you know of?
The ruling on the case, brought against Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld by Osama Bin Laden's driver Salim Hamdan, also invalidated the Military Commission procedure set up to try the handful of detainees that have been charged. Congress responded by passing the Military Commissions and Interrogation Act of 2006, which sought to define interrogation tactics and who could be subjected to them. Professor Kayyem believes this legislation will be reexamined in next few years.
The Citizen: How do we draw the line between interrogation tactics and torture?
Juliette Kayyem: My personal feeling is you cannot draw a line until you are willing to talk about the tactics that are being used, and that's the problem. Everyone can be against torture. This legislation created a class of interrogation tactics that are clearly torture and therefore, we will not use. But we need to create a class of what we might call "harsh interrogation treatments" that may be used, but only in limited circumstances. The compromise in the debates was that the President can decide what constitutes "harsh treatment."
TC: Why the focus on waterboarding versus other tactics?
JK: Probably because of two things. First of all, it is truly a shocking physical act to perform. The amazing thing about [MPP2 Kaj Larsen's] film is seeing it done - especially, for those of us who talk about waterboarding. I had actually never seen it. It does make you think "we are doing that to human beings?" The second thing is: the sensation of death probably comes as close as we would ever want it to.
TC: Is this the worst interrogation tactic the US is using, that you know of?
Be the first to comment on this story