"If the Detainee Dies, You're Doing it Wrong"

[Lemur]

I know it's off most everybody's radar screen, but a lot of info has been coming out in the past week.

Physicians for Human Rights managed to examine 11 detainees:

It is the most extensive medical study of former detainees published so far to determine whether their stories of abuse at American hands could be corroborated with physical evidence. It followed standards and methods used worldwide to document torture.

Doctors and mental health professionals examined 11 former prisoners in intensive two-day sessions. All the prisoners were freed without charges, either innocent or not valuable enough to the military to hold.

The group alleges it found evidence of U.S. torture and war crimes, and said some U.S. military health professionals allowed the abuse of detainees, denying them medical care and providing confidential medical information to interrogators which was then exploited.

"Some of these men really are, several years later, very severely scarred," said Barry Rosenfeld, a psychology professor at Fordham University who conducted psychological tests on six of the 11 detainees covered by the study. "It's a testimony to how bad those conditions were and how personal the abuse was."

The report came as the Senate Armed Services Committee revealed documents showing military lawyers warned the Pentagon that some of the methods it used to interrogate and hold detainees after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks violated military, U.S. and international law. Those objections were overruled by the top Pentagon lawyer, who said he was unaware of the criticism.

The Pentagon's former top lawyer, William Haynes, suddenly can't remember anything:

"I don't recall seeing this memorandum before and I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before. . . . I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature. . . . Well, I don't recall seeing this document, either. . . . I don't recall specific concerns. . . . I don't recall these and I don't recall seeing these memoranda. . . . I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it. . . . I don't recall that specifically. . . . I don't remember doing that. . . . I don't recall seeing these things."

Some of the testimony released by the Senate Armed Services Committee is nauseating:

"Under the Torture Convention, torture has been prohibited by international law, but the language of the statutes is written vaguely. Severe mental and physical pain is prohibited. The mental part if explained as poorly as the physical. Severe physical pain described as anything causing permanent damage to major organs or body parts. Mental torture described as anything leading to permanent, profound damage to the senses or personality. It is basically subject to perception. If the detainee dies you're doing it wrong.

" . . . Any of these techniques that lie on the harshest end of the spectrum must be performed by a highly trained individual. Medical personnel should be present to treat any possible accidents. . . . When the CIA has wanted to use more aggressive techniques in the past, the FBI has pulled their personnel from the theatre.

" . . . if someone dies while aggressive techniques are being used, regardless of cause of death, the backlash of attention would be severely detrimental. Everything must be approved and documented."

_ Jonathan Fredman, chief counsel, CIA Counter-terrorism Center, according to the minutes of an Oct. 2, 2002, Counter Resistance Strategy Meeting.

McClatchley news service released an exhaustive report about how our detainee prorgam is going, and uncovered all sorts of evidence of torture, not to mention innocents being held and tortured for undefined lengths of time:

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments. McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records. This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals.

At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials.

In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies. The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners. Prisoner mistreatment became a regular feature in cellblocks and interrogation rooms at Bagram and Kandahar air bases, the two main way stations in Afghanistan en route to Guantanamo.

Alberto Mora, Navy General Counsel from 2001–2006, makes the case for why Guantanamo and "enhanced interrogation techniques" actually kill Americans. Video.

And at least one writer tries to sum up what the recent rash of testimony means:

In fact at this point the evidence is clear and convincing, and it points to a top-down process. Figures near the top of the administration decided that they wanted brutal techniques and they hammered them through, usually over strong opposition from the ranks of professionals.

Yesterday’s hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee helped make that point, and brought a new focus on a figure who has been lurking in the shadows of the controversy for some times: William J. Haynes II, Rumsfeld’s lawyer and now a lawyer for Chevron. Two things emerge from the hearing. First, that Haynes was effectively a stationmaster when it came to introducing torture techniques in the “war on terror,” circumventing opposition from career military and pushing through a policy of brutality and cruelty, by stealth when necessary. And second, that Haynes lacks the courage of his convictions, a willingness to stand up and testify honesty about what he did. [...]

He forgot his visit in September 2002 to Guantánamo with the rest of his War Council, a most convenient memory failure about which Philippe Sands confronted him during their interview. The minutes of that visit point to many private discussions between Haynes and the Guantánamo commander. Haynes doesn’t recall those, either, but immediately after them, the process of preparing requests for highly coercive techniques begins. Haynes wants us to consider this a coincidence. Experience teaches otherwise.

And he’s forgotten all about the push from the top, originating in his office, to have the SERE (“Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape”) techniques studied as a basis for new “gloves off” interrogation techniques. Haynes had his deputy, Richard Shiffrin, launch a dialogue with SERE trainers about techniques that could be derived from their training program. This is path through which waterboarding and a number of other illegal techniques made their passage into the interrogator’s repertoire, first for the CIA and later for the military. In July 2005, Jane Mayer reported on this in a New Yorker article, and yesterday her work was validated through disclosure of the paper trail.

Anyway, there's a lot of info bubbling to the surface. Some questions:

1. If you deny that the U.S.A. has been engaged in torture, go ahead and make your case.
2. Should anyone engaged in torture be brought up on criminal charges?
3. If so, how high up the chain of command would you be willing to start? Where should such a prosecution start?
4. Why should torture be criminalized when, historically, we have never criminalized differences of policy opinion in this country?
5. If no charges are brought against anyone, what is to prevent this sort of thing happening again?
6. Can we depend on either candidate to terminate "enhanced interrogation techniques"? Do we have evidence that either of them will suspend this program?

[PBI]

In my mind there is no doubt that the US is engaged in torture. It should stop, and it should stop now.

*The US has renounced the use of torture by being a signatory to numerous articles of international law. The many attempts by the current administration to find loopholes in its obligations still violates the spirit if not the letter of those obligations and in my view amounts to a breach of international law.

*The use of torture undermines the attempts by the US and its allies to combat terrorism and spread the concepts of democracy and respect for human rights. By employing the tools of tyranny and thus destroying any kind of moral high ground the US may once have possessed on human rights issues the current administration has done more harm to American interests than any of the Guantanamo detainees could ever have done.

*The use of torture is incompatible with a civilized democratic society. Without respect for fundamental human rights democracy is little more than an exercise in mob rule. Otherwise, what is to stop 51% of the populace deciding that the other 49% should be exterminated? Respect for human rights is the most important prerequisite for a free and fair society; democracy should be exercised only so long as it does not infringe upon those rights. This is what has been so disastrously overlooked in bringing democracy to Iraq and it would be a catastrophe to make the same mistake in our own countries.


I will sum up by repeating the oft-quoted statement by Carlo Alberto Dalla Chiesa, in response to the suggestion that torture be used in the investigation into the kidnapping of Aldo Moro: "Italy can survive the loss of Aldo Moro. It would not survive the introduction of torture."

[FactionHeir]

Personally I think the entire chain of command should be prosecuted for either carrying out torture, condoning torture (i.e. not doing anything about it), covering up/refusing to report torture, or failure to inquire about torture.
That also includes the president of course.

Realistically, I doubt anything will be done. At best those directly involved will get a slap on the hand and the higher echelons will just say "oh, but we are getting valuable information and those guys are terrorists/enemy combatants that have no rights since they just want to blow you up" crap that the general populace is all too willing to believe, considering that when waterboarding was first leaked, it was blasted by the public but when the president and his cabinet started talking about it saving american lives and only used to get info from high value detainees, there was no majority left that opposed it.

In short, the fear card is still working.

As for the current candidates, I guess Obama may try to get rid of it but being a Democrat may not be able to (they might do it behind his back or tell him of his political consequences should he do it), and McCain will keep it as it is most likely even though he used to be a tortured POW himself once.

[PanzerJaeger]

I condone our government's use of torture on a limited basis when the results can directly influence American lives, both military and civilian. I certainly would not want my government to withold use a tool at their disposal due to international "agreements". Any student of history knows that the nations who follow such agreements to their own detriment end up finishing last.

However, this situation is not optimal. I don't particularly care about whether Ahmed is getting his fingernails pulled out, but it creates a bad PR image for the United States. I'm all for kicking around some muslim terrorist thugs, but it needs to be done away from the eyes of prying journalists or not done at all. Oh, and much more care needs to be taken to make sure they're punishing the right people...

[Beirut]

I don't particularly care about whether Ahmed is getting his fingernails pulled out...

Sure, but what about when it's John, and Phil, and Betty Lou?

[Ice]

Sure, but what about when it's John, and Phil, and Betty Lou?

Betty Lou?



We should stop. We are better than the pieces of trash who we capture.

[PanzerJaeger]

Sure, but what about when it's John, and Phil, and Betty Lou?

John Walker Lynd(sp) would have been an excellent candidate for some enhanced interrogation.

[HoreTore]

I condone our government's use of torture on a limited basis when the results can directly influence American lives, both military and civilian. I certainly would not want my government to withold use a tool at their disposal due to international "agreements". Any student of history knows that the nations who follow such agreements to their own detriment end up finishing last.

However, this situation is not optimal. I don't particularly care about whether Ahmed is getting his fingernails pulled out, but it creates a bad PR image for the United States. I'm all for kicking around some muslim terrorist thugs, but it needs to be done away from the eyes of prying journalists or not done at all. Oh, and much more care needs to be taken to make sure they're punishing the right people...

PJ, I thought you were smarter than this. The biggest problem isn't that the US is torturing terrorists, the biggest problem is that they are torturing completely innocent people.

And you know there are innocent people on Guantanamo. People have been released from the place, and you know they wouldn't have been released if they were guilty of anything.

[FactionHeir]

I condone our government's use of torture on a limited basis when the results can directly influence Iranian lives, both military and civilian. I certainly would not want my government to withold use a tool at their disposal due to international "agreements". Any student of history knows that the nations who follow such agreements to their own detriment end up finishing last.

However, this situation is not optimal. I don't particularly care about whether Mark is getting his fingernails pulled out, but it creates a bad PR image for Iran. I'm all for kicking around some christian terrorist thugs, but it needs to be done away from the eyes of prying journalists or not done at all. Oh, and much more care needs to be taken to make sure they're punishing the right people...

If someone from Iran said the above (what you said with things replaced in bold) what would you as an American think?

[Beirut]

John Walker Lynd(sp) would have been an excellent candidate for some enhanced interrogation.

So we've moved from Achmed to Americans in one easy post. Who's next?

What is the minimum threat required, in your view, to justify torture?

[Louis VI the Fat]

We should stop. We are better than the pieces of trash who we capture.

Aye, that's it. Well said!

[Lemur]

This is kinda comforting:

What both McCain and Obama seem to support, although they differ in the details, is some mechanism for detainees to challenge their incarceration status. Once Gitmo is closed and the detainees are moved to the US, McCain does not favor their being detained indefinitely without having any recourse to protest their indefinite detention. [...] For McCain, the military would oversee those hearings; for Obama, federal judges would.

[Adrian II]

I know it's off most everybody's radar screen [..]

No it's not, but you're doing an excellent job by putting it into perspective.

The rot should stop asap.

[Tribesman]

"I don't recall seeing this memorandum before and I'm not even sure this is one I've seen before. . . . I don't recall seeing this memorandum and I don't recall specific objections of this nature. . . . Well, I don't recall seeing this document, either. . . . I don't recall specific concerns. . . . I don't recall these and I don't recall seeing these memoranda. . . . I can't even read this document, but I don't remember seeing it. . . . I don't recall that specifically. . . . I don't remember doing that. . . . I don't recall seeing these things."

Make that man President , he is good .
Or perhaps throw him in jail for a long long time .

Should anyone engaged in torture be brought up on criminal charges?

Yes

If so, how high up the chain of command would you be willing to start? Where should such a prosecution start?

All the way to the top and as for the prosecutions I would suggest that as they are war crimes the trial should be held in the winning nation , so ship Rummy and co to Tehran and wave them goodbye with a happy smile .

[LittleGrizzly]

I just can't believe the country that i always hear the goverment is incapable of running anything from is allowing torture, if you think goverment is at all untrustworthy the last thing you do is let them torture people (i wouldn't trust mother teresa to torture the right people let alone a goverment)

I don't like to invoke the slippery slope but if its good enough for terrorists why not serial killers, rapists, bank robbers ect...

[Fragony]

If pulling a few nails out of a hatebeard is going to stop an attack, I don't know what I would do. Well I would but I wouldn't like it.

[LittleGrizzly]

In a personal 1 on 1 situation where hurting some guy could help you save some lives (say peoples he's kidnapped and tied up) i probably would do it but the goverment cannot be trusted with this power, even if they have a gaurentee they have the right guy...

[Whacker]

All the way to the top and as for the prosecutions I would suggest that as they are war crimes the trial should be held in the winning nation , so ship Rummy and co to Tehran and wave them goodbye with a happy smile .

Tribes, I do believe this is the singular most brilliant and coherent idea you've ever come up with. Hat's off sir.

Gitmo was, is, and will remain a huge cancerous sore on the US's , and I'm ashamed of it. I seem to recall several threads on this same subject in the past, and it blew me away when multiple individuals posted that the did not think the so-called "enemy combatants" had any rights whatsoever (yes, I am positive that was the gist of what several individuals said). I for one think that everyone, even Hitler, has(-d) the right to a speedy trial, their own legal counsel, and the ability to face their accusers in an equitable legal setting. It's been what, almost 7 years? Convict the bastards or set them free, one of the two. If you can't convict them, then you failed miserably. Holding someone because you "think" they might be dangerous is a farce. There is no middle ground.

Also, why the hell am I posting here again?

[Fragony]

In a personal 1 on 1 situation where hurting some guy could help you save some lives (say peoples he's kidnapped and tied up) i probably would do it but the goverment cannot be trusted with this power, even if they have a gaurentee they have the right guy...

People we are up against roast kids alive. If death isn't a terrifying prospect enough for this kind of people getting there should do, a little bit of wrong for the good I can live with really. Do it a few times and you won't have to anymore because the prospect is enough, I doubt it was ever any different.

[PBI]

Well said, Whacker. It's not a question of "how can we make sure we're torturing the right guy". There is no situation in which the use of torture is justified.

Say we have the classic "ticking bomb" situation, where we have a terrorist in custody and we know he knows where the bomb is. If we do not torture him, the bomb goes off, some people are killed, very sad. We pick up the pieces and move on, our society will survive. If we torture him, then there is no point in defusing the bomb at all because the terrorists have already won.

To torture is to commit an act of barbarous inhumanity. If we are willing to torture there is nothing that we will not be willing to do. It should be unthinkable that we would even contemplate using it.

[FactionHeir]

In a personal 1 on 1 situation where hurting some guy could help you save some lives (say peoples he's kidnapped and tied up) i probably would do it but the goverment cannot be trusted with this power, even if they have a gaurentee they have the right guy...

So you wouldn't trust Mother Teresa nor the government to do it but you'd trust some random one person to in this case? Even when you entrust the government to handle it, its not the government doing it, but them entrusting someone else to carry it out. Still, your statements contradict.

[Whacker]

Do it a few times and you won't have to anymore because the prospect is enough,

I somewhat disagree here, individuals determined enough have demonstrated their general willingness to die for a cause. For these people, what could a real effective deterrent be?

Thanks PBI, but perhaps you spoke a bit too soon. In general I would concur that torture is a despicable thing, however... IF, there is an immediate need for information and lives are at stake, then I could see torture methods being a possible method to use. Still I have trouble coming to terms with that, AND as someone else pointed out, I don't trust my own government enough to believe that they can and would apply that in a reasonable manner given individual situations.

[Don Corleone]

For the longest time, I didn't think we were. I thought we might be playing loud music or keeping people up, but I didn't think we really were torturing people. I thought Abu Gharib was an isolated case of some folks way off the farm. In short, I was the perfect , I bought the whole story, hook, line and sinker.

But too many stories are coming out to deny it. And not from Amnesty International or other 5th column groups. Physicians for Human Rights isn't a bunch of zealots.

It's wrong, we should stop, we should prosecute those responsible, and we should take a good long hard look at ourselves and wonder what the hell went wrong and how we can make sure it never happens again.

People that engage in or allow in such behavior to protect their security don't deserve it. We're better than this, and I would say if the only way to protect America is to rip Ahmed's fingernails out, then we're already dead.

The worst part is, I've gotten so cynical over all of this, I question why I'm even voting anymore. Obama and McCain signed spending bills and authorizatons knowing full well what was going on. This isn't a Democrat/Republican thing. It's an American thing, and it's something we should all be ashamed of.

[ICantSpellDawg]

If torture is illegal then we shouldn't be doing it. We definitely shouldn't make the experience comfortable and I don't believe waterboarding is torture in essence, but torture is illegal according to our own laws even for foreigners. There is an excuse for straddling the line, but if you do that and cross it you have broken the law and can be prosecuted.

I believe that there should be oversight and I believe that it should occur using a different system; whether we use a military/civilian hybrid system or what. Nobody said we couldn't form a hybrid tribunal and use an expidited and transparent system, did they?

[Spartan198]

Once Gitmo is closed and the detainees are moved to the US...

Exactly how is that "comforting"?

[Lemur]

It's comforting because these men will be put into some sort of legal process. Also, the level of mistreatment and "enhanced interrogation" will be a lot lower on U.S. soil, since the whole dodge of a legal limbo will be irrelevant.

Punish the guilty, sort out the innocent and the irrelevant. That's how our system is supposed to work. Our laws and our systems are plenty tough enough to take care of terrorists. Already done so, and we'll do it again.

[Xiahou]

But too many stories are coming out to deny it. And not from Amnesty International or other 5th column groups. Physicians for Human Rights isn't a bunch of zealots.

Here's the thing though- they tracked 11 people iirc. The seven worst cases were all from Abu Ghraib. I don't think many would dispute that horrible things went on there, but I think it's very arguable if they were systematic abuses or more isolated. The remaining 4 were more about "mental" abuse such as threats against themselves or their families, or sleep deprivation or temperature extremes. I don't doubt the group either, but you have to read what's actually said.

FWIW, I'm one of the four who voted the third choice. By asking if the "USA" has been engaging in torture, I take it to mean practicing systemic torture- I don't think that's the case.

Punish the guilty, sort out the innocent and the irrelevant. That's how our system is supposed to work. Our laws and our systems are plenty tough enough to take care of terrorists. Already done so, and we'll do it again.

Yousef is a poor example to push the "Obama doctrine" with. He was little more than a foot soldier- he was arrested, but leadership higher up was unaffected and left to continue their nefarious work. One might even cite that as the failure of the "prosectution" approach to terrorists.

[Lemur]

Yousef is a poor example to push the "Obama doctrine" with. He was little more than a foot soldier- he was arrested, but leadership higher up was unaffected and left to continue their nefarious work. One might even cite that as the failure of the "prosectution" approach to terrorists.

Oh, last I checked we nailed at least one of the "higher-ups." And convicting the ******s who did the deed ain't nothing to sniff at, either. Would you rather see these men serving their legal sentences and attracting no attention while they rot away in Federal prison, or would you rather they sit in legal limbo in Cuba serving as a symbol and inspiration for every jihadi wanna-be? I fear i know the answer to that one ...

[Xiahou]

And convicting the ******s who did the deed ain't nothing to sniff at, either.

And it only took 4yrs to do. Four years spent trying to catch and convict a low-level bomber- the equivalent of which would appear to be a dime a dozen in places like Iraq. What effect did convicting him have on Al Qaeda's operations?

Rahman, at least, seemed to have a planning role in attacks. Unfortunately, his trial blew the cover off of the cell phone surveillance that we had been using against Al Qaeda when the prosecution was forced to disclose the list of unindicted co-conspirators. Another ringing endorsement of the "Obama doctrine".

Would you rather see these men serving their legal sentences and attracting no attention while they rot away in Federal prison, or would you rather they sit in legal limbo in Cuba serving as a symbol and inspiration for every jihadi wanna-be?

Do you think Rahman hasn't been a rally-cry for jihadists just because he's sitting in jail instead of Gitmo?

[Strike For The South]

I really dont know what to think.