Content area
Full Text
Torture defined the Bush administration's security policy in prosecuting the "war on terror". Although the Obama administration declared torture illegal, it has yet to outlaw the "extraordinary rendition" programme whereby the United States seizes individuals suspected of acts of terrorism or of collusion with terrorists and delivers them for interrogation to friendly nations that practise torture. Furthermore, although it released evidence of the serious abuse of detainees, the Obama administration has not disbanded special military commissions-trials whose procedures have been criticised for departing from internationally recognised standards of fairness; it has been reluctant to insist on accountability and prosecute members of the Bush administration who had ordered, justified and/or condoned the use of torture techniques such as waterboarding; and it intends to seek legal means by which to keep a number individuals in permanent detention-a clear continuation of the Bush policy.
Obama's approach to torture confines itself to prohibiting the practice without addressing its military, political, social and juridical contexts. This half-hearted stance is dictated not only by caution on the part of a new administration eager to avoid charges of endangering national security, but also by the requirements of counter-insurgency warfare. In light of the continued war in Afghanistan, which might involve committing additional US troops there, unabated strife in Iraq, and the US engagement in tracking down Taliban operatives in embattled Pakistan, torture cannot be controlled by its formal prohibition alone. After all, torture was already prohibited by law when the Bush administration revived it in 2002.
History provides numerous instances of countries that have found themselves in a similar situation to the United States today, and that allowed torture to acquire a life of its own. Among them are Britain, whose armies fought wars against decolonisation movements (i.e., counter-insurgency wars) in Kenya and Malaysia; and France, which fought to retain colonial control of Algeria. The French experience is a more compelling historical precursor of today's torture controversy because the French Army developed a well-articulated military doctrine which served as a model for other countries, including the United States. This paper analyses the relevance of the Algerian war for understanding the revival of torture by US military intelligence; it examines the discursive acceptance and normalisation of torture as a subject that can...