誰爲CIA刑訊開法律綠燈

Dianne Feinstein and the US Senate intelligence committee have produced a brave and damming report on torture by the CIA. It will go some way in preventing the use of torture, yet there is more to be done.

黛安娜•范斯坦(Dianne Feinstein)及美國參議院情報委員會(US Senate intelligence committee)針對美國中央情報局(CIA)的酷刑做法發表了一份勇敢而破壞力巨大的報告。它將在一定程度上阻止使用酷刑，但還有更多工作需要完成。

Her findings offered no real surprises: waterboarding and other techniques of torture were authorised for use by the CIA in the summer of 2002, approval came from the top, the techniques were ineffective and there was much lying and deception. The report focuses on the CIA, yet as I discovered during research for my 2008 book Torture Team, the legal approvals she homed in on had other nefarious consequences: you can follow the authorisations of July and August 2002 through to the torture and other abuses that occurred at the instance of the US defence department and then migrated onwards to Iraq. There is a seamless trail from terrible legal opinions to the appalling images of abuse at Abu Ghraib prison and to the shaming of America.

范斯坦的發現在意料之中：2002年夏天，CIA獲得使用水刑和其他酷刑手段的授權，這項授權來自最高層，酷刑效果不佳，且圍繞這種做法存在很多謊言和欺騙。這份報告的重點是CIA，然而我在爲2008年所著的《酷刑團隊》(Torture Team)進行調研期間發現，報告所聚焦的法律批准造成了其他惡劣後果：從2002年7月和8月的授權，到美國國防部主張施加、隨後推廣至伊拉克的酷刑及其他刑訊，可以看出整件事的來龍去脈。從糟糕的法律意見，到巴格達阿布格萊布監獄(Abu Ghraib)虐囚的駭人圖片，以及美國蒙羞，有一條環環相扣的主線。

My work focused on the role of senior Bush administration lawyers in the authorisation of the torture, dubbed by the New Yorker as ‘the Bush Six’. But for their efforts none of this would have happened: lawyers are the ultimate guardians of legality and constitutionality, and if they are complicit, if they fail to act independently and fearlessly to speak truth to power, then we might as well give up on the rule of law.

我的研究重點在於那些授權酷刑的布什政府高級律師的角色，他們被《紐約客》(The New Yorker)雜誌稱爲“布什六人組”(the Bush Six)。若非他們的努力，這些都不會發生：律師是法治和憲制的終極捍衛者，如果他們串通一氣、未能獨立行事、憚於向權勢說出真相，那麼我們不如放棄對法治的信念。

America’s misfortune, and ours, was to have allowed ideologues and men of weakness to occupy some of the highest legal offices of state. They failed to provide independent advice and became advocates for a cause. Those who did stand up and object were sidelined.

美國（以及英國）的不幸在於，讓空想家和軟弱之人佔據國家的最高法律職位。他們未能提供獨立建議，而是成了某一項事業的倡導者。那些敢於表示反對的人受到排擠。

Ms Feinstein’s report lays bare the lawyer’s handiwork. I appeared before her in the summer of 2008, invited to testify about my interviews with Bush administration lawyers and other officials involved in the decision to use coercive interrogation techniques at Guantánamo. What we now know, in appalling, footnoted detail, is how lawyers — acting under the direction of the White House — became torturers, by their writings or by turning a blind eye to techniques that plainly constituted international crimes.

范斯坦的報告揭露了這些律師的“傑作”。2008年夏天，我出席了她主持的聽證會，當時我應邀就自己的採訪作證，採訪對象是參與決定在關塔那摩(Guantánamo)使用強制性審訊手段的布什政府的律師及其他官員。現在，我們通過有腳註的駭人細節瞭解到，律師們如何在白宮的授意下成爲了刑訊者——通過他們提供的書面法律建議，通過對明顯構成國際犯罪的審訊手段視若不見。

What has happened to the lawyers? Like the doctors who were also revealed to have been involved, none has been subject to the legal process of investigation required by the UN Convention Against Torture or sanctioned by his professional body for violation of ethics rules, and none has offered any sort of personal apology for involvement in legal advice that allowed torture.

這些律師受到了什麼處理呢？正如同樣被曝參與其中的醫生一樣，他們都未曾受到聯合國《禁止酷刑公約》(Convention Against Torture)所要求的調查法律程序，也未因違反道德準則而受到其所屬的專業協會的處分，而且沒人爲提供允許刑訊的法律建議而做出任何形式的個人道歉。

The author of many of the worst torture memos teaches international law at the University of California, Berkeley. A couple are associated with renowned Washington law firms, one as a partner, the other as senior counsel, each offering advice on national security. A fourth is general counsel to a New York pharmaceutical company. A fifth is vice-president and head of research for a Washington think-tank. And a sixth, most remarkably of all, has served as a judge on the US Federal Court of Appeals. It can hardly be said that their careers have suffered unduly, or that association with torture offers much by way of professional disadvantage.

多項最糟糕法律建議的作者如今在加州大學伯克利分校(University of California, Berkeley)教國際法。還有兩個人與華盛頓的知名法律事務所有關聯，其中一人是合夥人，另一人是高級顧問，二人均提供國家安全方面的建議。第四人現爲紐約一家制藥公司的總法律顧問。第五人是華盛頓一家智庫的副總裁兼研究主管。第六人最令人吃驚，現爲美國聯邦上訴法院(US Federal Court of Appeals)的法官。他們的職業生涯似乎沒有遭受太大影響，與酷刑的關聯似乎沒有帶來太多職業劣勢。

What should be done? Surprisingly, the head of the American Civil Liberties Union has called for those involved to be pardoned, as a way of establishing that torture is illegal.

我們應該做些什麼？令人意外的是，美國公民自由聯盟(American Civil Liberties Union)的領導人呼籲赦免那些涉及其中的人，以便確定酷刑違法。

That is not a path countenanced by the Convention Against Torture, which aims to stamp out impunity and establish illegality by requiring the US to investigate and, if necessary, to prosecute torturers. If the US fails to act — or issues pardons — then other countries can exercise jurisdiction over torturers who enter their territory. There is also the International Criminal Court, which can exercise jurisdiction where torture occurred on the territory of states parties, such as Afghanistan. The US is not a party, but its nationals are subject to prosecution if they commit crimes on the territory of states which are, since holding an American passport does not, as such, offer an immunity from any of these paths to justice or accountability.

這一方法並不受到《禁止酷刑公約》的支持。《公約》的精神是消除赦免的可能並確定酷刑的違法性，這意味着要求美國政府展開調查，並在必要情況下對刑訊者提起公訴。如果美國做不到——或者頒佈赦免令——那麼其他國家可以對進入其國境的刑訊者行使司法管轄權。還有就是國際刑事法院(International Criminal Court)，它可以對締約國（如阿富汗）境內發生的酷刑行使司法管轄權。美國並非締約國，但如果美國公民在締約國境內實施犯罪，他們可能被提起公訴，因爲擁有美國護照不能使其豁免於這些通往伸張正義和追究責任的路徑。

Ms Feinstein’s report thus offers a start, as an authoritative and independent investigation. It may be that criminal proceedings could be avoided by a process of truth and reconciliation. Until that happens a dark cloud hangs over each and every individual identified by name in the executive summary of the report and its 2,725 footnotes.

因此，作爲權威和獨立的調查，范斯坦的報告提供了一個開端。也許可以通過一個尋找真相和達成和解的過程來避免刑事訴訟。在那之前，對於這份報告的執行摘要及2725個腳註所點名的人來說，陰雲會一直籠罩在頭上。