New York Times

William Glaberson

A Pentagon report requested by President Obama on the conditions at the Guantánamo Bay detention center concluded that the prison complies with the humane-treatment requirements of the Geneva Conventions. But it makes recommendations for improvements including increasing human contact for the prisoners, according to two government officials who have read parts of it.

The review, requested by Mr. Obama on his second day in office, is to be delivered to the White House next week.

The president’s request, made as part of a plan to close the prison within a year, was widely seen as an effort to defuse accusations that there were widespread abuses at Guantánamo, and that many detainees were suffering severe psychological effects after years of isolation.

The report, by Adm. Patrick M. Walsh, the vice chief of naval operations, describes steps that could be taken to allow detainees to speak to one another more often and to engage in group activities, the government officials said. For years, critics have said that many detainees spend as many as 23 hours a day within the confines of cement cells and often were allowed to exercise alone in fenced-off outdoor pens.

The report is being presented to a White House that some government officials have described as caught off-guard by the extreme emotions and political crosscurrents provoked by its plan to close the Guantánamo prison. Some critics said the report’s conclusions could intensify the debate about the prison, and put the Obama White House for the first time in the position of defending it.

The report came as officials separately said on Friday that the Obama administration had decided on the transfer of the first Guantánamo detainee since the president took office, a former British resident, Binyam Mohamed. Lawyers for Mr. Mohamed had drawn wide attention with accusations that he was tortured in Morocco on instructions from American intelligence agencies.

Mr. Mohamed, who is to be returned to Britain, was originally charged with plotting to detonate a radioactive “dirty bomb” inside the United States. But the Pentagon official in charge of the Bush administration’s military commission system for conducting war-crimes trials dismissed those charges in October.

Also on Friday, Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced the creation of a task force to begin reviewing the cases of the remaining 245 detainees. The group, which is to include representatives of military, intelligence and other agencies, is to be led by a career federal prosecutor, Matthew G. Olsen, who has been a senior Justice Department lawyer dealing with national security issues.

The administration’s plan to close Guantánamo includes a new effort to decide whether detainees can be released, transferred to the custody of other countries or prosecuted. In the report on the conditions at Guantánamo, Admiral Walsh reviewed many accusations of abuse that critics have made about the prison, said one Pentagon official who has seen the report.

The report concluded that the Pentagon was in compliance with the requirements of the Geneva Conventions. The review included some of the most contentious issues, including the forced feeding of hunger-striking detainees and claims that many prisoners were suffering from psychosis as a result of conditions in the detention center.

According to one official, the report noted that some detainees had difficulty communicating from cell to cell, a contention that many detainees’ lawyers have also made. The Pentagon has long insisted that no detainees are held in solitary confinement. Military officials have said instead that the prisoners are held in “single-occupancy cells.”

Some Pentagon officials have continued to press the case that the Bush administration’s approach to detainee issues — and the Guantánamo Bay prison itself — should not be abandoned. The report is likely to accelerate that behind-the-scenes struggle.

The White House had no comment Friday.

One Pentagon official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivities involved in challenging the White House plan to close the prison, argued that the report showed that the Bush administration had created a humane detention camp. Speaking of the remaining detainees, this official said the report showed that if the men were moved, they might “go from a humane environment to a less humane environment.”

Critics of the Guantánamo Bay detention center, which is on the grounds of the American naval base at the eastern end of Cuba, have been preparing for Admiral Walsh’s report. They said they were concerned that the new administration would use it to avoid major alterations to the Guantánamo detention camp during its final year.

Gitanjali Gutierrez, a lawyer for Guantánamo detainees at the Center for Constitutional Rights, said that she and other lawyers found that conditions have remained bleak since the start of the new administration.

Ms. Gutierrez said that a report by the rights center, to be released next week, asserts that two major Guantánamo prison buildings, known as Camp 5 and Camp 6, should be closed immediately. She said prisoners there continue to be held in isolation for as long as 24 hours a day, that psychological difficulties are treated as disciplinary infractions, and that many cells are windowless.

Ms. Gutierrez said detention camp officials have recently increased detainees’ opportunities for recreation and social interaction. She said detainees’ lawyers have been concerned that some of those moves were in anticipation of visits now being made by senior members of the new administration. The attorney general is to visit Monday.

“This is really running the risk that the review is just a big whitewash,” Ms. Gutierrez added, “and we expect more of the new administration.”

The New Yorker

This week, Atul Gawande writes about the rise of solitary confinement, long held to be among the most cruel forms of punishment, throughout the United States prison system. He cites the 1890 Supreme Court case In re Medley, in which Justice Samuel Miller noted the extreme penalty of the practice in deciding whether the punishment could be applied ex post facto in the case of a man who had already been sentenced to death. Miller quoted from the American Encyclopedia to explain how solitary confinement had come into use:

The first plan adopted, when public attention was called to the evils of congregating persons in masses without employment, was the solitary prison connected with the hospital of San Michele at Rome, in 1703, but little known prior to the experiment in Walnut-Street Penitentiary, in Philadelphia, in 1787. The peculiarities of this system were the complete isolation of the prisoner from all human society…and no employment or instruction.

The dreadful repercussions of the Walnut experiment gave rise to a new system—ironically and perversely, a reform attempt, based on the notion of “penitence” (hence “penitentiary”)—conceived by the Philadelphia Society for Ameliorating the Miseries of Public Prisons. The new system did not do away with the practice but instead refined it. Though still isolated, prisoners were now given the opportunity to work in their cells; and, to insure that they never caught sight of a fellow-inmate, their heads were covered with hoods on leaving or returning from them. It was this modified system that was in place when Charles Dickens, in 1842, made his great tour of the United States, which included a visit to the Eastern Prison, outside Philadelphia. In his travelogue, “American Notes for General Circulation,” he wrote about his experience inside the prison’s walls:

Looking down these dreary passages, the dull repose and quiet that prevails, is awful. Occasionally, there is a drowsy sound from some lone weaver’s shuttle, or shoemaker’s last, but it is stifled by the thick walls and heavy dungeon-door, and only serves to make the general stillness more profound. Over the head and face of every prisoner who comes into this melancholy house, a black hood is drawn; and in this dark shroud, an emblem of the curtain dropped between him and the living world, he is led to the cell from which he never again comes forth, until his whole term of imprisonment has expired….He is a man buried alive; to be dug out in the slow round of years….

And though he lives to be in the same cell ten weary years, he has no means of knowing, down to the very last hour, in what part of the building it is situated; what kind of men there are about him; whether in the long winter night there are living people near, or he is in some lonely corner of the great jail, with walls, and passages, and iron doors between him and the nearest sharer in its solitary horrors.

Dickens visited with several of the penitents, all of whom exhibited a similar disturbed affect. One of them had been confined for a mere two years, and his release was imminent. Curious about how prisoners conducted themselves just before they were to be freed, he speculated to his guide that “they trembled very much”:

“Well, it’s not so much a trembling,” was the answer—“though they do quiver—as a complete derangement of the nervous sytem. They can’t sign their names to the book; sometimes can’t even hold the pen; look about ’em without appearing to know why, or where they are; and sometimes get up and sit down again, twenty times in a minute. This is when they’re in the office, where they are taken with the hood on, as they were brought in. When they get outside the gate, they stop, and look first one way and then the other: not knowing which to take. Sometimes they stagger as if they were drunk, and sometimes are forced to lean against the fence, they’re so bad:—but they clear off in course of time.”

The tour had a profound effect on Dickens’s views on solitary confinement; it did away with any traces of ambivalence he formerly had, and cleared the way for him to set forth his own opinion as to why the practice was unconscionable, an opinion that Justice Miller himself would likely have joined:

I believe that very few men are capable of estimating the immense amount of torture and agony which this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, inflicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it myself, and in reasoning from what I have seen written upon their faces, and what to my certain knowledge they feel within, I am only the more convinced that there is a depth of terrible endurance in which none but the sufferers themselves can fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict upon his fellow creature. I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body; and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon the surface, and it extorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore the more I denounce it, as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay.

June 11th, 2009

Revelations of barbarism performed in the name of the War on Terror by those working for the United States government has breached new boundaries of selfhood in our liberal democracy. Of course, tortures have been a staple of humanity, whether performed within the public sphere of the state or the private intimacies of a domestic domain. But the media proliferation of these acts haunts our consciousness in a distinctive 2009 way. Five years since the Abu Ghraib photographs came to light, there is another battle with a different President to release similar images that could be called Abu Ghraib Two. Although the sources for these techniques are varied, the abuses that continue in United States prisons must certainly be one such “inspiration.” Just this past year, New York State has finally passed legislation to reduce–but not to completely eliminate–the common punishment of placing severely mentally ill prisoners in solitary confinement in six by nine foot “boxes,” with the possibility of an enhanced penalty of reducing all nourishment to only a food called “the loaf,” flour mixed with vegetables such as cabbage or potatoes. Such practices may be allowed to continue until this law takes full effect in July 2011 [1].

As the options for abuse of those deemed our possible enemies has become ever more visible in the United States, we learned in mid-May that a majority of citizens no longer support a women’s right to terminate a pregnancy. Or so it seemed during the several day minor media blitz featuring one Gallup Poll. Whether this is a true indicator of public opinion on the sovereignty of the self for women is suspect, given that this was one poll (with a pool of some 1,000 participants) and its prominence was no doubt linked to pro-choice President Obama’s commencement speech at Catholic Notre Dame that same week [2]. A more disturbing assault of women’s bodies was the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Gonzalez v. Carhart, that deemed criminal the use of the late term abortion procedure “Dilation and Extraction,” even if it was diagnosed as necessary for the women’s health or to save her life [3]. Although D&X total only .17% of all abortions in the U.S, this decision marks an alarming precedent in that the Supreme Court places the health and life of the woman as a secondary consideration. As I prepare this essay to go to press, I have just learned that George Tiller—one of the few doctors in the U.S. who provided third term abortions for women whose life or health was at risk—has just been shot dead while serving as an usher at his Lutheran church [4].

These selective and disparate examples of assaults on the limits of our bodies and sense of self may push the boundaries of definitions of “intimacy” and “normalization of body intrusion in public space” that are the themes of this inaugural issue. But they are just several of so many such indicators that comprise what could be described as a generalized consciousness of our selves as physical, physic and emotional beings during what until recently was called the age of the War on Terror.

Given these dramatic, on-going and highly visible incursions into our intimate, personal “space,” a visit to the Museum of Modern Art offers a dramatically different experience of our bodies and our selves, one that is perhaps best described as delusional.

In 2004 the Museum opened its redesigned building, which was directed by architect Yoshio Taniguchi [5]. As a counter to what was seen by some as Frank Gehry’s hyperbolic Bilbao and a trend for “intrusive” museum buildings, Taniguchi reportedly summarized his vision with this line:

“If you raise a lot of money, I will give you great, great architecture. But if you raise really a lot of money, I will make the architecture disappear” [6].

And for most reviewers of the New MoMA, the architecture did seem to disappear, as the title of John Updike’s much read New Yorker article, “Invisible Cathedral,” attests. But despite of the glass façade facing the garden, and the glimpses of the city seen through apertures and windows, the most overpowering vista—seen in enhanced scale—throughout the building were brilliantly white walls. The dominance of this feature secured the sense of separation of the museum interior from anything exterior to it. These massive white walls also provided a seemingly neutral decontextualized terrain for everything installed within them. This was exemplified by the predicament of Monet’s Water Lillies. Previously installed in a domestic scale, semi-circular interior, this installation was one of the treasures of the “Old MoMA.” For the inaugural show, Monet’s masterwork was hung in MoMA’s massive atrium, and was singled out by even those who wrote glowingly about the new museum design as an aesthetic disaster–one of the more oft-quoted descriptions was that the majestic mural looked like a “big, soiled Band-Aid” [7]

What was made to disappear was not the museum building with its aggressive walls of whiteness, but all that would counter such a sanitized realm, which was matched by the museum programming. It is a generalization, but nonetheless true: the works exhibited were dominated by preference for abstraction and neutral tones. This was particularly the case with the painting and sculpture galleries, with those devoted to design offering one of the few oases of color, emotion and diversity within this desert of the monochrome. Despite the fact the United States had been obsessed by what was being called the War on Terror, there was no reference to the existence of such conflicts, except for one José Clemente Orozco’s 1940 mural, Dive Bomber and Tank installed in a hall. The New MoMA’s inaugural installation was representative of major Manhattan museums inability to present almost any programming dealing with war for most of the past six years that we have been fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan [8]. At MoMA, programming has been dominated by exhibitions with innocuous themes, and one-person shows, which until recently were almost all only given to artists who are men. The lack of diversity that marked the New MoMA’s canon was seen in the seven works squeezed into the multimedia galleries, which were to represent all the video, digital, film, and media works of the past half century. But this lack was even more disturbing in terms of gender. Too many of the galleries had no, or few, works by women. The famous sculpture garden included not one entry by a woman artist.

Although there have been a few shows devoted to women artists since the museum’s re-opening, and there have been some interesting departures from MoMA’s monochromatic/monographic standard by the design and architecture department [9], a visit to the museum in mid-May affirmed that little has changed since 2004. The thematic exhibitions included such pressing concerns as: Paper: Pressed, Stained, Slashed, Folded; The Printed Picture; Compass in Hand [10]; and Into the Sunset: Photographs of the American West. Certainly, exhibitions with formalist, vague, lacking-a-great-idea themes, such as Staged Pictures: Drawings for Performance can have a fantastic single image, as did this show, which also included several fascinating videos of original theater performances to illuminate the drawings. But the featured—literally “top tier”—temporary exhibitions in the large scale sixth floor galleries were devoted to a Martin Kippenberger’s show (that had just closed) and one called Tangled Alphabets, an exhibition of the work of Leon Ferrari and Mira Shendel. Given the Museum’s history and the pairing of these two artists’ work, I and another critic, who had just seen the show, could not help but wonder that if Schendel had not been a woman, and if these were not Latin American artists, perhaps they would have been assigned a one person retrospective. Finally, there was a change in the sculpture garden installation. They added another artists work, Franz West. So there continues to be no works by women in the MoMA sculpture garden.

Despite the fact that artists have always addressed key issues of their time, with some exceptions, the Museum continues to fail to present a range of programming that is more than one person shows and innocuous thematic exhibitions. This failure to represent a diversity of art and culture is manifest in the entire gesamptkunstwerk that is MoMA. Mirroring the bland programming and ahistorical themes that constitute the selections and exhibitions, the installations and architecture present an exaggerated version of the standard “white box” interior. The new building and installations perpetuate the modern art museum’s convention of installing artworks isolated on neutral-toned walls. But what is particularly important to this discussion is that such spaces create a de-contextualized environment not only for the works of art, but for the viewers. These displays enhance viewers’ sense of ahistorical autonomy, and metaphorically foster an experience of independence, and even “free will.” As is the case with Taneguchi’s design, since the development of these types of installations earlier in the twentieth century, what were originally beige neutral colors have become bright white, and the scale of the walls have increased in sized. In keeping with these developments, the New MoMA, with its immense, self-referential, ultra white interiors, and matching neutral, apolitical, non-diverse, decontextualized programming offers an isolationist, escapist, and delusionally empowering experience for viewers.

Endnotes

[1] The enactment of this law will not take effect until a special facility is built, with the latest date for enactment is July 1, 2011. For an explanation of these details see: see DOCS Today: New York State Department of Correctional Services, vol. 1, no. 3, Spring 2008, http://www.docs.state.ny.us/PressRel/DOCSToday/ Spring2008edition.pdfA (June 1, 2009). A compilation of fact sheets and articles related to what is called the SHU Bill can be found at the Mental Health Alternatives to Solitary Confinement (MHASC) website, http://www.boottheshu.org/ (June 1, 2009).

[2] The exact figure was 1,015, see Linda Saad, “More Americans Pro-life Than Pro-choice,” for First Time,” GALLUP, http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx (May 27, 2009).

What was important here was the prominence of this information within the mainstream media, and the fact that related information, like the fact that one third of women in the United States have had an abortion by the age of 45 is rarely mentioned in such discussions in the mainstream press, see “Overview of Abortion in the U.S.,” Guttmacher Institute, http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html (June 1, 2009).

[3] Judge Ruth Bader Ginzburg wrote the dissenting opinion, which she read from the bench. This is unusual for Supreme Court justices to do so and emphasizes the strength of her dissent. As is well known, Ginzburg is the only woman on the Supreme Court. For a discussion that references the unusualness of Ginzburg’s reading out loud, see “After Gonzales v. Carhart: The Future of Abortion Jurisprudence” (event transcript) The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, June 14, 2007, http://supreme.justia.com/us/550/05-380/ (May 31, 2009).

For case see, Gonzalez v. Carhart 550 U.S. 124 (2007), Findlaw,

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=000&invol=05-380

[4] To cite just one example, see “Monica Davey and Joe Stumpe, “Doctor Who Performed Abortions Is Shot Dead, The New York Times, May 31, 2009, http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01tiller.html?ref=global-home (May 31, 2009).

[5] I have written more extensive analyses of MoMA’s new design and the history of museum practices. Several texts that related especially to this essay are: “What’s so new about MoMA?” Sunday Opinion Section: Newsday, January 23, 2005, A. 41; “Grand Illusions: The “New” Museum of Modern Art,” Curating Subjects, editor, Paul O’Neil, Amsterdam and London: de Appel and Open Editions, 2007; and “Preface”, The Power of Display: A History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum of Modern Art, designLocus of Seoul, Korea, Spring 2007, originally published by the MIT Press in English in 1998.

[6] This was a often quoted line in the press, MoMA curator Paola Antonelli repeated it in a New York Magazine article, Alexandra Lange, “This New House,” October 11, 2004, http://nymag.com/nymetro/arts/features/10057/index4.html (May 26, 2009).

[7] Peter Schjeldahl, “Easy to Look At,” The New Yorker, December 6, 2004, http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/12/06/041206craw_artworld (May 26, 2009).

[8] Exceptions were the Whitney Museum’s 2003 The American Effect (which looked at international attitudes toward the U.S.) and a small 2004 permanent collection show Memorials of War. More recently in 2009, MoMA held an exhibition in the mezzaine reading room, The Museum and the War Effort: Artistic Freedom and Reporting for “The Cause,” presenting archival materials (correspondence, press clippings, and photographs) related to MoMA’s WW II exhibitions.

[9] One such exception was Senior Curator of Architecture and Design, Paola Antonelli, with Curatorial Assistant, Patricia Juncosa Vecchierini 2005 exhibition

Safe: Design Takes On Risk.

[10] The full title is for Compass in Hand: Selections from the Judith Rothschild Foundation Contemporary Drawings Collection.

Mary Anne Staniszewski

Mary Anne Staniszewski, Ph.D. is Acting Head of the Department of the Arts at Rensselaer. Her books include, Believing Is Seeing: Creating the Culture of Art (Penguin USA) and The Power of Display: A History of Exhibition Installations at the Museum of Modern Art (The MIT Press) Staniszewski is currently writing a multi-volume “portrait” of the U.S., featuring the themes of race; sex (gender); and life and death.

Original context

EDITORIAL

New York Times

 In a long series of valedictory speeches and interviews, President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been crowing about Guantánamo Bay, secret prisons and abusive interrogations, claiming they met the highest legal standards and that no prisoner had been tortured. Fortunately, the truth broke through the noise, in the words of some of the very people ordered to carry out the policies.

 In an interview in The Washington Post, Susan Crawford, the retired judge who runs the military tribunals at Guantánamo, said that harsh interrogation methods had endangered the life of Mohammed al-Qahtani, a Saudi national accused of planning to take part in the 9/11 attacks. Authorized by then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, they included sustained isolation, nudity and prolonged exposure to the cold.

 “We tortured Qahtani,” Judge Crawford said, adding that she was therefore unable to prosecute a man who seemed to pose a real threat to the United States.

Judge Crawford was not the only one speaking out. Major David Frakt of the Air Force Reserve, who was assigned to defend another Guantánamo prisoner, told MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow that he and all the other defense lawyers in the system consider the tribunals “unfair, rigged” and unconstitutional. He noted that his client’s prosecutor resigned to protest the lack of evidence in the case.

That is the real nature of Mr. Bush’s grotesque legacy: abuse and torture at an outlaw prison where hundreds of men — many of whom did nothing — have been held for years without real evidence or charges. And truly dangerous men were treated so badly that it may be impossible to bring them to justice.

It will be hard enough to close down Guantánamo as Barack Obama has vowed to do, but the legal burdens Mr. Bush is dumping on his successor are much greater.

The appalling Military Commissions Act of 2006, railroaded through Congress, must be repealed. Interrogation rules that respect American values and laws and the Geneva Conventions must be set for all government agencies, including the intelligence agencies.

And there is the profound question of whether the new administration should prosecute those who tortured and abused prisoners — and those who ordered them to do it. Judge Crawford’s legal finding that torture occurred adds a new complication, since a treaty obliges the United States to investigate such allegations.

We have heard a lot of talk about how the country needs to look forward and not backward. We certainly would like to forget the horrors of the last eight years. But you cannot fix something before you know exactly how it is broken. The clandestine system Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have built will not give up its secrets easily.

To ensure that the abuses stop, Mr. Obama and his administration will have to work hard to find out all that has happened. They will have to locate and override all of the policy memos, directives and executive orders that have redefined and condoned torture and other abuses. Guantánamo is the place to begin.

 The timetable: Mr. Obama is expected to announce as early as Wednesday that he is beginning the process of shutting Guantánamo. We hope he sets a target date. That may make it easier to persuade other governments to agree to accept some prisoners — one of the difficult challenges ahead. But we do not agree with critics who insist that date must fall within his first 100 days.

This page called early and often for closing Guantánamo. But we recognize that this is going to be very hard work.

 Sorting out the inmates: Mr. Obama’s lawyers will have to review every file, most of which the Bush administration has refused to turn over to any authority, including Congress. We know from bitter experience that the Bush administration’s judgment is worthless when it comes to what these prisoners may have done, how they have been treated and what justice they should face.

Just last week, Mr. Cheney claimed that the interrogation of prisoners like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, believed to be the planner of 9/11, who was tortured by waterboarding, allowed the United States to capture a “very impressive” list of Al Qaeda leaders in 2003. If that is true, Mr. Obama needs to know who they are, where they are, and what was done to them in the last five years.

A blueprint: Senator Dianne Feinstein, the new head of the Intelligence Committee, has a bill for closing Guantánamo that Mr. Obama should embrace. It sets a one-year deadline and requires that every prisoner either be charged and tried in United States federal court; transferred for trial by an international tribunal under United Nations authority; returned to the custody of the government of their homeland, if that government does not abuse and torture prisoners; held as a prisoner of war; or, simply, released.

The separate system of tribunals created by the military commissions act must be abolished. They are a mockery of American justice, and utterly unnecessary.

It was extremely encouraging to hear Eric Holder, Mr. Obama’s choice for attorney general, say at his confirmation hearing on Thursday that the new administration is open to trying prisoners in the United States. It is appalling that an attorney general nominee has to say he respects the law, but such is the Bush legacy.

The real bad guys: After the prisoners are sorted out, Mr. Bush’s egregiously bad judgment leaves all Americans with a huge problem. The abuses authorized by top Bush officials, and so gleefully defended by Mr. Cheney in particular in the last few weeks, create the possibility that men like Mohammed al-Qahtani and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed will never be able to face justice in a real courtroom.

Mr. Obama’s team will have to come up with a solution that does not set such men free. We are not sure what it should be, but there is one unacceptable choice: creating a new detentions law that would allow them held without trial. That would merely compound Mr. Bush’s catastrophically bad choices.

Interrogations: The 2006 military tribunals law bound military interrogators to the Army field manual’s rules, which conform with the Geneva Conventions — unlike Mr. Bush’s policies. But, at Mr. Bush’s insistence, the bill carved out an exemption that allowed intelligence agencies to go on hiring civilian interrogators and to engage in practices that are clearly immoral and illegal. Ms. Feinstein’s bill would eliminate the loophole on how prisoners are treated and ban the use of civilian interrogators.

We were glad to hear Mr. Holder state that the Obama administration considers the Geneva Conventions binding. But we wish he had been more clear on a solution, beyond calling the Army field manual a “good start” for interrogation rules in C.I.A. prisons. We also were unclear from his answers whether Mr. Obama has decided, as he should, to ban civilian interrogators.

Mr. Holder unequivocally declared waterboarding to be torture, which his predecessors would not do. But this is not just about waterboarding. Other practices, like forced nudity, prolonged isolation, and extremes of heat and cold, are abuses under the same laws and treaties that prohibit torture. And Judge Crawford reminded us that torture is not necessarily just one terrible act. In the Qahtani case, she said: “This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health. It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive.”

C.I.A. prisons: We have never heard a convincing explanation for why the Central Intelligence Agency needs its own network of prisons beyond the reach of law, in undisclosed locations. If there is a good reason, we hope this administration will explain it. We are skeptical, and we urge Mr. Obama to support Ms. Feinstein’s bill, which would require the C.I.A. to report all detainees to the International Committee of the Red Cross.

We recognize that this is a daunting agenda, and that to succeed, Mr. Obama’s White House, Justice Department and Pentagon will also have to rebuild demoralized legal divisions where professionals were replaced with apparatchiks whose mission was to twist the law to justify their masters’ decisions.

This work is essential to restoring the rule of law. It is essential to restoring this country’s reputation around the world. And it is essential to restoring Americans’ faith in themselves and in their government. That is the only way to move forward.