Red Cross Torture Report

The Red Cross's confidential torture report has been leaked, and the full version can be read here (PDF warning). This was never intended as a public document, but rather as a statement to the appropriate authorities in the U.S. government, a way of saying, "We know this much. Now you know what we know."

Needless to say, it is damning. You might want to give it a read before you order another Club Gitmo shirt from Rush Limbaugh's online store.

Other news:

A Spanish court may hand down indictments for officials who authorized torture.

One of Bush's State Department lawyers states the obvious.

Last, and certainly not least, is the news that the entire rationale behind state-authorized torture was baloney ("We need to do this to protect teh childrens! Do you want teh childrens to die?"). Washington Post:

When CIA officials subjected their first high-value captive, Abu Zubaida, to waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods, they were convinced that they had in their custody an al-Qaeda leader who knew details of operations yet to be unleashed, and they were facing increasing pressure from the White House to get those secrets out of him.

The methods succeeded in breaking him, and the stories he told of al-Qaeda terrorism plots sent CIA officers around the globe chasing leads.

In the end, though, not a single significant plot was foiled as a result of Abu Zubaida's tortured confessions, according to former senior government officials who closely followed the interrogations. Nearly all of the leads attained through the harsh measures quickly evaporated, while most of the useful information from Abu Zubaida -- chiefly names of al-Qaeda members and associates -- was obtained before waterboarding was introduced, they said.

At first I wasn't going to post because I thought this was another boring torture thread but then I reread and saw that even the SPANISH COURTS were involved?! Does it get more serious than this??
:help:

Oh and a Bush state department lawyer doesn't approve in hindsight either. :no:

Good article on waterboarding itself, somewhat OT. Fun for Hitchens lovers and haters
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/f...hitchens200808

Another objective thread from Lemur.

How many times does the word "alleged" appear? We all know that good Muslims would never lie about things like torture or desecration of the Koran, and would never do those things themselves. Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.

What laws were broken?

Spanish courts? Nobody expects the Spanish courts!

Hmmm, its a fairly detailed report. How ingrained is the red cross in this. Is the red cross responsable for the inmates care? is that how they got the testimonials?

ok, read more of the article, the reports of the convicts is consistant despite the isolation maintained between them. And i've heard of the waterboarding and slapping but to me the most nasting sounding one is the Beating with a leash.

Quote:

---

Beatings by use of a collar held around the detainees neck and used to bang the head and body against the wall, alleged by six of the fourteen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

What laws were broken?

---

Did you follow any of the links provided? 'Cause it sounds as though you did not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

How many times does the word "alleged" appear? We all know that good Muslims would never lie about things like torture or desecration of the Koran, and would never do those things themselves. Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.

---

Psychological torture isn't torture in your opinion?

You don't think it's possible to screw someone up just as bad with psychology as with physical pain?

Quote:

---

Did you follow any of the links provided?

---

But if someone followed links they would have to read stuff and digest what was written .
It has been shown that such action can be harmful as it may impact on the blissful state of ignorance.

Tribes, you're not exactly the king of documented sources, so I don't see where you have any moral standing on this. I'd like to see you actually link to an article once before I die.

He did, actually... about 2-3 months ago. I saw it with my own incredulous eyeballs. And in response to someone's query.

I feel bad about the ICRC report. It wasn't supposed to be leaked; most of their other (often scathing) reports have not been - this has been what has lent those previous reports more credibility with policy-makers.

It rests completely on the unchallenged and un-cross-checked testimony of incarcerated subjects, making it too easy for powers-that-be to dismiss it as "jailhouse lawyer talk". If we wanna go after the whack-jobs who crafted law, regulation and policy to allow torture and unaccountable apprehension and imprisionment (and I, for one, do wanna), we need a better, more thorough, check-able, detailed effort. In my opinion.

"A" for intent, but "D" for content.

I don't entirely agree, Kukri. When you've got guys from different countries and different training groups who've all been held in isolation, unable to communicate with each other or the outside world, all offering the same version of events, it has some credibility. I don't buy the overly convenient version where they were all drilled in what to say by their dark overlords.

If you read some of the internal AQ docs that have leaked, you'll see that they're a dysfunctional bunch of back-biters (as many small groups are), not uber-terrorist masterminds. They even succeeded in getting ripped off by a Hong Kong web hosting company, which was hilarious to read. I've got to see if I can re-locate the article where they reprinted AQ's emails; it made for a strangely amusing read.

I'm not saying those guys were lying. Their veracity at this point is irrelevant. The premature, and (presumeably) unauthorized leak of this report, which sold a few newspapers, actually works at cross-purposes to actually investigating, identifying, indicting, prosecuting, and punishing those responsible for letting, authorizing and (maybe) ordering what should (imo) be seen as unlawful apprehensions, interrogations and imprisionments.

In other words: because this report can be dismissed so easily as an exercise in "I were framed, I was, Guv, honest!" by the American authorities who could bring charges, it delays the day when we citizens can say, with a straight face: "We don't torture. Ever. If one of us ever does, he/she is a 'loose cannon' and will be punished".

Mind: I don't blame the ICRC. They're doing what they do. I blame the leaker.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Another objective thread from Lemur.

How many times does the word "alleged" appear? We all know that good Muslims would never lie about things like torture or desecration of the Koran, and would never do those things themselves. Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.

What laws were broken?

Spanish courts? Nobody expects the Spanish courts!

---

The capacity of people to justify abuse in an effort to retain the validity of their views never ceases to amaze me...

I will answer your question 'what torture is'. What you ve read is torture. End of story. Either admit that you support or condemn it. Playing mental games with such actions is a hit blow the belt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Yet again we are confronted with the question of what torture is. Is physical abuse (and if so, what kind?), sleep deprivation, or shaving a beard? The Red Cross doesn't state it was, but Lemur knows better.

---

I've responded to this at length in previous threads, which I'm guessing you didn't read. I'll do a condensed version here:

"Torture" is intent, in the same way that "first degree homicide" is intent. You can kill someone by accident, and it isn't homicide, it's manslaughter. By the same token, you can make a prisoner's life hell unintentionally and it isn't torture.

If your intent is to cause pain and suffering, it's torture.

But let's delve into this a little more deeply before we go on. I'd like to turn the question around and hear your responses:

If I slap you lightly, is it torture? How about if I slap you 100 times and turn your face into a swollen, bloody mess? How many slaps, exactly, does it take to meet your non-existent definition of torture? Please take into account that different interrogators will have different arm strength and hand size. Factor that into your answer.

How about if I prevent you from sleeping? Obviously 24–48 hours is nothing, grad students do it all the time. But keep a person awake long enough and they will die. So when, exactly, does it become appropriate to call sleep deprivation "torture"? Please be specific.

What if I can control the temperature of your room? A fully-clothed human being is fine in a cold room. How about if I take your clothes away and don't give them back for a week? What if I douse you with cold water to make the shivering and hypothermia start earlier? I can kill you this way, so obviously at some point it becomes torture. When? How about if I give you an icewater enema? (This has been documented in a case where the Navy SEALS accidentally killed a detainee.) It's going to be agonizing, especially if I've already got you naked and wet in a 50 degree room. Does near-freezing water in your lower intestine qualify as torture?

How about sensory deprivation? You can quite easily drive another human being insane with this technique. By the same token, yuppies do sensory deprivation tanks for fun. So when does the 30-minute sensory deprivation vacation become torture? Please give me a specific time, and back it up with scientific data.

If you can successfully answer any of these questions, I'll give you a shiny nickel. 'Cause let's face it, you're demanding a definition for something you have given no serious thought to, and which you are not able to define yourself. Not only have you avoided exploring the moral and ethical ramifications of torture, you haven't demonstrated that you have devoted any rational thought to what it is. Your question demonstrates a moral, ethical and intellectual blind spot.

Quote:

---

Tribes, you're not exactly the king of documented sources, so I don't see where you have any moral standing on this.

---

But this is about people not reading sources that are posted isn't it .:yes:

As for me not posting links . Well thats simple , since in general the most vocal ranters will go off on one without reading the link let alone having even the most basic understanding of the issue then what is the point in posting links for them to not read ?

A prime example from recently .....

Quote:

---

edit: didn't even click on article when I posted that, 'occupied territory', says enough. A country occupying land after a war that it didn't even provoke, outragious who would have thought. There is no official peace it's a cease fire. Within Israel's borders arabs have the same rights. Outside Israel's borders 'rights' lol.

---

....a simple pattern to follow isn't it . Didn't look at it at all .....looked at it but didn't read it ...carrying on with a typical nonsensical position even though a quick read of the link or any knowledge of the situation and history surrounding it shoots that arguement to pieces .

So compare that with another approach to posted links .

Quote:

---

Nice video , far too many factual errors though to be taken seriously .

---

:2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A Spanish court may hand down indictments for officials who authorized torture.

---

It's Garzon again! :jumping:

He is my favourite judge. He, like my beloved Louis Michel of Belgium before him, try to find legal means of prosecuting gross infringements of human rights anywhere. After Rwandese genociders, Al-Qaida (the 'War on Crusaders'), Chilean and Argentine junta members (the 'War on Communism'), Garzon is now devoting his energy to excesses of the War on Terror. :2thumbsup:

Garzon meets (as Michel met) much mockery at home. Derision abroad. Michel was laughed away from Belgium. ('What, you want to prosecute mass murderers!? Don't you know that if only you kill enough people you are above the law!?')
Despite meeting much initial reservations, they both, however, belong to an intellectual current that is gaining in strength I think. Bernard Kouchner and Louis VI share their radical human rights interventionist opinion. The courts in the Hague, the international prosecution of war crimes commited in Yugoslavia and Rwanda also show that prosecution is more a matter of power than of absense of political will or legal means.

Of course, Garzon will fail today. The political will, and the distribution of power prevent his succeeding in going after the Americans. Except, perhaps, for those that tortured Spanish citizens. But his work is also one of raising consiousness: 'hey, crickey, yes we can. Yes we CAN actually prosecute torture camp runners'. The simple act of seeing Pinochet arrested greatly strengthened the movements in Latin America that seek to overthrow legal immunities for junta torturers.

My money's on us seeing some interesting criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits concerning the use of torture and unaccountable imprisonment in the coming years, or decades.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

At first I wasn't going to post because I thought this was another boring torture thread but then I reread and saw that even the SPANISH COURTS were involved?! Does it get more serious than this??

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

Spanish courts? Nobody expects the Spanish courts!

---

Do you think you can try to look even more stupidly arrogant than that?

The fact that the US is the current top dog doesn't mean that you aren't bound by laws. Baltasar Garzon will probably achieve nothing, but at least he has the balls to do it.

So yeah, stick to your self-righteousness and enjoy it while you can. The rest of the world will keep making fun of you and of your so-called principles and values.

Marine calls about Torture

Disgusting oblivious. Mr. Limbaugh, you've dropped several pegs in my books.

Quote:

---

CALLER: Thanks Rush. Rush listen, I voted Republican and I really didn't want to see Obama get in office. But you know Rush, you're one reason to blame for this election, for the Republicans losing. First of all, you kept harping about voting for Hillary. The second big issue was the torture issue. I'm a veteran. We're not supposed to be torturing these people. This is not Nazi Germany, Red China, North Korea. There's other ways of interrogating people, and you just kept harping about, it's okay, or it's not really torture. And it was just more than waterboarding. Some of these prisoners will killed under torture.

And it was crazy for you to go on and on like Levin and Hannity and Hewitt. It's like you're all brainwashed. And my last comment is, no matter what Obama does, you will still criticize him because I believe you are brainwashed. You're just -- and I hate to say it -- but I think you're a brainwashed Nazi. Anyone who can believe in torture has got to be -- there has got to be something wrong with them.
.....
LIMBAUGH: Charles, if anybody is admitting that they are brainwashed it would be you.
.....
LIMBAUGH: Charles, you said at the beginning of your phone call that you didn't want Obama in there. But you voted for him because of me.

---

Quote:

---

Mr. Limbaugh, you've dropped several pegs in my books.

---

Well paint me pink bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , Rush had a peg that he could drop off ?????
I thought he was a bottom freeding scum sucker that couldn't get any lower without the aid of some seriously stronger drugs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Well paint me pink bugger me sideways with a yardbrush and call me Sandra , Rush had a peg that he could drop off ?????
I thought he was a bottom freeding scum sucker that couldn't get any lower without the aid of some seriously stronger drugs.

---

Sadly, Sandy, he's far from the bottom of the rung in that genre. Try dialing in Michael Savage on the "savagenation.com" or G Gordon Liddy. Rush is a genteel pundit compared to the real right-wing radio loons.

Sadly, the torture point is a good one. The only time torture ever has ANY moral justification is in a known "ticking bomb" situation. No such situations were known or suspected. Any of the answers generated could have been generated -- albeit more slowly -- via normal interrogation. The caller had a better point then Mr. Limbaugh.

I have an opinion on most political issues, but torture is one of those things I am hung up on. I think torture is thouroughly disgusting, even if used for a good purpose. Unfortunately sometimes disgusting methods need to be used though. The problem is that if you arm someone with something so disgusting and powerful, how hard is it for them to misuse it? IMO, torture should be used only when absolutely necassary, to the minimal extent, on the worst scum, to stop innocents from being harmed. The problem is that it is not that simple, because someone has to make that call, and everyone is human and subject to error and greed. Just too many variables for me to form a solid opinion yet. (I have been thinking about it and reading about it and reading historical examples of it for years too, and I still have not decided :P)


EDIT: and I think it should NEVER be used as a punishment.

Quote:

---

Sadly, Sandy, he's far from the bottom of the rung in that genre.

---

But he has the largest audience , swimming in the cess pit is no different from swimming in the cess pit, in his case he is worse because he gets more people to take a dip with him , splashing excrement around and calling it patriotism .

Quote:

---

Rush is a genteel pundit compared to the real right-wing radio loons.

---

So Rush is a fruitbat but not like the realoutaspace fruitbats , thats some commendation:2thumbsup:

I'm glad Spain has decided to give these officials some much needed time off and a European vacation. It's the least they could TBH.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

Do you think you can try to look even more stupidly arrogant than that?

The fact that the US is the current top dog doesn't mean that you aren't bound by laws. Baltasar Garzon will probably achieve nothing, but at least he has the balls to do it.

So yeah, stick to your self-righteousness and enjoy it while you can. The rest of the world will keep making fun of you and of your so-called principles and values.

---

I don't think you are getting the reference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I've responded to this at length in previous threads, which I'm guessing you didn't read. I'll do a condensed version here:

"Torture" is intent, in the same way that "first degree homicide" is intent. You can kill someone by accident, and it isn't homicide, it's manslaughter. By the same token, you can make a prisoner's life hell unintentionally and it isn't torture.

If your intent is to cause pain and suffering, it's torture.

But let's delve into this a little more deeply before we go on. I'd like to turn the question around and hear your responses:

If I slap you lightly, is it torture? How about if I slap you 100 times and turn your face into a swollen, bloody mess? How many slaps, exactly, does it take to meet your non-existent definition of torture? Please take into account that different interrogators will have different arm strength and hand size. Factor that into your answer.

How about if I prevent you from sleeping? Obviously 24–48 hours is nothing, grad students do it all the time. But keep a person awake long enough and they will die. So when, exactly, does it become appropriate to call sleep deprivation "torture"? Please be specific.

What if I can control the temperature of your room? A fully-clothed human being is fine in a cold room. How about if I take your clothes away and don't give them back for a week? What if I douse you with cold water to make the shivering and hypothermia start earlier? I can kill you this way, so obviously at some point it becomes torture. When? How about if I give you an icewater enema? (This has been documented in a case where the Navy SEALS accidentally killed a detainee.) It's going to be agonizing, especially if I've already got you naked and wet in a 50 degree room. Does near-freezing water in your lower intestine qualify as torture?

How about sensory deprivation? You can quite easily drive another human being insane with this technique. By the same token, yuppies do sensory deprivation tanks for fun. So when does the 30-minute sensory deprivation vacation become torture? Please give me a specific time, and back it up with scientific data.

If you can successfully answer any of these questions, I'll give you a shiny nickel. 'Cause let's face it, you're demanding a definition for something you have given no serious thought to, and which you are not able to define yourself. Not only have you avoided exploring the moral and ethical ramifications of torture, you haven't demonstrated that you have devoted any rational thought to what it is. Your question demonstrates a moral, ethical and intellectual blind spot.

---

By popular request!

I know you're posting your opinion, which is fine, therefore my "What is torture" question is a response to your implication that the Red Cross declared the treatment of these prisoners as torture. It did not. Far from providing substantiated claims the report included several allegations (and correctly called them so) of abuse. It's great that you have a mind of your own but expect the pendulum to swing back. I'm not making allegations of illegal activity so I don't need to provide evidence or declare how many slaps upon one's buttocks constitutes torture.

There are techniques like the infamous waterboarding, physical abuse, and prolonged sleep deprivation which are (or at least certainly were) a part of military training. Sometimes the intent of legal civilian and military training is to cause pain and suffering; it then becomes a matter of degree. By your rather naive definition, we torture our own people every day.

I'm entertained that you think I have a blind spot, I really am. However you represent the .org, so try to limit the personal attacks please.

In other words, you can't answer any of my questions, but will retreat behind a hastily erected barricade of "You shouldn't call me out!" with a little dash of "I don't have to answer anything, ever." Lovely.

Vladimir, it is 100% legitimate for me to demand your definition of torture, since you have repeatedly dismissed the notion that (a) it ever happened and (b) if it happened it wasn't quite "torture" and (c) "What is torture anyway?" and (d) "Define torture, or go home!" to which we can now add (e) "I'm only denying torture, so it's unfair to ask me to define what I'm saying didn't happen!"

For you to glibly declare that you don't need to answer any questions, contribute to the discussion or provide your own definition of the term you abuse so regularly is mendacity of a truly Rovian order. It's safe to say that you are not only unserious on this issue, but that you are not even debating in good faith.

I have to say I am disappointed.

I've been eagerly awaiting your response to Lemur's questions almost as much as I've been awaiting that chick I met at the bar a week ago. Now I'm twice as disappointed...

Quote:

---

...mendacity of a truly Rovian order.

---

First time I've seen that in the wild. :)

Quote:

---

Barack Obama today released four top secret memos that allowed the CIA under the Bush administration to torture al-Qaida and other suspects held at Guantánamo and secret detention centres round the world.

But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.

The memos provide an insight into the techniques used by the CIA and the legal basis on which the Bush administration gave the go-ahead.

In the first of the memos, dated 1 August 2002, the justice department gave the go-ahead to John Rizzo, then acting general counsel to the CIA, for operatives to move to the "increased pressure phase" in interrogating an al-Qaida suspect.

Ten techniques are approved, listed as: attention grasp, walling (in which the suspect could be pushed into a wall), a facial hold, a facial slap, cramped confinement, wall standing, sleep deprivation, insects placed in a confinement box (the suspect had a fear of insects) and the waterboard. In the latter, "the individual is bound securely to an inclined bench, which is approximately four feet by seven feet. The individual's feet are generally elevated. A cloth is placed over the forehead and eyes. Water is then applied to the cloth in a controlled manner........produces the perception of 'suffocation and incipient panic'."

---

The Gruniad

Quote:

---

But, in an accompanying statement, Obama ruled out prosecutions against those who had been involved. It is a "time for reflection, not retribution," he said.

---

I find the authors blameless, too. They were paid for their opinions, so they were obliged to imagine the worst, and provide them. It's the "deciders", those who authorized the use of the techniques, that require accountability.* In my opinion. However high up the chain that goes.

I suspect we might see Presidential pardons issued in coming weeks, in the interest of national healing and reconciliation. How those will play to the Left and Right... I dunno (and frankly, don't care. The principles involved are more important than the politics involved).

-edit-
*we've already prosecuted the Privates, PFC's and Sgt's for the Abu-G mistreatments. Time now for the Big Boys.

Ah yes, we establish principles. Better this than assign blame to anyone, although they take a massive salary due to the burdens of their job... The next time there's a crisis we can again ignore the principles and wring hands later.

~:smoking: