JustBob said:Rent or buy the DVD of the 2007 Oscar winning documentary by Alex Gibney "Taxi to the Dark Side". It does a good job exposing the use of torture in Bagram (Afghanistan), Abu Ghraib (Iraq), and Guantanamo.
At the center of the story is a young Afghan taxi driver named Dilawar, who was arrested by US forces in 2002 along with his three passengers, and taken to Bagram Air Force base prison. He was interrogated, chained standing up with his hands above his head to the ceiling of his cell and repeatedly beaten on the legs (with knee strikes) until, after 5 days, he was found dead. And although the coroner's report clearly indicated "Homicide" (the report stated that his legs were "pulpified"...), nobody heard about Dilawar afterwards. Until that is, the pictures from Abu Ghraib came out and prior "detainee" deaths were investigated.
Main points:
1. Pressure to get results ("gloves off" policy) combined with vague directives on what techniques of interrogations were acceptable produced a "fog of war" where interrogators, often with limited or no experience, were put in an environment conducive to the worst behavior.
2. This of course came from the top. From Cheney, approved by Bush, brought down the chain of command by Rumsfeld and facilitated by a variety of unscupulous government officials and lawyers. Of course the soldiers who "tortured" Dilawar (all of which believed he was innocent) were accused and found guilty. But their superiors and those at the top? Nope!
Note 1: An ABC report which came out earlier this year confirmed that high level meetings about torture involving Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld & all frequently occured at the White House. Ashcroft was even quoted as saying "I can't believe we are having these discussions here..."
Note 2: The Bush administration later passed a bill that absolved all higher-ups from any responsibility...
3. The overwhelming majority of experts agree that torture is NOT an efficient means of obtaining reliable information. Gaining the confidence of the prisoner and convincing him you can help him and/or his family is. Of course, you need the necessary skills in order to do that...
4. The "ticking time bomb" scenario often used to justify the morality of torture is a red herring. One, this isn't "24" where Jack Bauer tortures the bad guy, discovers where the bomb is and saves millions of lives. Two, what is the likelihood of such a scenario occuring? I.e. that you'd capture some terrorist, a few hours before some bomb went off, who knew exactly where said bomb was? Well (except on tv) this has never happened, and if it did, that terrorist would have a) a bigger commitment to die than to tell you anything about his evil plot or b) send you on wild goose chase so you'd stop tickling his balls with electrical wires.
Now, I remember an Israeli writer (his name escapes me...) saying something like: "The longer you fight terrorists, the more likely you are to become like them"
So, one should ask himself: If the goal of terrorism is to undermine Western values and principles, isn't throwing said values and principles out the window in difficult situations proof that terrorism is achieving it's goal?
P.S. I also recommend the 2008 documentary by Errol Morris "Standard Operating Procedure", which also deals with the issue of torture but concentrates on Abu Ghraib.
Well said!
So with that, do you think Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld be held accountable, possibly facing an International tribunal?
