谁为CIA刑讯开法律绿灯

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)及美国参议院情报委员会(US Senate intelligence committee)针对美国中央情报局(CIA)的酷刑做法发表了一份勇敢而破坏力巨大的报告。它将在一定程度上阻止使用酷刑，但还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.

范斯坦的发现在意料之中：2002年夏天，CIA获得使用水刑和其他酷刑手段的授权，这项授权来自最高层，酷刑效果不佳，且围绕这种做法存在很多谎言和欺骗。这份报告的重点是CIA，然而我在为2008年所著的《酷刑团队》(Torture Team)进行调研期间发现，报告所聚焦的法律批准造成了其他恶劣后果：从2002年7月和8月的授权，到美国国防部主张施加、随后推广至伊拉克的酷刑及其他刑讯，可以看出整件事的来龙去脉。从糟糕的法律意见，到巴格达阿布格莱布监狱(Abu Ghraib)虐囚的骇人图片，以及美国蒙羞，有一条环环相扣的主线。

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.

我的研究重点在于那些授权酷刑的布什政府高级律师的角色，他们被《纽约客》(The New Yorker)杂志称为“布什六人组”(the Bush Six)。若非他们的努力，这些都不会发生：律师是法治和宪制的终极捍卫者，如果他们串通一气、未能独立行事、惮于向权势说出真相，那么我们不如放弃对法治的信念。

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.

美国（以及英国）的不幸在于，让空想家和软弱之人占据国家的最高法律职位。他们未能提供独立建议，而是成了某一项事业的倡导者。那些敢于表示反对的人受到排挤。

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.

范斯坦的报告揭露了这些律师的“杰作”。2008年夏天，我出席了她主持的听证会，当时我应邀就自己的采访作证，采访对象是参与决定在关塔那摩(Guantánamo)使用强制性审讯手段的布什政府的律师及其他官员。现在，我们通过有脚注的骇人细节了解到，律师们如何在白宫的授意下成为了刑讯者——通过他们提供的书面法律建议，通过对明显构成国际犯罪的审讯手段视若不见。

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.

这些律师受到了什么处理呢？正如同样被曝参与其中的医生一样，他们都未曾受到联合国《禁止酷刑公约》(Convention Against Torture)所要求的调查法律程序，也未因违反道德准则而受到其所属的专业协会的处分，而且没人为提供允许刑讯的法律建议而做出任何形式的个人道歉。

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.

多项最糟糕法律建议的作者如今在加州大学伯克利分校(University of California, Berkeley)教国际法。还有两个人与华盛顿的知名法律事务所有关联，其中一人是合伙人，另一人是高级顾问，二人均提供国家安全方面的建议。第四人现为纽约一家制药公司的总法律顾问。第五人是华盛顿一家智库的副总裁兼研究主管。第六人最令人吃惊，现为美国联邦上诉法院(US Federal Court of Appeals)的法官。他们的职业生涯似乎没有遭受太大影响，与酷刑的关联似乎没有带来太多职业劣势。

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.

我们应该做些什么？令人意外的是，美国公民自由联盟(American Civil Liberties Union)的领导人呼吁赦免那些涉及其中的人，以便确定酷刑违法。

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.

这一方法并不受到《禁止酷刑公约》的支持。《公约》的精神是消除赦免的可能并确定酷刑的违法性，这意味着要求美国政府展开调查，并在必要情况下对刑讯者提起公诉。如果美国做不到——或者颁布赦免令——那么其他国家可以对进入其国境的刑讯者行使司法管辖权。还有就是国际刑事法院(International Criminal Court)，它可以对缔约国（如阿富汗）境内发生的酷刑行使司法管辖权。美国并非缔约国，但如果美国公民在缔约国境内实施犯罪，他们可能被提起公诉，因为拥有美国护照不能使其豁免于这些通往伸张正义和追究责任的路径。

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，作为权威和独立的调查，范斯坦的报告提供了一个开端。也许可以通过一个寻找真相和达成和解的过程来避免刑事诉讼。在那之前，对于这份报告的执行摘要及2725个脚注所点名的人来说，阴云会一直笼罩在头上。