Former interogator at Guantanamo denounces practices used there

Quote:

---

Soldier lifts lid on Guantanamo 'abuse'
By Matthew Davis
BBC News, Washington

A former US soldier who worked on interrogations at Guantanamo Bay has written a damning expose of the brutal, degrading treatment he says was meted out to prisoners there.

Sgt Erik Saar's book, Inside the Wire, comes with the US military's treatment of prisoners in the spotlight due to court hearings over the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

In an interview with the BBC, Sgt Saar says that bizarre, sexual abuses at the prison camp set dangerous precedents that paved the way for mistreatment of US detainees in Iraq.

And the former translator argues that despite attempts to right wrongs at Guantanamo, the camp still defiles the values the US is fighting for in the war on terror.

'Does that please Allah?'

One of the most disturbing interrogations Sgt Saar says he saw in his six months at the prison concerned a female interrogator trying to break a Saudi detainee, captured after enrolling in a US flight school.

He tells how she began peeling off her clothes, taunting the man sexually in an attempt to shame him and stop him relying on his faith for support.

She left the interrogation room, Sgt Saar says, and found a red marker pen.

"'Brooke' came back round his [the prisoner's] other side, and he could see that she was beginning to withdraw her hand from her pants," said Sgt Saar.

"As it became visible, the Saudi saw what looked like red blood on her hand."

When the interrogator wiped what he thought was menstrual blood on his face, the prisoner raged, almost breaking free from his handcuffs.

But "Brooke" taunted him further, said Erik Saar, asking whether Allah would be pleased with him and telling him to have fun trying to pray.

Finally the detainee was returned to his cell without water, leaving him unable to cleanse himself.

'Start of a mistake'

Sgt Saar volunteered for Guantanamo in 2002. He was a US Army linguist, an expert in Arabic and had high security clearance.

But he says what he saw completely changed his attitude towards the camp, and his country.

There were many more suicide attempts in the camp than the US government has ever admitted, Sgt Saar says.

He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.

And of the 600 or so prisoners there, no more than a few dozen were "hardcore terrorists", says Erik Saar.

"The US Government portrays Guantanamo as a place where we are sending the worst of the worst, but this is not true.

"Guantanamo was the beginning of a mistake. It set a precedent in labelling people as enemy combatants, blurring the line between right and wrong.

"You can see it as the seed that may well have led to the naked human pyramids in Abu Ghraib."

FBI memos

In December 2004, the American Civil Liberties Union released a slew of material relating to prisoner abuse, obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.

This included an FBI email - from December 2003, six months after Sgt Saar left - that said Defense Department interrogators at Guantanamo had impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" on a detainee.

US Southern Command told the BBC it was investigating alleged detainee abuse following the publication of the FBI memos.

But USSC says it will not comment on any abuse allegations until the inquiry report is published.

Officials also deny allegations in Erik Saar's book that interrogations at Guantanamo were "staged" for visiting inspectors.

A spokesman told the BBC that Mr Saar was a merely a junior linguist, "not in a position to understand the decisions behind interrogation planning".

'Whitewash'

The US Army is addressing the issue of how to treat a prisoner humanely, while still applying the pressure needed to get them to reveal critical information.

It is poised to issue a new field interrogation manual, which will expressly forbid certain harsh techniques and include detailed examples with references to the Geneva Conventions.

Throwing a chair against a wall in a fit of mock anger may be permissible, for instance, but using the chair to hit the detainee would not.

In March, a Pentagon investigation into the interrogation of prisoners detained in the war on terror found its policy did not lead to abuse.

The review - launched last year - examined 187 Pentagon investigations of alleged abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay.

Human rights groups criticised the review as a whitewash.

Sgt Saar believes improvements have been made at the camp, but says more radical change is needed, to bring prisoners within the US judicial system.

"People say if what I have written is the worst that went on, it is not too bad," he says.

"But Guantanamo has become a symbol of everything wrong with America's image. If we are trying to build a bridge to the Muslim world, what sort of face are we portraying?

Inside the Wire by Erik Saar and Viveca Novak is published in the United States by The Penguin Press.

---

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4523825.stm

Hehe, i saw this guy on the news, he was obviously trying his hardest to sell his book.

I would never take the words of someone who will profit off of those words as an unbiased account.

In any event, i found this bit entertaining:

He tells how she began peeling off her clothes, taunting the man sexually in an attempt to shame him and stop him relying on his faith for support.

LoL Such horrible treatment! So horrible people pay millions every year in strip clubs for the same torture. Is that it?

This was a little more promising:

He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.

At least our forces havent completely pussy-ed out. Those dirtbags deserve a lot more than that.

In any event, the anti-war types will buy and believe this book despite the fact it is written by a low level linguist who stands to profit from its distribution. Good luck to him, he's truly a representation of capitalism at its best/worst. ~;)

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.

---

At least our forces havent completely pussy-ed out. Those dirtbags deserve a lot more than that.

---

This assumes that all the prisoners are guilty, which is challenged by each bit of info that comes out. It appears that many were arrested and placed in Gitmo as the result of bounties being offered - people turned in innocent people in order to reap financial rewards, something you claim not to trust.

This also mistakenly asserts that it is justified to beat captives, even those who deserve it. While I hate to rely on theological appeals, WWJD? Would he beat a captive because he was a dirtbag.

It ignores the fact that with each mistake, error, or whatever you wish to call it, justifiable act if you will, that we bolster the root causes of hate and feed the fires that threaten us.

But it seems too late already. Once rational people on both sides begin to buy into the hate that was once owned only by a few extremists, then war is inevitable. And every day I see more and more the normal, regular, decent people who have accepted that violence and hatred are OK, because the other side did something violent and 'they all hate us.

We have been set onto a spiral, downward toward conflict.

ichi :bow:

This assumes that all the prisoners are guilty, which is challenged by each bit of info that comes out.

And you are assuming that all those sent to Guantanamo are given the same treatment. I dont buy that. I believe that the military would issue the proper amount of beatings to the proper people.

Dont you think if the media was able to find out some of the prisoners were sent to them via bounty, the military already knew. Its cold but responsible to keep them in for a while to make sure they arent who their accusers say they are, but I doubt they were the ones on the receiving end of those alleged beatings.

While I hate to rely on theological appeals, WWJD?

A rather cheap shot i must say, especially from someone living in the proverbial glass house.

Jesus would most likely not own a computer, house, or car.

WWJD... What Would Judas Do?

Own shares in Halliburton, get someone to beat the crap out of anyone who got in his way (at a profit) and make sure he was the treasurer of a leading humanitarian organisation like Oil for Food...

I saw and have heard this guy a few times. He changes his tune when the questioning gets tuough. When asked if he saw anything illegal or any atrocities he admits he hasnt. In reality his argument is that what he saw was un American.

Frankly - one can safely assume if he was what he claims he was - he would already been arrested and quietly held for breaking an oath and a contract which is signed when one holds high level security classification.

Did he see some questionable stuff - sure the reports from other sources tell of treatment that would be classified as illegal if done by the civilian police forces here in the United States - and in that there is a very valid point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

Jesus would most likely not own a computer, house, or car.

---

He does actually. But he prefer Japanese quality. ~;)

True or not true. American goverment may not complain about these stories. Why did they send the prisoners to Guantanamo? Why didn't they give them a fair trial?

Quote:

---

One of the most disturbing interrogations Sgt Saar says he saw in his six months at the prison concerned a female interrogator trying to break a Saudi detainee, captured after enrolling in a US flight school.

He tells how she began peeling off her clothes, taunting the man sexually in an attempt to shame him and stop him relying on his faith for support.

She left the interrogation room, Sgt Saar says, and found a red marker pen.

"'Brooke' came back round his [the prisoner's] other side, and he could see that she was beginning to withdraw her hand from her pants," said Sgt Saar.

"As it became visible, the Saudi saw what looked like red blood on her hand."

When the interrogator wiped what he thought was menstrual blood on his face, the prisoner raged, almost breaking free from his handcuffs.

But "Brooke" taunted him further, said Erik Saar, asking whether Allah would be pleased with him and telling him to have fun trying to pray.

Finally the detainee was returned to his cell without water, leaving him unable to cleanse himself.

---

OMG OMG OMG!!!

HE SAW A NAKED WOMAN AND GOT MARKED BY A RED PEN!!!!

If thats torture then sign me up!!

Sounds like someone trying to sell his book to me.

Quote:

---

He claims storm trooper-like IRF (initial reaction force) teams were involved in numerous beatings of captives.

At least our forces havent completely pussy-ed out. Those dirtbags deserve a lot more than that.

---

Glad you like it, you do realise that you've just lost the right to complain when American troops are found tortured though, don't you? If you believe in the might is right approach I hope you have the decency not to whinge when someone stronger comes along, I suppose time will tell.

Glad you like it, you do realise that you've just lost the right to complain when American troops are found tortured though, don't you? If you believe in the might is right approach I hope you have the decency not to whinge when someone stronger comes along, I suppose time will tell.

I dont complain because what will that get me? Will it make him any less tortured?

War is hell - i say give back 100 times what they give us. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Efrem

OMG OMG OMG!!!

HE SAW A NAKED WOMAN AND GOT MARKED BY A RED PEN!!!!

If thats torture then sign me up!!

---

In doing that they forced him to think he had broken the rules of his religion, somethign which he was powerless to stop. It is emotional/mental torture. The fact that it is not so for you does not change that fact.

Quote:

---

I dont complain because what will that get me? Will it make him any less tortured?

War is hell - i say give back 100 times what they give us.

---

You're missing the point, purposely? Probably.

Not only are you opening up your own troops to similar treatment without recourse to complaint through the Geneva convention, but who is going to surrender to someone who is going to torture them? Don't get me wrong the only reason I would have campaigned for the return of the British prisoners from GB would have been to try them as traitors, but they still have rights as citizens until that trial.

As for giving back 100 times, the days of the Great Khan burning cities and slaughtering all the inhabitants as an abject lesson to future combatants are long gone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

You're missing the point, purposely? Probably.

Not only are you opening up your own troops to similar treatment without recourse to complaint through the Geneva convention, but who is going to surrender to someone who is going to torture them?

---

Terrorists don't submit to the Geneva Convention - nor do they honor it. Lets not quibble over this - to say the United States is violating the Geneva Conventions and the anti-torture treaties is one thing - but lets not for a second believe that the enemy that the United States is facing right now honors any aspect of the Geneva Conventions.

For a United States seviceman or woman to surrender to the enemy we are facing right now - is to be killed with either a bullet in the back of the head or a sword stroke to remove the head. And its been that way from the very beginning even before the Abu Graib scandel or Gitmo allegations coming to light.

What peopel dont seem to understand is countries dont sign the Geneva Conventions out of any humanitarian concerns other than the good of their own troops. If one side doesnt sign it or obey it theres little reason for the otherside to. In other words they only sign it so their own troops will be treated humanly if captured. Its like two sides signing a peace treaty and then one breaks it and attacks the other . Now if the otherside strikes back some of you will accuse it of breaking the treaty.

Quote:

---

As for giving back 100 times, the days of the Great Khan burning cities and slaughtering all the inhabitants as an abject lesson to future combatants are long gone.

---

That lesson was learned in another place too. The American public won't approve it. ~;)

BTW have you killed more than 430k people yet? :bow:

And Panzer I assume that you're aware that this kind of treatment is not uncommon in the nicer dictorships (not Uzbekistan for example).

Quote:

---

Terrorists don't submit to the Geneva Convention - nor do they honor it. Lets not quibble over this - to say the United States is violating the Geneva Conventions and the anti-torture treaties is one thing - but lets not for a second believe that the enemy that the United States is facing right now honors any aspect of the Geneva Conventions.

---

I would say it is obvious most countries would sign that type of agreement to protect their own troops, I haven't said any different. But I am sure you will agree that this is not the only conflict you will be involved in, so, will your next enemy trust you to hold to the convention? I wouldn't, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

Quote:

---

In other words they only sign it so their own troops will be treated humanly if captured. Its like two sides signing a peace treaty and then one breaks it and attacks the other . Now if the otherside strikes back some of you will accuse it of breaking the treaty.

---

As a country Iraq should be held to the convention and I didn't hear much of Iraqi army units executing their prisoners, there must have been a few prisoners.

As for terrorist units, can they be held to the same standards as a country that thinks it is the leading light in the fight for freedom, I would think that by the very definition of terrorists that they cant. So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level, I would say if they do then they are the same as the terrorists themselves. You either claim the moral high ground or you don't you can't have it both ways.

Now I've not even said that what has happened in GB is wrong, if it was my choice I would do what was needed to save my countrymen, all I'm saying is that you have made the choice and now you have to live with the consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ja'chyra

I

As a country Iraq should be held to the convention and I didn't hear much of Iraqi army units executing their prisoners, there must have been a few prisoners.

---

1991 - Iraq captured a few Soldiers and at least one Marine - they abused and beat up the prisoners - a few pictures are available if one really wants to go find them. There is also the allegation that they raped one of the female soldiers that they captured. Then there is about 1000 or more missing Kuwaiti citizens that were last seen being loaded into Iraqi vehicles and sent into Iraq.

Then there is the convoy that was abushed by Iraqi units - you know the story Private Lynch was in this one. There were bodies found in postures and with wounds that would indicate that they were shot after they surrendered

- So no Iraq does not follow the Geneva Convention when it was under Saddam's Regime.

Quote:

---

As for terrorist units, can they be held to the same standards as a country that thinks it is the leading light in the fight for freedom, I would think that by the very definition of terrorists that they cant. So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level, I would say if they do then they are the same as the terrorists themselves. You either claim the moral high ground or you don't you can't have it both ways.

---

Never said otherwise now did I - I said don't quibble about the Geneva Convention and how it applies. The Geneva Convention does not apply to individuals that commit terrorist activities in a war zone. Something I have said from the very beginning in previous threads where this issue is brought up

Quote:

---

Now I've not even said that what has happened in GB is wrong, if it was my choice I would do what was needed to save my countrymen, all I'm saying is that you have made the choice and now you have to live with the consequences.

---

Yep - and I agree. The Geneva Convention does not apply in the instance of Terrorists.

Quote:

---

But I am sure you will agree that this is not the only conflict you will be involved in, so, will your next enemy trust you to hold to the convention? I wouldn't, it's a dangerous precedent to set.

---

I would think so. The US has always followed these conventions. We havent renaged on them even in this case. Once more they dont apply to these people.I doubt anyone thinks the US will torture their prisoners if the enemy doesnt do the same. Hell we dont do it even when the do.

Quote:

---

As for terrorist units, can they be held to the same standards as a country that thinks it is the leading light in the fight for freedom, I would think that by the very definition of terrorists that they cant. So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level

---

Is t your contention they have? Dont be ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

I would think so. The US has always followed these conventions. We havent renaged on them even in this case.

---

Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The Geneva Conventions state that if there is any doubt as to whether prisoners are legitimate prisoners of war, a fair and competent tribunal must be convened to assess their status. Many of the inmates in Guantanamo have not been given anything remotely like a fair and competent tribunal. This is a violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Quote:

---

Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The Geneva Conventions state that if there is any doubt as to whether prisoners are legitimate prisoners of war, a fair and competent tribunal must be convened to assess their status. Many of the inmates in Guantanamo have not been given anything remotely like a fair and competent tribunal.

---

As far as I know everyone of them was vetted by a military tribunal and thats how they were picked to go there. Their names werent picked out of a hat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

As far as I know everyone of them was vetted by a military tribunal and thats how they were picked to go there. Their names werent picked out of a hat.

---

There are currently several court cases challenging the validity of these 'tribunals'. The Red Cross, international legal scholars and even the American Bar Association have rejected these tribunals as unfair. The detainees do not have access to lawyers, are defended by American soldiers with little or no legal training, do not have access to the secret evidence against them, and have no right of appeal.

Sources:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ociation&hl=en


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ociation&hl=en

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/a...802cmbtnts.pdf

Quote:

---

There are currently several court cases challenging the validity of these 'tribunals'.

---

The fact that some challenge them doesnt make them invalid. You can expect some lawyer to challenge anything.

Quote:

---

The Red Cross, international legal scholars

---

They have an agenda an its an incorrect one.

Quote:

---

even the American Bar Association have rejected these tribunals as unfair.

---

As a body or certain members? Lets have some truth in posting here. Again you will find lawyers on both sides of just about anylegal argument. I guess since 4 judges voted no to Rowe vs Wade it makes it invalid.

Besides that your now changing your tune. You first maintained that they were denied a tribunal. Now your claim is it wasnt good enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny

They have an agenda an its an incorrect one.

---

Ah yes, the Red Cross-- that bunch of partisan hacks. As opposed to the purely neutral Bush administration.

Quote:

---

Besides that your now changing your tune. You first maintained that they were denied a tribunal. Now your claim is it wasnt good enough.

---

Again, you are wrong. I said they were denied a fair and competent tribunal. My tune is the same as it has always been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

Again, you are wrong. I said they were denied a fair and competent tribunal. My tune is the same as it has always been.

---

It might not be a fair tibunal - but most military lawyers I have been around were at least very competent in their representing any soldier that they had to represent.

Ja'chyra,

So, should the US or the UK or whoever then fall to their level, I would say if they do then they are the same as the terrorists themselves.

I dont understand this position at all. This is not a game. Peoples lives are at stake.

This war is not about maintaining an image, or being able to fight with more honor than the terrorists - its about preventing another 9/11. I cant understand why people would set such arbitrary rules about whats "American" and whats "UnAmerican.

People act as though if we rough some AQ guy up for critical information we have lost the American Spirit or something. Thats ridiculous.

What exactly is the spirit of the Western Alliances? In WW2 they bombed innocent civilians incessantly. They executed thousands of prisoners they felt were political threats to a new Germany. They shot wounded Japanese for fear of being blown up by hidden grenades. So where is this western ethic?

The truth is America and Britain have never restricted themselves with arbitrary rules when they were really threatened.

If AQ showed any kind of decency toward American prisoners i would feel differently. However - from the very beginning they simply killed them, most of the time with torture first. Forgive me if I dont shed a tear when some radical gets a free strip show.

This war is not about maintaining an image, or being able to fight with more honor than the terrorists - its about preventing another 9/11.

but thats exactly what mantaining an image can help you do, positive PR with the general population with lessen the chance but causing negative PR like this will only give the terrorists more support...imo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

It might not be a fair tibunal - but most military lawyers I have been around were at least very competent in their representing any soldier that they had to represent.

---

No argument there Redleg, but the crucial point is that most of the detainees at Guantanamo are not given military lawyers-- their 'defenders' have not gone to law school or passed the bar.

The initial team of lawyers the Pentagon appointed rejected the rules as inherently unfair, and were then fired:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+lawyers&hl=en

Then, the DoD allowed lawyers for a couple of the detainees (mostly from allied nations like Australia) and 'defense counsel' to the rest; these 'defenders' are not lawyers, which means that most of the detainees in Guantanamo have never had access to any lawyer, military or not. Even the German 'unlawful combatants' of WWII were given lawyers.

In addition, several of the 'judges' revealed that they too had no legal training when they struggled to grasp elementary legal concepts. Several of them were replaced as well:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...+counsel&hl=en

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...ining%22&hl=en

I do not in any way question the integrity of American military lawyers. In fact, many of them have spoken out AGAINST what is happening in Guantanamo, and were fired for it. But the people both defending and judging the detainees at Guantanamo are not lawyers. That is why the kangaroo courts there cannot by any stretch of the imagination be considered 'fair and competent' tribunals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJager

This assumes that all the prisoners are guilty, which is challenged by each bit of info that comes out.

And you are assuming that all those sent to Guantanamo are given the same treatment. I dont buy that. I believe that the military would issue the proper amount of beatings to the proper people.

---

If it wasn't so scary, that would be the funniest thing I have ever heard you say, Panzer.

So, by your logic, simply being a member of the U.S. military qualifies somebody to be the first, middle, and last decision maker in the arbitration of "justice." Never mind the more or less fair and proven legal system that the U.S. has done a mostly admirable job of using and honoring for the last couple of hundred years. Judges, juries, and lawyers are all just unnecessary fluff when it comes to deciding who is guilty and who needs punishment. All that is needed is a guy with a high school education (well, in most cases, anyway) and a billy club. Yes friends and neighbors, I submit to you that if somebody can meet the excruciatingly high and demanding standards for entrance in the U.S. military, then they quite clearly are capable of replacing the entire criminal justice system.

~;)