0
nerdgirl

Moving beyond US use of torture against detainees

Recommended Posts

“After years of disclosures by government investigations, media accounts, and reports from human rights organizations, there is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.”
--Major General Antonio M. Taguba, USA (ret)
, preface to Broken Laws, Broken Lives
A private NGO (i.e., no government money) of medical doctors – Physicians for Humans Rights – reviewed medical evidence, including doing physical exams and diagnostic tests, as part of a report released to coincide with the Congressional hearings yesterday, Broken Laws, Broken Lives, in which they assert “we have medical evidence to confirm first-hand accounts of men who endured torture by US personnel in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantánamo Bay. These men were never charged with any crime.”

CNN story: “Report: Exams reveal abuse, torture of detainees.”

Fox News story: “Medical Exams of 11 Former Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib Detainees Show Torture, Human Rights Group Says.”
“Medical examinations of former terrorism suspects held by the U.S. military at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, found evidence of torture and other abuse that resulted in serious injuries and mental disorders, according to a human rights group.

“For the most extensive medical study of former U.S. detainees published so far, Physicians for Human Rights had doctors and mental health professionals examine 11 former prisoners.

“Seven were held in Abu Ghraib between late 2003 and summer of 2004, a period that coincides with the known abuse of prisoners at the hands of some of their American jailers. Four of the prisoners were held at Guantanamo beginning in 2002 for one to almost five years. All 11 were released without criminal charges.

“Those examined alleged that they were tortured or abused, including sexually, and described being shocked with electrodes, beaten, shackled, stripped of their clothes, deprived of food and sleep, and spit and urinated on.

“The U.S. military says an al-Qaida training manual instructs members, if captured, to assert they were tortured during interrogation. However, doctors and mental health professionals stated they could link the prisoners' claims of abuse while in U.S. detention to injuries documented by X-rays, medical exams and psychological tests.

“The patients underwent intensive, two-day long exams following standards and methods used worldwide to document torture. ‘We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering,’ he [Dr. Allen Keller, one of the doctors who conducted the exams] said. Keller, who directs the Bellevue/New York University Program for Survivors of Torture, said the treatment the detainees reported were ‘eerily familiar’ to stories from other torture survivors around the world.”

Addressing up front a couple of the usual protests: yes, PHR investigates and is just as, if not more critical of other countries. So there is no “blame America” in the milieu … it’s actually pursuit of that notional concept of personal responsibility and American ideal of equal justice for all.
SourceWatch lists the major supporters as “Argosy Foundation, Morton K. and Jane Blaustein Foundation, Ford Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, JEHT Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, John Merck Fund, Oak Foundation USA, Inc., Open Society Institute (yes, that is the charitable fund established by the capitalist George Soros), Rockefeller Foundation, & Tides Foundation”

PHR receives a 4-star rating (the highest rating) from Charity Navigator, “America's premier independent charity evaluator, works to advance a more efficient and responsive philanthropic marketplace by evaluating the financial health of over 5,300 of America's largest charities.”


~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~

Is MG Taguba’s advocacy of approaching it as war crimes useful? I don’t think so.

Is it time to be thinking about a domestic American-style “truth & reconciliation” Commission or Vergangenheitsbewältigung? Until it’s dealt with effectively, it will be an impediment to advancing US foreign policy from a realist perspective. There are lots of additional normative arguments … but I resist arguing from normatives. Burying one’s metaphorical head in the sand is not helpful.

I’m less interested in folks who are in concurrence with the report’s (& all the others like it) findings.

There is some small percentage that will never acknowledge there’s anything wrong with torturing other humans (from across the planet).

There is another portion who are fundamentally good, smart people, who nonetheless will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation … some will have very heart-felt reasons for their protests … some will just be partisanly stubborn … and some will be like those who vehemently objected to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education SCOTUS ruling, etc., who now recognize the wisdom in that ruling. That’s the portion in which I am most interested.

If the President directed the Executive Branch (the entire Executive Branch not just any one department) to begin a serious, open effort at “truth and reconciliation” – even tho’ you might personally disagree with that directive – how would you propose it go about being established and conducted? Who would you want to see on such a commission? Where would you want it to be held? Who would you want to ensure testified for it to be ‘fair and balanced’? Should there be any limits placed on it? Full or restricted access for the media?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think our claim to have some sort of moral high ground over other countries or that we answer to higher code has been doubted for a long time now. This is just another example that we do what we want and have no respect for what we claim to believe in. All goes out the window when it is our interest that is threatened.

We are not the liberators and bringers of freedom. We are the alpha dog who is a hypocrite much like the rest of the world.

I don’t think there is anything we can do. Trust is something that once broken can never be repaired.


I know we tend to look at just this administration but every administration has had the same principle of non-principle. The only reason we seem to focus on this administration is they have fucked up more then most.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I think our claim to have some sort of moral high ground over other countries or that we answer to higher code has been doubted for a long time now. This is just another example that we do what we want and have no respect for what we claim to believe in. All goes out the window when it is our interest that is threatened.

We are not the liberators and bringers of freedom. We are the alpha dog who is a hypocrite much like the rest of the world.

I don’t think there is anything we can do. Trust is something that once broken can never be repaired.



Leaving aside parts of your analysis w/which I disagree, I don't imagine that the perspective characterized by your comments would advocate doing nothing? Correct?

So what kind of process would you advocate, particularly keeping in mind that group of fundamentally good, smart Americans, who will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation? How do you propose doing something that is seen as having some legitimacy by them ... even if it's only in the rear view mirror of history? Or does that not matter?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Leaving aside parts of your analysis w/which I disagree, I don't imagine that the perspective characterized by your comments would advocate doing nothing? Correct?



My personal opinion is that I would love truth. Stop with flag waving and the whole general feeling that we are so much better then the people we kill. Or that we have better morals we need to get over our selves.

For me being honest would mean the most.

As for doing something the things that need to be done will never be done because most Americans have no clue on how the world views their actions, and unfortunately when you are always sure that your right you never get the chance to be wrong and learn.

What needs to be done:

We need to stop invading other countries and telling them to change their way of life to ours. It would be good to remember that historically we are the new kids on the block.
We need to shut down the hundreds of military bases we have all over the world.

We need to have a long list of apologies to all the countries we have bullied and all the lives we have taken.
We need to pu on trial and punish the people who have broken these laws to the full extent. The more we protect them the more we look like one of them.


Quote

So what kind of process would you advocate, particularly keeping in mind that group of fundamentally good, smart Americans, who will protest loudly – very loudly – and with great indignation?




Really.
Sorry to be harsh but it is hard to say good smart Americans when more then half the country can’t point to the country they want to have a war with on the map.

The problem is most Americans are clueless to history, geography, or even politics.
Most care more about American Idol or boobies.

This is not just being stupid, this is being irresponsible.
The worst part is the uninformed tend to be loudest group in American politics.

How can you even say smart: when more then half of the presidential candidates on one of the two parties we get to choose from don’t even believe in evolution. Is the earth flat? WTF

I am sorry but the main issue is that most are dumb and have no clue how dumb.
They also have this fantasy way of looking at our selves as the white knights of freedom who kill only the bad guys and save the day. We are not even close.

Unfortunately the smart people we do have; have to deal with idiots and give there no fact base way of thinking the time of day and actually try to explain and debate with these fools.


Quote

How do you propose doing something that is seen as having some legitimacy by them ... even if it's only in the rear view mirror of history? Or does that not matter?


I don’t think anything we do will make a difference in the long run. We can give aid and some Hungary kids will think we are great or build a power plant that we bombed just a few years ago. All of those things will change some minds helping always makes you liked. So that would be the way to go.


But to me I am just realizing that we are a lot more like a pack of lions then people. We kill intruders, we invade when out interest is threatened and we kill whatever and whomever. That’s just the way of the world very unfortunate.

There is no do on to other as you want done to you. It is all about power.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Is MG Taguba’s advocacy of approaching it as war crimes useful? I don’t think so.



I think Taguba's advocacy is accurate and useful. I would like to see the next president and Congress join the World Court. If any of Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, et al. are charged with international crimes they should stand trial. The only way the USA can redeem credibility is to acknowledge our mistakes and take responsibility for them.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This may be off topic, but I find these reports (at least based on what is posted here as I have not read the reports) being akin to a trial without the defense. Not being a doctor, what physical or diagnostic test can be run to determine that someone was stripped of their clothes or spit/urinated on. How is a test going to determine that the bruise someone has is a result of "torture" versus putting up a fight with the guards. (Kind of like a man going to trial for rape and because his semen is found in the woman, he is guilty. Couldn't possibly be that she consented.)

First, we need to define torture. According to the United Nations Convention Against Torture, torture is "any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted...It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

I'm not sure how stripping, being shackled, or being spit on (among others listed) fall under "severe pain or suffering." Of the eight items mentioned in the news story, only three actually look like they may be actual torture (sexually abused - if it includes penetration, shocked, and beaten). The addition of the other five items is for emotional reaction and not helping the case.

According to one news report cited, "There's no way to know whether any of the inmates may have had medical or mental problems before being detained." However, the report states, "We found clear physical and psychological evidence of torture and abuse, often causing lasting suffering." Anyone with any sense should be dubious of this statement. The doctors have no baseline, so how can they possibly be making this statement?

The US has been torturing (or training for it) for many, many years (long before the Bush administration) and I don't see it being a significant hindrance so far in foreign relations. Do you really think the heads of states that tolerate torture in their countries are going to cut off diplomacy efforts with the US because of these 11 cases? I doubt it. There is far more to be gained for the majority of the people to allow this to impact much. Although, if there are any cases, please point to them - where this has impeded the advancement of US foreign policy (and it would be far more credible if the cases were prior to the Bush administration - I believe you understand why).

As far as a commission, I am too cynical to see such a commission be fair and balanced. I believe there are far too many people in high places that don't want to lose this tool from their tool box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I believe there are far too many people in high places that don't want to lose this tool from their tool box.



You are correct in your assertion: people in “high places” in Beijing, Tehran, Pyongyang, Egypt, Russia, Myanmar (nee Burma), Pakistan, Syria, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, and Uzbekistan don’t want to stop being able to torture at their discretion. Those are not the people in high places on which I or most Americans want the US to model our policy choices.

As we went through in rigorous, cited detail the folks with operational experience, i.e., military, intelligence community, and civilian LEO including those with direct experience (i.e., the USMC Interrogators and the US Army HUMINT collectors); all the former Secretaries of State including GEN Colin Powell, USA (ret); Sen John McCain; the Intelligence Science Board; the former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency; multiple former CIA Directorate of Operations (DO) officers have been explicit on the non-effectiveness of torture in interrogation and opposition to it. The only examples supporting torture were John Yoo (Berkeley Law Prof), Alan Dershowitz (Harvard Law prof), and the CIA spokesman prior to Gen Michael Hayden, USAF, taking over leadership of the CIA. (The other name you suggested as a proponent of torture, is actually opposed to it.)



Quote

This may be off topic, but I find these reports (at least based on what is posted here as I have not read the reports) being akin to a trial without the defense.



That’s more on topic and that’s certainly one way of looking at it and further indication of the need for something that is akin to a domestic American-style “truth & reconciliation” Commission or Vergangenheitsbewältigung, in order to get beyond that at least in the rear view mirror of history.

Since you have stated your opinions repeatedly, notionally if the President directed the Executive Branch (the entire Executive Branch not just any one department) to begin a serious, open effort at “truth and reconciliation” – even tho’ you might personally disagree with that directive – and the head of your agency put you in change of it – in a notional scenario -- how would you propose it go about being established and conducted? Who would you want to see on such a commission? Where would you want it to be held? Who would you want to ensure testified for it to be ‘fair and balanced’? Should there be any limits placed on it? Full or restricted access for the media?

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do not hear any loud or indignant protests from the "Good Americans." Most people are against torture under normal circumstances. But most people ("Good Americans") would have no problem with a few detainees being tortured if it meant a US city could be saved from a dirty bomb. That is the harsh reality.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not hear any loud or indignant protests from the "Good Americans." Most people are against torture under normal circumstances. But most people ("Good Americans") would have no problem with a few detainees being tortured if it meant a US city could be saved from a dirty bomb. That is the harsh reality.



The harsh reality is that's a fictional construct of Jack Bauer-esque Hollywood. In the real world, such scenarios have been avoided using traditional non-torture-based methods. And information obtained through torture has been notoriously unreliable, like Sen McCain's confession to the North Vietnamese.

If you really want to advocate for effective tools in the notional scenario suggest you look to what the US military and operational intelligence experts say: torture is ineffective as a means of interrogation and such a policy puts US soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and US foreign nationals, such as defense and intelligence civilians deployed at greater risk (than they already are).

VR/Marg

p.s. the protest is the kind that is in your and in [thirdworld19]'s posts.

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My example may or may not be fiction. Much to my chagrin, and yours too possibly, we don't know 1% of what goes on behind the scenes in the fight for our national security. I for one would love to know the details. I realize what goes on is likely not as exciting as Vince Flynn novel but it would still be extremly interesting.

The "experts" will continue to pontificate on both sides. As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I would imagine that torture has been used both effectively and ineffectively by the US.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I would imagine that torture has been used both effectively and ineffectively by the US.



The three instances in which the CIA acknowledged using waterboarding (done before GEN Hayden's arrival) were ineffective and may have wasted time and resources.

Information obtained through torture by thridparty states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

I would imagine that torture has been used both effectively and ineffectively by the US.



The three instances in which the CIA acknowledged using waterboarding (done before GEN Hayden's arrival) were ineffective and may have wasted time and resources.

Information obtained through torture by thridparty states has produced bad/faulty intel that has been passed on to US policymakers, e.g., Ibn al Shaykh al Libbi.

VR/Marg



Like I said, torture has likely provided good and bad intel. And it's not like we can go to CIA.com and verify this. I know what the experts have said but that does not mean there are not certain situations that call for heavy handedness. In a perfect world we could all sit down with "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" playing in the background and work things out. But we both know that is not the case.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I know what the experts have said but that does not mean there are not certain situations that call for heavy handedness. In a perfect world we could all sit down with "I'd like to buy the world a Coke" playing in the background and work things out. But we both know that is not the case.



And that is not what has been advocated. Good, effective interrogation is not the notional cartoonish scenario described above.

See: US Army FM 34-52 Intelligence Interrogation (large pdf file), which states in Chapter 1, under the heading “Prohibition Against Use of Force”
“Experience indicates that the use of force is not necessary to gain the cooperation of sources for interrogation. Therefore, the use of force is a poor technique, as it yields unreliable results, may damage subsequent collection efforts, and can induce the source to say whatever he thinks the interrogator wants to hear. However, the use of force is not to be confused with psychological ploys, verbal trickery, or other nonviolent and noncoercive ruses used by the interrogator in questioning hesitant or uncooperative sources.”

“The psychological techniques and principles outlined should neither be confused with, nor construed to be synonymous with, unauthorized techniques such as brainwashing, mental torture, or any other form of mental coercion to include drugs. These techniques and principles are intended to serve as guides in obtaining the willing cooperation of a source. The absence of threats in interrogation is intentional, as their enforcement and use normally constitute violations of international law and may result in prosecution under the UCMJ.”
Unilateral, non-ambiguous statement with further detailing what not to do, i.e., don't use torture because it's not effective.

FM 34-52 also warns: “Revelation of use of torture by U.S. personnel will bring discredit upon the U.S. and its armed forces while undermining domestic and international support for the war effort.” That is, if you want to support the troops, don’t support a policy that allows torture. Simple. Plain-spoken.

And see: US Army Field Manual 2-22.3 Human Intelligence Collector Operations (warning large pdf file).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> But most people ("Good Americans") would have no problem with a
>few detainees being tortured if it meant a US city could be saved from a
>dirty bomb. That is the harsh reality.

"Intelligent Americans" would have a huge problem with torture if its use caused a delay in finding that bomb, and thus thousands were killed.

Torture doesn't work. That's been proven time and time again. Indeed, someone who used the time available to torture someone (and then used up more time following up on the almost-guaranteed-to-be-bad information) would be partly responsible for any deaths caused by said bomb.

Americans are not as dumb as everyone thinks. They really don't think the world works like a made-for-TV movie. (Well, most don't, anyway.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I do not hear any loud or indignant protests from the "Good Americans." Most people are against torture under normal circumstances. But most people ("Good Americans") would have no problem with a few detainees being tortured if it meant a US city could be saved from a dirty bomb. That is the harsh reality.



I think most people would be against torture to save a city from a dirty bomb if they were aware that torture doesn't yield reliable information, except in Hollywood. There was a thread on the topic not long ago with many links to the professional opinions of experienced interrogators regarding torture.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Americans are not as dumb as everyone thinks. They really don't think the world works like a made-for-TV movie. (Well, most don't, anyway.)




What scares me is this.

Most of the people I know seem smart and care about the future at least enough to do research and make up there own mind.

However as a government for the people by the people we are responsible for or I should say more responsible then a dictatorship would be for the actions of our government.

So what’s the excuse?

I have viewed this country as a moral high ground for most of my life, now it seems we have just lost our way.

Should we torture even if did work? Lets forget that most say the information received is unreliable.

Do we still have a soul?



What if grinding up a terrorist infant child in a blender would or might save some American lives?

Is that ok to?

I personally would like to keep the moral high ground or at least try to keep it.

Because I still hope we are better then them or at least can try to be.

The best way to lead is by example.
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Like I said, torture has likely provided good and bad intel.



Nope.

"[O]ur most significant successes on the battlefield -- in fact, I would say all of them, almost categorically, all of them" -- came from interrogators that stuck to the kinds of humane techniques framed in the new Army manual. "We don't need abusive practices in there," Lt. General John Kimmons, U.S. Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, said. "Nothing good will come from them."


and

At one 5p.m. meeting in April, Buzzy Krongard raised the issue of "what have we learned to this point, and what might we do differently?" What had they learned? "There was a grudging professional admiration for how hard these guys were," Krongard recalled later. "They were real soldiers. They went through hell, and gave up very, very little."

This was especially true for the most valued captive, shy of KSM: Ramzi bin al-Shibh. In the six months since his capture, he'd received death threats, water-boarding, hot and cold treatments, sleeplessness, noise, and more death threats. Nothing worked.

Source


and

Or listen to Army Col. Stuart Herrington, a military intelligence specialist who conducted interrogations in Vietnam, Panama and Iraq during Desert Storm, and who was sent by the Pentagon in 2003 -- long before Abu Ghraib -- to assess interrogations in Iraq. Aside from its immorality and its illegality, says Herrington, torture is simply "not a good way to get information." In his experience, nine out of 10 people can be persuaded to talk with no "stress methods" at all, let alone cruel and unusual ones.


An up-to-date illustration of the colonel's point appeared in recently released FBI documents from the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These show, among other things, that some military intelligence officers wanted to use harsher interrogation methods than the FBI did. As a result, complained one inspector, "every time the FBI established a rapport with a detainee, the military would step in and the detainee would stop being cooperative." So much for the utility of torture.


Source


Did we fail to learn our history lessons?

“… [D]espite the complexities and difficulties of dealing with an enemy from such a hostile and alien culture, some American interrogators consistently managed to extract useful information from prisoners. The successful interrogators all had one thing in common in the way they approached their subject. They were nice to them.

--Maj Sherwood Moran, USMCR - Guadalcanal 1942


Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I personally would like to keep the moral high ground or at least try to keep it.

Because I still hope we are better then them or at least can try to be.

The best way to lead is by example.



Agreed. Fighting fire with fire is great if one wants to stop an arsonist, but does nothing to stop arson.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0