It's official: US tortured Gitmo prisoner

[bascule]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011303372.html?hpid=topnews

 

I'm surprised how much rigamaroll we've gone through to get here. After years of mincing definitions about what constitutes torture and what does not, we have something conclusive.

 

A senior Bush administration official, Susan J. Crawford, responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo, has officially concluded that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured, due to a "combination of the interrogation techniques, their duration and the impact on Qahtani's health"

 

So where do we go from here? I'd like to see a new administration which places human rights above getting answers out of an interrogation, and a comprehensive anti-torture stance.

 

Of course, as our president-elect is still a president-elect, that remains to be seen...

[DrDNA]

What an awful and terribly sad state that we have sunk to.

 

I wonder how long it will be before a foreign prosecutor and some world court takes action on this.....which is likely if we don't do something about it soon ourselves.

 

"If we fight our enemy using the same inhumane and morally bankrupt techniques that we are trying to stop, we will simply become what we have beheld."

 

"The war against terrorism is a war against those who engage in torture."

 

Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass.)

[Phi for All]

That's what a war on terrorism does. When you choose to fight a terrorist, you stoop to his level, you play his game, and he gets you to spend thousands of lives and billions of dollars for each one the terrorist spends. They should be as the dirt beneath our feet, diplomatically expunged by dealing with the governments in the countries from which they stage.

[Saryctos]

interrogating him with techniques that included sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold..."

 

I would hardly consider these methods anywhere close to "stooping to a terrorist's level".

[john5746]

I'm perfectly fine with shipping them to Saudi Arabia and letting them question them and handle them as they see fit. Its not our place to mess with their culture after all.

 

We can then close Gitmo and stop paying to keep these jerks alive.

[Pangloss]

Well I think it's probably a good thing that some new interrogation techniques were explored, and I think it's very notable that not all of those techniques are being condemned. Even the far left seems to have abandoned the notion that anything more than standard police procedures is unacceptable -- the fact that the new techniques saved lives and stopped terrorist attacks is probably responsible for that. Those die-hard Al Qaeda types weren't going to give it up while sitting fat and happy in Sing-Sing.

 

But that's exactly what would have happened had the Bush administration not been willing to go down a road that previous presidents avoided. If we've now identified some of those methods as unacceptable, fine, let's codify that, and also codify what IS acceptable, and at least learn something from the experience.

[padren]

Well I think it's probably a good thing that some new interrogation techniques were explored, and I think it's very notable that not all of those techniques are being condemned. Even the far left seems to have abandoned the notion that anything more than standard police procedures is unacceptable -- the fact that the new techniques saved lives and stopped terrorist attacks is probably responsible for that. Those die-hard Al Qaeda types weren't going to give it up while sitting fat and happy in Sing-Sing.

 

But that's exactly what would have happened had the Bush administration not been willing to go down a road that previous presidents avoided. If we've now identified some of those methods as unacceptable, fine, let's codify that, and also codify what IS acceptable, and at least learn something from the experience.

 

You bring up a really good point, because this issue, like most issues should be considered even if it makes us fearful that we may (out of fear) go to far. To not consider revisiting our policies would itself be to do so out of that fear, and can't help but to lead to stagnation.

 

Whereas if we keep level heads and honestly look at it, we may come up with solutions we don't have and if we can't trust ourselves to do that we really have some larger issues in the mix.

 

The whole of it is, while we ignore the issue and not want to get our hands dirty, we ship people off to countries that have no problem doing things we would not condone - as we have done for years.

Do we not believe we can conceive of means we can both live with better, and would be more effective than outsourcing interrogations? I think it's worth trying to come up with that answer.

 

 

Just a side note: I remember reading a book Influence: Science and Practice that had a really interesting section on POWs and Chinese methods of information gathering.

Granted, not their "hard methods" for time sensitive results, but the general practice they used on POWs over time. They'd do things such as have Essay contests in the camps, whomever won would get something extra (food, cigarettes, etc) for their group, and they'd generally share somewhat with the other POWs, but the essays that won would commonly find fault with the war, or some part of the POWs' national ideology. The POWs knew the contests were skewed, and knew their peers knew they were writing just to "put on over on the Chinese" and didn't mean any of it, but it had a growing psychological impact. The winning essays would either be read over the PAs, or posted prominently for POWs to read (with the author's name attributed) and the winning authors would end up feeling ashamed deep down - even though they knew no one thought they meant a word of it. It simply hit them to know they had written it.

From there, the interrogators had a huge increase in results in extracting information from them, because the inmate had psychologically set themselves up to feel like a traitor already, even though they still believed in their ideology and the value of their war efforts.

 

It gets a little more complex, but it's a really fascinating idea. I am not saying it would work easily on Jihadists and of course not in "where's the nuke set to go off in an hour" situations, but just that if we applied the same level headed sort of thinking we put into so many other problems where we are able to innovate, we actually have a good chance of coming up with methods that are both superior and more humane than are currently available.

 

As it stands, as a nation we don't want to torture ourselves, but we begrudgingly accept looking the other way while we ship prisoners to countries that do because ultimately, we don't feel like we can offer a viable alternative.

[The Bear's Key]

Bull. The "where's the nuke set to go off in an hour" situation is a weak reason to officially explore torture.

 

We all know that if such an event were to occur, that someone in the interrogation hierarchy would break the rules and use torture or any means possible to extract the information. When it comes to such an event, there is no rule of law. The consequences only apply if you had been wrong.

 

The reason we don't make barbarism official is because rather than containing it to a few instinctive pivotal moments, you're letting it breathe through the corridors of the justice system, giving it a chance to fester and become ugly. And it will. You can't torture free of repercussion without being changed by it on some level, and even if some torturers are barely changed by it, most probably grow at least a bit uglier inside, and due to their positions of authority, this change of humanity reverberates into other areas of government and has a stronger impact on our culture. If our leaders can torture, it must be alright on a societal level for us to mirror their reasoning.

 

For comparison, look to how police are trained meticulously to avoid shooting a person who reaches quickly and draws what could be mistaken for a weapon. If the person had indeed drawn a weapon, the repercussions for shooting that person vanish, yet the strict adherence to procedure exists for a reason. Although it makes it difficult for police, that's why you sign up as a public servant. The easy way does not adequately protect our rights. The hard way does. It's practically a sacred duty to our way of life.

 

If you want to believe the politicians who tickle our scare rationales, first think a bit about something: how difficult is it to make a convincing excuse that supports practically any wrong? If a spouse detected the various clues of infidelity yet dropped their suspicions, it's usually because the mate crafted a good excuse.

 

Torture leads to a place with benefits: for some in power. And they have enough money to attract the best excuse-crafters and those willing to stoop so low. And the result is evident in certain AM radio, TV commentators and related journalism. They are professionals employed solely to whittle away our nagging conscience or doubts. Usually they'll shout and/or have assistants echoing them in stealth mode by astroturf.

 

Careful what pill you swallow. A right and a wrong doesn't make one a centrist. If a political strategist wants you to believe that a certain philosophy hasn't been given the same consideration as other philosophies, the best way to do it is getting you to accept that it's not an extreme philosophy, but rather a healthy and essential one. If they succeed, you might drift towards programming that gives equal weight and time to both extreme philosophies and normal ones, and in the end be misled to perceive it as fair and balanced.

Edited January 15, 2009 by Pangloss
moved from General by user request

[npts2020]

I would hardly consider these methods anywhere close to "stooping to a terrorist's level".

 

How about waterboarding (something people have been prosecuted for as torture by the American government since the Civil War) or just good old fashioned beating to death? Are those getting a little closer to the "level" of a terrorist? The problem is that some of the methods used have been clearly defined as torture for many years. In eight years (or over 7 years if you only want to consider since 9/11) what laws have been proposed to change those definitions? Every interrogater I have heard interviewed or read (at least a dozen if they are actually all different people) has stated that they got better information without torture than with. If you apply enough pain to someone they will tell you whatever they think you want to hear. If torture was efficacious and needed, why would it be wrong to torture everyone you picked up off of the street since anyone might have a small piece of information you could use?

[DrDNA]

You do realize that the prisoner in question was considered "the 20 high jacker"?

 

And:

1. It is illegal under US law:

***Military personnel who mistreat prisoners can be prosecuted by a court-martial under various provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ, arts. 77-134).

***The War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Includes violations of common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions (see below)

***A federal anti-torture statute (18 U.S.C. § 2340A), enacted in 1994, which provides for the prosecution of a U.S. national or anyone present in the United States who, while outside the U.S., commits or attempts to commit torture. Torture is defined as an “act committed by a person acting under the color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control.”

***Military contractors working for the Department of Defense might also be prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-778). Known as MEJA. MEJA, it permits the prosecution in federal court of U.S. civilians who, while employed by or accompanying U.S. forces abroad, commit certain crimes. Note that MEJA remains untested because the Defense Department has yet to issue necessary implementing regulations required by the law.

2. illegal under international according to several Articles of the Geneva Convention(s).

***Article 3 which "prohibits “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; …outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment”

***Geneva Article 17 and 31 which states that detainees may be questioned, but any form of “physical or mental coercion” is prohibited.

***Article 75 (1977) which states that "even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by “fundamental guarantees”. Specifically, it prohibits “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”

***The United States has long considered article 75 to be part of customary international law (a widely supported state practice accepted as law).

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/docs/2004/05/24/usint8614.htm

3. Against the "UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishments": including article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which provide that no one may be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (to be honest we did EVENTUALLY sign the Convention Against Torture but I'm not sure if we ever ratified it)

4. That we are "supposed" to be "better" than "them"

5. That it is well accepted that tortured individuals will say anything that you want to hear

6. And, finally, from our own legal stand point, all of the evidence must be thrown out

Edited January 15, 2009 by DrDNA
corrected spelling of illegal and added the word, be

[Pangloss]

Which apparently is what's going to happen. We tortured, the evidence is therefore tainted, and that evidence has been thrown out. They may not even bring the guy to trial.

 

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jbmP3o8XOJzzejOL73973dlF_tzQ

[doG]

A senior Bush administration official, Susan J. Crawford, responsible for reviewing practices at Guantanamo, has officially concluded that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured...

 

Obviously this level of interrogative method is offensive to some. I wonder if they would tell me how many American lives must be in jeopardy before they would not consider such methods offensive? How many lives should we forfeit to protect a terrorist? A 1000? 5000? A million? How many is enough before you become as concerned about Americans as you are for this prisoner....I mean terrorist?

[DrDNA]

How many lives should we forfeit to protect a terrorist? A 1000? 5000?

 

Not torturing does not necessarily = protection.

 

I voted for those bastards twice.

 

Why? Because I felt that, compared to the alternative, they were better equipped to (and would) defend and abide by the US Constitution.

A document which they have sworn to uphold, protect and abide by.

And that they would honor all of the liberties and inalienable rights contained therein.

I also thought that they would adhere to the moral, ethical and legal standards that have historically separated us from "them".

But they flushed all of the above down the toilet.

 

I'm pretty ticked off at them, how low we have sunk and myself for my mistake in judgment.

Edited January 15, 2009 by DrDNA

[padren]

Obviously this level of interrogative method is offensive to some. I wonder if they would tell me how many American lives must be in jeopardy before they would not consider such methods offensive? How many lives should we forfeit to protect a terrorist? A 1000? 5000? A million? How many is enough before you become as concerned about Americans as you are for this prisoner....I mean terrorist?

 

It was worth over 400,000 American lives to stand up for our ideals during WWII. Considering we were prepared to fight as long as it took at whatever the cost, I think we should consider that the lowest possible number.

 

 

But I still don't like how it's seen that our ideals are liabilities we have to work around. It was our commitment to our ideals that ensured the Soviets understood if they attacked a Nato ally, it would come to a nuclear war... and that really was a pretty big reason they didn't. It strikes me as dangerous to haggle their currency.

[doG]

Why? Because I felt that, compared to the alternative, they were better equipped to (and would) defend and abide by the US Constitution.

 

Perhaps we need to get you back on topic here. A foreign fighter captured in battle on foreign soil fighting against our troops, the subject of this thread, IS NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you want to be mad then be mad about any possible violations of the Geneva Convention since it covers POWs and the Constitution does not.

[SH3RL0CK]

Perhaps we need to get you back on topic here. A foreign fighter captured in battle on foreign soil fighting against our troops, the subject of this thread, IS NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you want to be mad then be mad about any possible violations of the Geneva Convention since it covers POWs and the Constitution does not.

 

An additional point/question: I had thought the Geneva convention covered only wars between the signers; or when a non signer is compling with the convention. In other words, since Al Queda isn't a signer of the convention nor, b.t.w. do they follow it, people fighting AQ aren't required to abide by it either.

 

see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_convention

 

That the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...

 

I'm not saying we shouldn't abide by it regarding the AQ POWs, but I'm suggesting that maybe we aren't obligated to do so. If this is true, then the question on the validity of the use of torture in this case is not a legal arguement, but rather a moral and ethical arguement.

[DrDNA]

Perhaps we need to get you back on topic here. A foreign fighter captured in battle on foreign soil fighting against our troops, the subject of this thread, IS NOT protected by the U.S. Constitution. If you want to be mad then be mad about any possible violations of the Geneva Convention since it covers POWs and the Constitution does not.

 

I intended for my comments about the Constitution to to be taken in the context of this:

I also thought that they would adhere to the moral, ethical and legal standards that have historically separated us from "them".

But they flushed all of the above down the toilet.

I'm sorry if that was not clear. I thought I was clear, but maybe it was off topic.

 

But, to be precisely on topic, did you read my earlier post (above) quoting several Articles in the Geneva Convention(s), in the UN CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishments (both of which we have signed) and US laws which ban torture?

In case you did not; I encourage you to.

 

The information was enlightening to me and goes against what I had previosuly read and heard, for example on "right" leaning radio and TV.

I'd like to see your comments after you read it in detail.

 

But here is a snippet for you:

Our own War Crimes Act of 1996 (18 U.S.C. § 2441) makes it a criminal offense for U.S. military personnel and U.S. nationals to commit war crimes as specified in the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

*Article 75 (1977) of Geneva states that "even persons who are not entitled to the protections of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (such as some detainees from third countries) are protected by “fundamental guarantees”. Specifically, it prohibits “torture of all kinds, whether physical or mental,” “corporal punishment,” and “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment, … and any form of indecent assault.”

I also refer you to the details of some of the other relevant Articles of the Geneva Conv listed above.

 

One must conclude that, even disregarding the moral and the ethical implications, there is absolutely no legal foundation in the US or the world courts that would permit such an act to occur.

 

Plus, the Geneva Convention makes no distinction, the UN Convention makes no distinction, and our own laws (see e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 2340A) make no distinction whether "war is declared" or not (again, see above).

 

Furthermore, these acts are illegal even if they are committed by contractors and/or on foreign soil (which is also contrary to what I was led to believe).

I was kind of shocked when I saw it.

Edited January 15, 2009 by DrDNA

[SH3RL0CK]

For DrDNA: But the section I quoted (from Wikipedia , I will try to look into this further when/if I get more time...or maybe you could save me some time if you have a good reference covering this) seems to indicate the Geneva Convention doesn't apply to AQ because AQ will deliberately and routinely break the convention. Therefore, the safeguards in the convention, by its own clauses are no longer guaranteed to those AQ members.

 

Now I understand there are those at Gitmo who claim to not be AQ, but merely innocent bystanders caught up in the violence (and it might be hard to prove otherwise). These people would therefore must be afforded the Geneva convention guarantees (which keep in mind are different, worse actually according to Wiki, than those for POWs). But there are also those who freely admit being AQ and who freely admit things which clearly break the convention and freely say they would eagerly do it again if given the opportunity.

 

Therefore there seems to me, a strong case can be made that no laws, or conventions, were broken.

 

Again, I am NOT saying torture is acceptable from any ethical or moral or even logical perspective.

[DrDNA]

This is the reference I used

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/english/do.../usint8614.htm

If any one has a better one, I'd be interested in reading it also (unless they are the entire documents)

[npts2020]

Obviously this level of interrogative method is offensive to some. I wonder if they would tell me how many American lives must be in jeopardy before they would not consider such methods offensive? How many lives should we forfeit to protect a terrorist? A 1000? 5000? A million? How many is enough before you become as concerned about Americans as you are for this prisoner....I mean terrorist?

 

Why not just torture everyone you pick up then? Any individual "might" have that piece of information you need to prevent "disaster" and save umpteen lives.

[DrDNA]

From your wiki link:

"the relationship between the "High Contracting Parties" and a non-signatory, the party will remain bound until the non-signatory no longer acts under the strictures of the convention. "...Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof." "

Is this the section or part that you are referring to?

 

Does anyone know what the legal definitions of a 'Power' and 'the Powers who are parties' actually are and how these definitions might or might not be applicable to a gang of thugs waging Jihad?

In other words is a terrorist organization actually a "Power"?

 

Similarly, did the US government ever formally classify the KKK as a "Power"? ......or the Black Panthers?....or the Weathermen?

I seriously doubt it, but admit that I really don't know for sure.

So, if they did not classify them as a 'Power', it seems like some Judicial branch of the US (ie, Supreme Court) or a World Court would rule against Al Queda being classified as such.

In other words then there should be no legal precedent to legally permit this activity to occur.

 

I realize that this is the loophole that this mess is all about.

But I still don't believe that the portion of the Geneva Conv above was intended to apply to anything other than a "country".

 

Also, this is just one small part of the Geneva Conv and, as quoted in my previous post, we also have US Laws plus The UN Convention Against Torture, which we are a party to also, and bound by.

Edited January 16, 2009 by DrDNA
Consecutive post/s merged.

[bascule]

Obviously this level of interrogative method is offensive to some. I wonder if they would tell me how many American lives must be in jeopardy before they would not consider such methods offensive? How many lives should we forfeit to protect a terrorist? A 1000? 5000? A million? How many is enough before you become as concerned about Americans as you are for this prisoner....I mean terrorist?

 

So what you're saying is it's okay if we torture people? Like, torture them to the point a senior Bush administration official concludes we tortured them?

 

What if we torture them and it turns out that they don't know anything? Was it worth torturing them to potentially save a million lives? How many potentially saved lives are worth torturing people for, especially in the event the information turns out to be fruitless?

 

Do people we torture tell the truth, or do they tell us what they think we want to hear so we stop torturing them? Is torture an effective interrogation method? Is it okay to torture people when we don't know if they have the information we need to stop a terrorist attack?

[doG]

I didn't think you'd answer my questions before asking more of your own. It's very telling of those that cry out about the treatment of a terrorist while saying absolutely nothing about the 1000s of American lives they're complicit in taking. Sometimes what one is silent about is deafening over what they are screaming about.

[padren]

I didn't think you'd answer my questions before asking more of your own. It's very telling of those that cry out about the treatment of a terrorist while saying absolutely nothing about the 1000s of American lives they're complicit in taking. Sometimes what one is silent about is deafening over what they are screaming about.

 

The problem I think is you are taking a construct and applying absolutes that could only exist in it's most ideal form.

 

In the absolute 'ideals' sense, if a person comes at you with a lethal weapon (or someone else), of course you can defend yourself (or them) and if needed take their life. If the only means you have to take their life happens to be "torturous" it's still entirely understandable.

 

It's not that hard to extrapolate that if the person is attempting to kill you or others by not talking about a bomb they planted... the same justifications exist.

So, in that absolute ideal case, the answer is "1 human" naturally.

 

The problem is that absolute ideal case can never be confirmed to exist - there is no way to know if that is the case.

 

So the question then becomes, about the treatment of suspected terrorists, not to mention suspected terrorist supporters that have no information to give up.

 

That's the key problem, so please don't imply that raising that issue is somehow equivalent to protecting terrorists at the expense of innocent lives.

Yes, in some circumstances it is possible that some terrorists may end up being protected from torture and that it could result in more innocent lives lost.

 

Personally I don't think those circumstances are very probable, and on top of that I'd rather take my chances of being the victim of a terrorist attack than take my chances of being party to a government that tortures innocent people suspected of being terrorists.

[doG]

So the question then becomes, about the treatment of suspected terrorists, not to mention suspected terrorist supporters that have no information to give up.

 

Suspected terrorists or confirmed combatant actually captured on the battlefield fighting against our troops as this individual was?