The latent seeds of Auschwitz

Inés Míriam Alemán

AFTER Nuremberg, where those centrally responsible were tried for crimes against humanity and peace, it seemed as though the world had seen the end of an era, the end of barbarism, and the beginning of a new era based on an international order that would not allow a repetition of the events of World War II.

In response to the Nazi atrocities, the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted, and every government is obliged to follow it, whether in wartime or in peace.

It was a very clear definition of crimes against peace (those in violation of international treaties or promoting unjustified attacks against other nations); against humanity (planning, execution or participation in extermination and genocide), and war (failure to comply with international laws or conventions on war).

That definition described as crimes against peace any violations of international treaties, and anything aiding one country in attacking another. Likewise, it stipulated aggressions against humanity, establishing that planning, executing or participating in extermination or genocide were unacceptable acts.

However, since 2001, many testimonies regarding the practice of torture by the United States demonstrate premeditation in the manipulation of domestic and international laws.

Using the same methods it uses to intervene in the internal affairs of other countries, the United States cites the "necessity" of torture in terms of obtaining information that might prevent an attack against it, or alleges the need for "interrogation" because of supposed connections to Al Qaeda, or gives itself the "right" to effect or order extrajudicial executions of anybody who may affect its imperialist interests.

Torture is one of the many crimes that has tarnished U.S. history.

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. media — which is now pretending to be alarmed about torture — begged for torture of alleged terrorists to be legalized; in fact, the media gave its explicit approval to the torture subsequently committed.

In the November 5 edition of Newsweek magazine of that year, its editor, Jonathan Alter, wrote an article titled "Time to think about torture," in which he said, "We cannot legalize physical torture; it’s contrary to American values. But even as we continue to speak out against human-rights abuses around the world, we need to keep an open mind about certain measures…. And we'll have to think about transferring some suspects to our less squeamish allies…"

That same day, The New York Times published an article titled "Media stoke debate on torture," which provided a long list of articles in the U.S. media advocating torture, including the TV networks CNN and Fox, newspapers like the Wall Street Journal, and others.

The horror now being expressed by the U.S. media and government officials regarding revelations about abuses perpetrated by U.S. forces in Iraq contrasts with the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a massacre that still moves the world, the brutalities practiced by U.S. forces in Vietnam, and the development of new methods of torture.

The Bush administration’s open embrace of torture was unprecedented. It shamelessly demanded the right to torture, legitimized by new definitions and laws.

The most recent revelations about torture practiced by the United States have been received not with shock and incredulity, but with revived fears.

The memory of that horrible past and today’s realities, of CIA prisons where people are cruelly made to suffer — in most cases, with accusations against them unproven — moves us to reflect deeply. Historical amnesia is a very dangerous phenomenon.

The current U.S. president, Barack Obama, wants to address the abuses committed by his predecessor. He has said that torture has produced "very few results," and it has discredited his country in the international community. However, he justified the decision not to release hundreds of new photos depicting aberrant practices, because they could "endanger U.S. troops" abroad.

He has also stated the previous administration took a series of "hasty" decisions based on a "sincere desire" to protect the U.S. people.

As the debate intensifies, two viewpoints are emerging. One is that while the torture was authorized and that is does go against that country’s principles and values, it is necessary to leave this "irregularity" and look toward the future. Supporters of this outlook argue that holding accountable former president George W. Bush, former vice president Richard Cheney or former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld would be embarrassing, costly, take a long time, would be wearing, and would divide the nation.

The other viewpoint is that laws exist to be followed; that all of them should be tried for having violated U.S. laws and international agreements signed by Washington.

The first, of course, are suffering from "democratic/imperial arrogance," believing that because it is the United States, it is not necessary to do justice, and that having moved from one administration to another is sufficient for pardoning the crimes committed.

If the name Auschwitz provoked panic among the people of countries occupied by Hitler’s troops — because that is where the cruelest methods of extermination were practiced, no matter the nationality, political affiliation, religion, origins, gender or age of victims, where more than 4 million people died — then humanity should also be shaken on hearing the name School of the Americas, a sinister "educational" institution where individuals are taught to torture and to plot military coups hatched in Washington.

The terrible irony of the current debate is that in the name of eradicating future abuse, they are attempting to erase past abuses from history.

The crude evidence continues to exist, of course, archived in tens of thousands of declassified or still-classified documents in the National Security Archive in Washington, but in the collective memory, the missing disappear over and over.

This oblivion does very little to help not just the victims of those crimes, but also to ensure that torture is removed forever from the U.S. political arsenal.

Closing a prison, ending a program or even asking for the resignation of a given "rotten apple" will only preserve the prerogative of torture.