CT: Administrators should ban CIA in interest of 'Principles of
Community'
Collegiate
TimesFebruary 15th,
2006Nicholas Kiersey, guest
columnisthttp://collegiatetimes.com/print.php?a=6486
This January, the University
Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs Mark McNamee sent a letter to
over 30 Virginia Tech professors and instructors. His letter replied to several
points made by these faculty members in an open letter they had published in the
Collegiate Times late last fall.
Written in the wake of recent revelations in the
Washington Post and elsewhere about the CIA’s use of illegal torture
techniques, the faculty letter had expressed concerns about Virginia
Tech’s continued policy of allowing CIA recruitment on
campus.
It cited reports in the Post
that the CIA has set up a covert network of secret prisons and interrogation
centers, known as "black sites," in several countries around the world,
including several democracies in Eastern Europe and Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba.
Prisoners at these facilities,
the letter noted, are held indefinitely and often in isolation, without due
process of the law. Moreover, CIA interrogators working at these sites are
permitted to use the CIA's approved "Enhanced Interrogation
Techniques."
One of these techniques,
"waterboarding," is intended to induce in prisoners the idea that they are
drowning. It is a terrifying and dangerous practice explicitly prohibited by
both U.N. convention and by U.S. military
law.
Addressed to both McNamee and
President Steger, the original faculty letter suggested these actions not only
contravened international law but also undermined the credibility of the
university’s commitment to its much-vaunted "Principles of
Community."
The faculty letter demanded
that the university recognize that by continuing its policy of allowing the CIA
to recruit on campus, it exposed itself to accusations of complicity with these
terrible practices. McNamee’s reply was nothing short of stunning.
Avoiding a public response, as might have been expected given that the letter he
received had been published in the pages of this very newspaper, McNamee
proceeded to explain his view that the CIA is a defender of American "freedoms,"
and that the best way to reform the CIA was to ensure that as many Hokies as
possible obtain employment within
it.
McNamee is of course to be
applauded for his exemplary faith in the values of our Hokie graduates. However,
he is naïve if he thinks that this is simply a question of the caliber of
the CIA’s individual
employees.
The torture techniques that
the CIA is reported to have used cannot, unfortunately, be reduced to the poor
judgment of the agents involved, as the White House has argued is the case with
the revelations of military torture at Abu
Ghraib.
Far from being a case of a "few
bad apples," the CIA’s efforts in this instance are a fundamental part of
the Bush administration’s "War on Terror"
strategy.
Moreover, considered
alongside the CIA’s recent policy of "renditioning" suspects without due
process of the law and the extensive historical record of CIA interference in
the development of democracy overseas, McNamee’s claim that the CIA is a
defender of freedom is clearly
specious.
Yet the most troubling claim
of McNamee’s letter must surely be his insistence that the university
should not feel obliged to ban the CIA from campus "based solely on
publicly-reported practices that some find objectionable." Here, by reducing the
issue to a debate about whether these practices are distasteful or not, McNamee
misses the point completely.
In fact
the practices in question are not simply objectionable, they are
illegal.
Both the CIA’s "black
sites" and the suspected practices carried out at them would be illegal if
operated within the United States, which is a signatory to the U.N. Convention
Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.
Importantly, the same is true for the democratic host states in Eastern Europe
where some of these sites are located. Moreover, the U.S. Government is obliged
by the Geneva Convention, ratified by the United States in 1955, to offer
certain minimal protections to any "protected persons" in its
custody.
Rightly, McNamee argues that
students are free to decide for themselves what sort of career they wish to
pursue. Yet we must also recognize that the practices of the CIA stand in
contradiction to the values of our academic community. If our commitment to
these values is to be credible, then we must demonstrate a willingness to act
whenever they are challenged.
Instead
of trotting out tired, banal rhetoric about the CIA’s role as a defender
of freedom of speech and the right of our students to make their own career
choices, McNamee needs to address the issue. That is, quite simply, Virginia
Tech’s continued approval of CIA recruitment on campus constitutes a form
of complicity with the use of illegal torture
techniques.
Until the day the CIA
resolves to cease these terrible practices, there can be no place for it on our
campus. Until then, the only question is whether we have the resolve to make a
stand for our values. This has gone on long enough. We need to ban the CIA from
our campus right now.
Posted: Thu - February 16, 2006 at 02:00 PM