Red Cross Torture Report

[ICantSpellDawg]

Slamming someone's head into a wall is "nonsense"? Hypothermia is "nonsense"? Putting someone in a blacked-out coffin with insects is "nonsense"?


Um, no. Incorrect. Leave-no-marks torture, as perfected by the Soviets and the Schutzstaffel, has a very low mortality rate. And while it's very hard to get hard numbers about it, something around a hundred detainees have died in "suspicious circumstances" at Baghram and Abu Ghraib. Many of those deaths were ruled homicides by Army investigators. I'll link to the pathology reports if you need backup for that assertion.

Well sure. A significantly higher mortality rate than questioning would indicate passing the line into torture. If you have a much higher chance of dying AND it is painful, then it is probably torture.

Physical abuse like punching and kicking is much easier to ascertain as torture. Leave no marks torture actually does leave marks - people die from it.

I want to see physical evidence. Evidence such as bruises, gashes and corpses that far outpace normal mortality. If any of those are present, most likely torture is going on.

Bring on the corpse rate vs general pop in their country. If it is much higher, I'll agree with you that torture is going on in a way that needs to be addressed urgently.

[HoreTore]

It amazes me that some people still think that you can only cause pain to a body, not a brain.

Unfortunately, torturers world-wide have found out that you can cause far more pain and suffering to a brain... And as an added bonus, it's much harder to detect.

[Lemur]

Bring on the corpse rate vs general pop in their country. If it is much higher, I'll agree with you that torture is going on in a way that needs to be addressed urgently.

Hmm, an interesting challenge. Here is a report from 2005, indicating that 108 people had died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's 108 confirmed detainee deaths in less than two years. If you can tell me how many people we were holding, you're doing better than the Department of Defense.

Here are some autopsy reports from Abu Ghraib and Baghram. I've posted some of these before, but let's skim over the highlights. Remember, these are reports by U.S. military investigators.

DOD 003146 - DOD003155; DOD003299: Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.

DOD003156 - DOD 003163; DOD 003296 - 003297: Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.

DOD003164 - DOD003170; DOD 003301: Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy reveleaved bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominatnly recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide.

DOD003171 - DOD3177; DOD003298: Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

DOD 003220 - DOD 003227; DOD003305: Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."

There are lots more where those came from.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Hmm, an interesting challenge. Here is a report from 2005, indicating that 108 people had died in U.S. custody in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's 108 confirmed detainee deaths in less than two years. If you can tell me how many people we were holding, you're doing better than the Department of Defense.

Here are some autopsy reports from Abu Ghraib and Baghram. I've posted some of these before, but let's skim over the highlights. Remember, these are reports by U.S. military investigators.

DOD 003146 - DOD003155; DOD003299: Multiple blunt force injuries. Abrasion in upper right forehead. Abrasion on right lower forehead above eyebrow. Multiple contusions on right cheek and lower nose, left upper forehead, back of head. Abrasions on chest, lower costal margin. Contusions on arm, elbow, forearm, wrist, upper inner arm, groin, inner thigh, right back of knee and calf, left calf, left lower leg. Cause of death was pulmonary embolism due to blunt force injuries.

DOD003156 - DOD 003163; DOD 003296 - 003297: Detainee was found unresponsive restrained in his cell. Death was due to blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease.Contusions and abrasions on forehead, nose, head, behind ear, neck, abdomen, buttock, elbow, thigh, knee, foot, toe, hemorrhage on rib area and leg. Detainee died of blunt force injuries to lower extremities, complicating underlying coronary artery disease. The blunt force injuries to the legs resulted in extensive muscle damage, muscle necrosis and rhabomyolysis. Electrolyte disturbances primarily hyperkalemia (elevated blood potassium level) and metabolic acidosis can occur within hours of muscle damage. Massive sodium and water shifts occur, resulting in hypovolemic shock and casodilatation and later, acute renal failure. The decedent's underlying coronary artery disease would compromise his ability to tolerate the electrolyte and fluid abnormalities, and his underlying malnutrition and likely dehydration would further exacerbate the effects of the muscle damage. The manner of death is homicide.

DOD003164 - DOD003170; DOD 003301: Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy reveleaved bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominatnly recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide.

DOD003171 - DOD3177; DOD003298: Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

DOD 003220 - DOD 003227; DOD003305: Male detainee died while in U.S. custody. The details surrounding the circumstances at the time of death are classified. Cause of death: Asphyxia due to smothering and chest compression. Manner of Death: Homicide. Significant findings of the autopsy included rib fractures and numerous bruises, some of which were patterned due to impacts with a blunt object. DOD 003329 refers to this case as "1 blunt force trauma and choking; died during interrogation." DOD 003325 refers to this case with note "Q[uestioned] by MI [Military Intelligence], died during interrogation."

There are lots more where those came from.

US Military and CIA personel should not get carried away. If those deaths can be linked to persons acting on behalf of the United States, whomever is responsible should be held to account. I don't believe that an investigation should be off limits.

[Lemur]

US Military and CIA personel should not get carried away. If those deaths can be linked to persons acting on behalf of the United States, whomever is responsible should be held to account. I don't believe that an investigation should be off limits.

What about their superiors in the U.S. Guv who authorized "harsh interrogation measures"? Should they face consequences? Or should we just convict another round of corporals and sergeants and call it a day?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Lemur:

Take it easy. I am aware of your firm beliefs on this issue and respect them. You will no doubt recall a post I made when this last came up.

You know the lessons of history -- it is a rare thing when the high-level decision makers in any government wrong doing are jailed for these actions, unless they are on the losing side of a war.

President Obama has specifically repudiated these actions, and is moving to close those facilities wherein these events took place. The prisoners currently held will be put into the Civil Justice system in the USA and will be released (save in those instances where untainted evidence actually is available). Many of them will likely receive compensation from the taxpayer.

What more is likely to happen? You don't seriously expect public trials for the 12-20 top level officials responsible for those policies in the Bush White House, DoD, and DoJ to stand trial do you? However "just" it would be on one level, it would only compound the damage already wreaked upon our national image and psyche. I don't see Obama going there.

[Lemur]

You're quite right, of course, President 44 does not want to go there. He's too much of a pragmatist. But I am confounded by the legal/moral side of the equation.

If I walk up to someone on the street and shoot him in the head, am I allowed to argue in court that we shouldn't look back at the past, but instead go forward, because spending time talking about me shooting someone on the head is unproductive? How would that stand up?

Addington, Yoo, Feith, Bybee, these are men who created the (by all accounts sloppy and flimsy) legal framework for torturing detainees. Yes, they should be brought to trial. We Americans have put people on trial for far less, and in more difficult circumstances.

And it really does bother me that we convicted and imprisoned some corporals and sergeants for doing just this sort of thing, while letting their masters walk away to consulting gigs and tenured professorships. "Unfair" doesn't even begin to cover it.

[Xiahou]

President Obama has specifically repudiated these actions, and is moving to close those facilities wherein these events took place.

Yeah, but I hear our prison in Bagram is getting pretty crowded lately.

[Lemur]

Oh heck. If the description of the ruling is accurate, I don't understand why they're fighting it:

The ruling essentially grants all non-Afghan Bagram detainees captured outside Afghanistan and held over six years without due process the same right to federal court review that the Supreme Court gave last year to similarly situated prisoners at Guantánamo.

-edit-

Going back to Seamus' (as usual) thoughtful comment:

You don't seriously expect public trials for the 12-20 top level officials responsible for those policies in the Bush White House, DoD, and DoJ to stand trial do you?

There are three classes of people who should face (at the very least) professional censure: the lawyers who authored some of these memos, the psychologists who helped craft the techniques, and the doctors who kept detainees alive (mostly) as they were abused. A lawyer discusses the Bybee memo:

I am a lawyer who has practiced in Washington for more than 20 years. I'm not sure I have the words to describe my reaction upon reading the Bybee memo, but it's fair to say it sent chills down my spine.

Lawyers are a cynical lot - it comes with the territory - but we all know that we have some basic obligations to our clients. One of them is to tell them the truth, and not to conceal facts or law that the client should know about. Even as you must represent your client zealously in disputes, you are required as an officer of the court not to hide adverse precedent. And failing to tell your client about cases that run against the client's preferred result is a profound dereliction of duty.

In that context, the Bybee memo is a lawyer's worst nightmare. It's an F-minus in law school, a zero on the bar exam, grounds for firing a first-year lawyer for an utter lack of understanding of what the practice of law requires.

It is beyond conception to imagine a competent lawyer not even mentioning the cases when the U.S. prosecuted Japanese soldiers for waterboarding, let alone asserting that "there have been no prosecutions" under the specific statute. It is nearly as inconceivable that the memo concludes that the insect technique, used against someone with a known insect phobia, would not cause "severe mental pain."

The only rational conclusion is that this memo is not, in fact, legal advice at all, at least not in the sense that a lawyer would use the term. None of the people involved in writing are incompetent, after all, and none of them would have made these kinds of elementary mistakes in writing for a private client. It was written purely to provide cover. To do that, Bybee and the others involved in these memos knowingly subordinated their oaths as officers of the court and their ethical obligations to give carte blanche to the interrogators and those who directed them. Perhaps they thought it was their patriotic duty; perhaps they thought that the "chatter" mentioned in the memo created an exigent circumstance that demanded that shortcuts be taken; or perhaps they expected that the memos never would see the light of day. I doubt we'll ever really know. Regardless of the reason, though, the dull legalese conceals an utter lack of respect for the law and for any constraints that the law might require. And that's what's really chilling about it.