Red Cross Torture Report

[Lemur]

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.

[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??


Oh and a Bush state department lawyer doesn't approve in hindsight either.

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

[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!

[Lemur]

What laws were broken?

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

[HoreTore]

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?

[Tribesman]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[KukriKhan]

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.

[rasoforos]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Tribesman]

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 .

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 .....

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 .

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

[Vladimir]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[HoreTore]

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...

[Meneldil]

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??

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.

[Marshal Murat]

Marine calls about Torture

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

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.

[Tribesman]

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.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[drone]

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.

[master of the puppets]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

It's Garzon again!

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.

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.

[Devastatin Dave]

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.

Uh-hu, I'm sure it was never meant to be leaked!!! Lemur, you are the Kieth Olberman of the backroom.

[Lemur]

Lemur, you are the Kieth Olberman of the backroom.

You and Don C and Vladimir need to form a support group. By all means, when you're incapable of responding to the subject, just start making ad hominems. That'll teach me to be so crass and un-American as to disapprove of state-sponsored torture. (I need to add another bullet to my earlier 6-point torture denial script: 7. You're a librul tool of the Obamessiah, so everything you put forward is invalid, and I don't need to consider or read it.")

To move away from the personal flailings of patrons too busy or too threatened by primary evidence to read the content of the thread, a blogger sums up the legal and constitutional ramifications quite nicely:

The Western anathema on torture began as a way to ensure the survival of truth. And that is the root of the West's entire legal and constitutional system. Remove a secure way to discover the truth—or create a system that can manufacture it or render it indistinguishable from lies—and the entire system unravels. That's why in the West suspects are innocent before being found guilty; and that's why in the West even those captured in wartime have long been accorded protection from forced confessions. Because it creates a world where truth is always the last priority and power is always the first.

This is not a policy difference. It is a foundational element of Western civilization.

[Strike For The South]

I agree Kurki.

If we are forced to lower ourselves to torture, we become no better than the men who attacked us. America is a great experiment and sometimes experiments fail.

While I am a fan of realpolitik I do hold to some truths and one of them is getting away from this tribal show of power. Maybe it works for Mossad but not for us.

Every war America has fought in the 20th century has been sold to the public as us saving some poor souls under the thumb of some powerful despot as he tortured, maimed, and killed them. I'm not so naive as to believe this but I would like to be so naive as to believe that Americans treat there enemies the way we do our criminals. At least.

There is no honor in this.

[Lemur]

Maybe it works for Mossad but not for us.

Actually, waterboarding was ruled illegal for Mossad. A long time ago. Organizations that have deemed waterboarding to be acceptable "enhanced interrogation": North Korea, the Khmer Rouge, the Schutzstaffel, the Gestapo, Imperial Japan and (probably the originators of the technique) the Inquisition.

Here's a description of how Torquemada rolled:

The patient was placed on an escalera or potro - a kind of trestle, with sharp-edged rungs across it like a ladder. It slanted so that the head was lower than the feet and, at the lower end was a depression in which the head sank, while an iron band around the forehead or throat kept it immovable. A bostezo, or iron prong, distended the mouth, a toca, or strip of linen, was thrust down the throat to conduct water trickling slowly from a jarra or jar, holding usually a little more than a quart. The patient gasped and felt he was suffocating, and at intervals, the toca was withdrawn and he was adjured to tell the truth. The severity of the infliction was measured by the number of jars consumed, sometimes reaching to six or eight.

I suppose the torture apologists will have some rationalization as to why this was unacceptable for the Inquisition, but perfectly legitimate for an Imperial Presidency. Frankly, I find the never-ending parade of excuses more pathetic (in the classic sense of πάθος) than irritating.

I say lay it all out, and let justice do what must be done. From what I've been reading, there are some Dems who managed to get briefed on this program; Nancy Pelosi, Bob Graham, John Rockefeller and Jane Harman were all "read in" as they say, and they raised no objections. Damn them for the weak, ugly little creatures they are.

It suits some Org patrons to turn this into yet another left/right food fight. This diminishes the subject, removes any need to think critically and generally serves the purpose of turning a fundamental question about our Republic into a cable news shouting head match. Again, pathetic in the classical sense.

The President does not swear on a Bible to keep the children safe. He does not swear that he will kill all evil-doers before they can harm us. He swears to protect the Constitution. We are supposed to be a country of laws, not men. The plain truth is that the executive branch usurped the place of Congress (which has the exclusive right to determine the treatment of "captures," according to our founding document), ignored our domestic laws, ignored several treaties to which we are signatory, and hared off on a blatantly illegal torture fest.

If President 44 says we mustn't look back, the hell with him. If Dick Cheney thinks protecting lives is more important than protecting everything that makes America America, the hell with him. The hell with all of them.

-edit-

It's truly heartening to see that at least one talking head on Fox News still has a moral compass (warning, F-bomb).

[Banquo's Ghost]

Marvellous, dignified and eloquent post Lemur.

I cannot post my part in this thread, as I feel such repugnance for some views expressed here, I would be unable to maintain the necessary balance I am charged with. But thank you for your spirited and concisely argued defence of what is right.