The attacks of September 11, 2001, left an indelible mark on the American psyche. While the day’s immediate shock ebbed, public dread of future terrorism did not. Indeed, as America engaged in wars with Iraq and Afghanistan, the U.S. government was under weighty expectations to prevent any potential terrorism. So much so, in fact, that it was in this crucible of fear that some of America’s most troubling legal and moral decisions in modern history took shape.

A few months later, CIA Director George Tenet, frustrated by his agency’s failure to prevent 9/11, sought explicit authorization from President George W. Bush to “hunt, capture, interrogate, and imprison” suspected terrorists around the world. This request unleashed a systematic program of harsh interrogations that frequently crossed the line into torture: prolonged sleep deprivation, exposure to freezing temperatures, stress positions like forced standing and suspension, and waterboarding. The CIA’s tactics, which eventually spread to other operators within the defense apparatus, were cloaked in euphemisms such as “enhanced interrogation techniques” that obscured the brutal reality.

The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel played a critical role in enabling these unconstitutional and inhumane actions. Beginning in late 2001, a series of memos provided the legal justification for the use of interrogative methods on prisoners that many international bodies and foreign governments had traditionally classified as torture. Many of these prisoners were held simply on suspicion of terrorism-related activities, yet the techniques remained the same. At the same time, memos warned CIA operatives to be discreet, yet they simultaneously reassured them that any international law and Geneva Convention violations would be legally covered.

In 2002, Assistant Attorney General Jay Bybee drafted one of the war on terror’s most infamous documents. His memo offered a dangerously narrow definition of torture, limiting it to pain associated with organ failure or death. Indeed, this legal sleight of hand enabled interrogators to inflict fiendish punishments without any prosecutorial consequences. The memo also stated that interrogators could invoke a ‘defense of necessity’ or self-defense if their methods overstepped legal bounds, essentially exempting them from U.S. statutes and international treaties. All of this, of course, purposefully lent  considerable discretion for crossing lines that violated human rights. Such defenses shielded government officials from accountability and placed them above U.S. law and international treaties. All of this was, of course, part of a deliberate plan to allow intelligence operators to violate long-standing human rights laws and shield them from accountability.

On the basis of these memos, President Bush swiftly declared suspected terrorists “unlawful combatants,” rendering them ineligible for prisoner-of-war protections. The classification also enabled the establishment of secret detention centers, known as “black sites,” often controlled by the CIA, where detainees were held without any form of congressional or outside oversight and subjected to brutal treatment. Bush further proclaimed constitutional protections against cruel and unusual punishment inapplicable outside the borders of the United States. In effect, Bush had created sufficient grounds for the US to systematically torture prisoners overseas and commit various other abuses.

Congress, rather than restraining the executive, passed legislation that eroded anti-torture safeguards. The Torture Statute criminalized the intentional infliction of severe physical or mental pain, but lawmakers carved out exceptions. In essence, so long as interrogators claimed the torture was used to extract intelligence, rather than inflict suffering for its own sake, it was not punishable. In 2005, Congress passed the Detainee Treatment Act (DTA), a move widely seen as a half-hearted attempt to curb abuses due to its failure to lay out specific guidelines for the categorization of cruel treatment. By 2006, with the passage of the Graham-Levin Amendment, Congress permitted military courts to consider evidence obtained through torture. The amendment was a clear violation of constitutional protections against self-incrimination and the use of illegally obtained evidence, but it didn’t matter. During the war on terror, “national security” was of the utmost importance—no matter how it was achieved, or even if it was achieved. 

The human cost of the US’s policies was staggering. Thousands of detainees suffered cruel and inhumane treatment, died in secret, or “disappeared” without record. Around the world, the United States’ reputation as a defender of freedom and human dignity was severely damaged. The headlines were constant. Abu Ghraib became the site of the infamous “Hooded Man” and multiple prisoner deaths. Guantanamo Bay, a detention facility established to hold suspected terrorists, was home to a number of people who were never even charged with a crime. International condemnation for these practices was swift and consistent, but the United States still clings to its Bush-era justifications. Even today, the legal framework that permits indefinite detention, cruel interrogations, and limited oversight remains largely intact. 

These policies undermined America’s moral authority and fueled anti-American sentiment around the world. Each person tortured, and especially those who were found to be innocent, had families, friends, and coworkers who saw someone they loved be ruined by a foreign army. Terrorism didn’t slow down when the United States started to employ these techniques. If anything, it increased. Al-Qaeda and other groups used the torture committed by the United States to recruit new members and expand their operations. More American soldiers died, more money was spent, and the only thing that changed was the morality of the American military apparatus. 

The question some may be asking is, for what? Why else did the US go to such lengths to make torture lawful? For real information, right? For plans of war and terrorist plots?  Didn’t these techniques work? No, the torture was ineffective. A congressional report, considered to be the defining work on the CIA’s actions, found that the torture had limited benefit and was broadly ineffective. America lost a part of itself on 9/11, and it ripped apart the rest of itself in the years after in the chase for vengeance, but it didn’t have to. Yet the fact that the United States continued to do it speaks volumes. This nation is afraid of admitting its mistakes. It is afraid of being wrong. And most of all, this nation is terrified of having to make something right, and so it never does. No detainee ever received an apology. Many of the most prominent CIA interrogators received promotions, with one even rising to the position of director. Osama Bin Laden didn’t just want America to cease to exist; he wanted the world to see what he considered the “real” America: one without any moral high ground that simply sold a story of freedom, justice, and human rights that was really a facade. In some way, he got what he wanted. America was condemned worldwide, terrorism continued to run rampant, and in the heat of it all, the constant chase, the never-ending fear, and the ruthless methods, we ended up spending years bogged down in foreign wars. At the end, we were left morally and financially bankrupt. 

I don’t blame our government for their actions after 9/11. It was difficult not to react. But I do blame them for the erosion of constitutional protections that took place in the years following. For the cruelty we inflicted upon innocents. If they’d seen the writing on the wall, if they’d realized that the torture wasn’t working, the last twenty-four years could have been quite different. If they had, who knows where America would be today.