Torturing Democracy is a documentary film which premiered in 2008. It is about prisoners who have been detained in the US prison at Guantanamo Bay after 2001 and about US policy regarding cruel and unusual punishment aka torture.
Here is some basic information about this film:
** Writer, producer and director: Sherry Jones
** Narrator: Peter Coyote
** Consultant: Jane Mayer
** Run time: 89 minutes
Several persons are interviewed in the film. Here are the names (in alphabetical order):
** Richard Armitage – Deputy Secretary of State 2001-2005
** Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch – military prosecutor - Office of Military Commissions 2003-2006
** Dr Michael Gelles – Naval Central Intelligence Service 1991-2006
** Colonel Steven Kleinman – Senior Intelligence Officer, US Air Force 1985-2008
** Martin Lederman – Associate Professor, Georgetown University, Law Center
** Colonel Brittain Mallow – Central Intelligence Task Force 2002-2005
** George Brent Mickum IV – an American Lawyer
** Alberto Mora – General Counsel, US Navy 2001-2006
** Malcolm Nance – Chief of Training, US Navy SERE 1997-2001
** Major General Thomas Romig – JAG, US Army 2001-2005
** Richard Schiffrin – Deputy General Counsel, Intelligence, Department of Defense 1998-2003
** Clive Clifford Smith – a British lawyer – Director of the organization Reprieve which campaigns for the abolition of the death penalty in the US
** Colonel Lawrence “Larry” Wilkerson – Chief of Staff to the Secretary of State 2002-2005
Several former prisoners were also interviewed. Some are only heard, not seen. The following are seen and heard:
** Bisher Al-Rawi – Detainee # 906
** Moazzam Begg – Detainee # 558
** Shafiq Rasul – Detainee # 086
Archive footage is used between the talking heads. Archive footage allows us to see and hear President George Bush and some members of his government.
US government documents are frequently shown and quoted in order to support the statements made by the narrator and by the persons who are interviewed.
This film shows that the US Government allowed cruel and unusual punishment of prisoners who were detained at Guantanamo Bay.
While most members of the government do not want to admit that they allowed the use of torture, other observers are not afraid to use this word.
The detainees were not regarded as prisoners of war. They were regarded as enemy combatants and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The prisoners were detained on Cuban soil rented by the US. They were not detained on American soil and therefore not protected by American rules and regulations.
In the prison at Guantanamo Bay there were no rules and regulations, except those created in secret by the US government. According to this secret world created by the US government, the prison guards and the interrogators could not violate any American laws. They could do whatever they wanted.
Several observers explain that the prison guards who were employed at Guantanamo Bay did not have much experience with running a prison and that the interrogators who were employed at Guantanamo Bay did not have much experience with conducting interrogations.
Even though they lacked proper qualifications, they were chosen for the job and they were allowed to do whatever they wanted. They were told they did not and could not violate any American laws and did not have to fear any reprisals:
Go ahead!
Do what is necessary!
Several observers say they were horrified when they realized what was happening at Guantanamo Bay, but their response was often slow and cautious.
Almost none of them reacted at once. Almost none of them used the high position they had in the system to make a forceful and vigorous protest against what was going on.
One notable exception is Lt. Colonel Stuart Couch who was a prosecutor in the case against a prisoner from Mauritania: Mohamedou Ould Slahi.
When Stuart Couch realized that the numerous statements made by this detainee were the product of torture, his conscience told him that the interrogators had crossed the line and he refused to prosecute the case.
What are the consequences of events in the American prison at Guantanamo Bay? Several observers discuss this question in the film. The answer comes in two parts:
The first part
The US has compromised its own ideals. The US claims to be a defender of human rights. The US wants to be seen as a country which promotes human rights. But events in the prison at Guantanamo Bay show us that this image is false.
The second part
When US soldiers are sent abroad and take part in a military conflict, some of them will captured. What will happen to them? How will they be treated?
The enemy may say they are not prisoners of war; the enemy may say they are enemy combatants and therefore not protected by the Geneva Conventions.
The enemy may use torture and will be able to defend this method by saying that the US does it too. Since the Americans have used torture against their enemies, it follows that their enemies now feel they have every right to do the same.
By allowing cruel and unusual punishment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay, the US has opened the door. Now every nation can say that torture is allowed and can be justified in an emergency. Obviously, any situation can be interpreted as an emergency, so there is no limit.
What do reviewers say about this film? At the moment, there is no rating on IMDb. I have not seen many reviews of this film, but I did find a review on Bull Frog Films. Next to the review, which is positive, there are several statements made by individuals. These statements are also positive.
A statement from David Cole, Professor of Law at Georgetown University, deserves to be quoted here. His statement begins with the following words:
“Torturing Democracy shines a much-needed light on one of the darkest questions Americans must face: how did our government, a leader in the campaign to advance human rights around the world, find itself authorizing torture at the level of the President’s Cabinet after the attacks of September 11, 2001?”
One part of this statement is puzzling. Cole describes the US government as:
“a leader in the campaign to advance human rights around the world.”
How can he do that? Cole seems to believe the US government always supported human rights before 2001 and that the change only happened after 2001.
This view of the world is puzzling, naïve, and false. The US government supported military dictatorships in El Salvador and Guatemala in the 1980s. The US government supported the dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet in Chile.
Dictatorships such as these were given political, economic and military support. How did these governments operate? Did they respect human rights? No. But they were supported by the US. Did they use torture? Yes, they did.
Did the leaders of the US know about this? Yes, they did. Was there any attempt to stop violations of human rights committed by these dictators? No, they were encouraged to carry on with a good job.
Some observers who are horrified about events at Guantanamo Bay seem to think that what we see here is something new; that something like this has never happened before. They are wrong. This is nothing new. This has happened before.
What is new, what may be new is the fact that American prison guards and interrogators are conducting the torture themselves. In the past, the US merely paid others to do it for them. But even this view may be false, since we know that American advisors were often active participants when foreign dictatorships were conducting torture against their dissidents.
It is good to see that these observers are speaking out now, as they do in this film. At the same time, it is perplexing and very revealing that their initial response to the use of torture was so slow and so cautious as it was, according to their own statements.
This film covers an important topic, and the topic is covered very well. But the scope is limited.
Only events after 2001 are mentioned in this film. US conduct before 2001 is never mentioned. Neither foreign nor domestic policy.
Among the statements posted on Bull Frog Films, one more deserves to be quoted here. This statement comes from Daxie of the Daily Kos:
"A somber, gut-wrenching documentary. You will go away convinced that what we are doing to our prisoners is morally wrong and illegal. I walked away convinced that the leaders of this torture regime should be prosecuted for war crimes and put away for life."
I like this statement. It is short and to the point. Even if it is not realistic, I think it is an appropriate response to this film.
PS # 1. What about the three detainees who appear in the film? What happened to them? Here is a brief overview:
** Shafiq Rasul (born 1977) – prisoner # 086 – in prison from 2002. Released in 2004 – no charge!
** Moazzam Begg – (born 1968) – prisoner # 558 – in prison from 2002. Released in 2005 – no charge!
** Bisher Al-Rawi (born 1960) – prisoner # 906 – in prison from 2002. Released in 2007 – no charge!
PS # 2. What about Mohamedou Ould Slahi, the Mauritanian prisoner Stuart Couch refused to prosecute? What happened to him? Here is the answer:
Born in Mauritania in 1970. In prison from 2002. Released in 2016. No charge! His case is the subject of a recent historical drama.
REFERENCES
# 1. Films
** Rendition (2007)
** Torture made in USA (2009)
** Secrets, Politics and Torture - an episode of the long-running program "Frontline" which premiered on US television (PBS) on 9 May 2015
** The Mauritanian (2021)
# 2. Books
** Truth, Torture and the American Way: The History and Consequences of US Involvement in Torture by Jennifer Harbury (2005)
** Torture Team: Uncovering War Crimes in the Land of the Free by Philippe Sands (2009)
*****
