CIA's torture got nod from White House

[mass1965]

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?

 

[beautydigger]

A rabid, pretty closed-minded ultra-conservative (fairly well off WASP thinking only of himself)...YUP! Korbel

Actualy I think an unhappy person that is acting out his frustration by trying to stir things up

Well since we are making unfounded judgements, Try this one on for size….At least I am not a...
'Latté-sipping, N.Y. Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, ... arrogant liberal'

 

[JustBob]

Yeah right. Don't fight terrorists. Let's simply surrender to them to save our soul. I remember an Arab who once resided in France (his name escapes me...) saying something like yours.

Nobody said anything about not fighting terrorism. Good job missing the point...

 

[JustBob]

LMAO! Too funny. Thank you.

One, how is that funny? Two, with what sort of twisted logic did you manage to equate that statement with "we shoudn't be fighting terrorists?"

 

[JustBob]

Well said!

So with that, do you think Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld be held accountable, possibly facing an International tribunal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBUkxvfL_eE

And since the Bush admin has done everything in it's power to undermine the ICC (International Criminal Court), I doubt it will ever happen...

The Bush administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid, withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. These exclusionary steps clearly endanger the fledgling Court and may seriously weaken its credibility and effectiveness.

Plenty of info on that issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_International_Criminal_Court

http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/us.htm

 

[korbel]

Well since we are making unfounded judgements, Try this one on for size….At least I am not a...
'Latté-sipping, N.Y. Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, ... arrogant liberal'

Hey BTYDGR,

I find the coffee culture sect very annoying, mostly read the Boston Herald (typically Republican) because I get it for free, hate fucking Volvos with a passion ( always seem to think they can do whatever), actually have gun ( antique model 1859 Sharps 58 cal. rim-fire breech loading single shot rifle ), and I'm a Moderate. Soooo WRONG on all counts.

LOL,

Korbel

 

[Kepler]

The threat is the possibility such harsh tactics become SOP.

That's where strong "due process" provisions and limitations come in. ie: Only in terrorist cases, only where imminent harm is suspected, only where no other method is available, etc.

And since the Bush admin has done everything in it's power to undermine the ICC (International Criminal Court), I

The ICC is a deeply flawed institution which doesn't even provide the minimal due process protections granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights (or the US Constitution). Bush has done a lot of bone head things, but fighting against the ICC is not one of them.

4. The "ticking time bomb" [...] what is the likelihood of such a scenario occuring?

It's happened lots of times. Many people captured and detained at Guantanamo were found in possession of detailed plans for future terrorist attacks. Though interrogations are necessary to determine their "terror cell's" location and composition.

The problem at Guantanamo was: (1) lack of independent oversight and review (2) prisoner's inability to challenge the evidence against them etc. Basically, no "due process" at all.

 

[Kepler]

The Americans have been torturing this 15 year old kid for 5 years now. Is this the way to treat a child?

No one, not even Khadr himself, is claiming to have been tortured for 5 years. All these events date back to when he was first brought to Guantanamo. And we're not talking about whipping or waterboarding. We're talking about being handcuffed in uncomfortable positions.

As for calling him "a kid", well... it's worth keeping in mind that he went to Afghanistan to "kill Americans", and probably did kill a marine by throwing a grenade as he was about to be arrested.

His family, currently in Toronto, has stated that they hate Canada in interviews and is proud of the work their son has done. His dad was a terrorist (killed by Pakistan) and his brother is in jail on terrorism charges.

This is not your average 16 year old neighbor.

 

[JustBob]

The ICC is a deeply flawed institution which doesn't even provide the minimal due process protections granted by the Canadian Charter of Rights (or the US Constitution). Bush has done a lot of bone head things, but fighting against the ICC is not one of them.

Former U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh has said:

"The list of due process rights guaranteed by the Rome Statute are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome."

The ICC might not be perfect but the Bush administration's opposition to the ICC has little to do with it's perceived flaws. They constantly tried to undermine it simply in efforts to shield Americans from ICC jurisdiction.
The Bush admin's main attack dog on this issue was of course John Bolton, who kept making vague claims about the ICC being harmful to the sovereignty and self-interests of the United States. No wonder the rabid opposition to the ICC has somewhat died down since Bolton has left the picture, and the US took no action to oppose the ICC's investigation and prosecution related to atrocities in Sudan.

So again let's get one thing clear. The Bush admin's rabid opposition to the ICC has little to nothing to do with perceived flaws, and a lot to do with shielding Americans from ICC jurisdiction. No wonder Bush and co. decided to pardon themselves on the home front. Their asses are now covered both nationally and internationally.

It's happened lots of times. Many people captured and detained at Guantanamo were found in possession of detailed plans for future terrorist attacks. Though interrogations are necessary to determine their "terror cell's" location and composition.

This hardly qualifies as the "ticking time bomb" (with emphasis on "ticking") scenario. Plus, "many" and "detailed plans" is rather vague. Moreover, and assuming reliable information was obtained from some GITMO detainees, this by no means proves that the same (or more, or better) information could not have been garnered using "conventional" interrogation methods.

The problem at Guantanamo was: (1) lack of independent oversight and review (2) prisoner's inability to challenge the evidence against them etc. Basically, no "due process" at all.

There we agree. The other problem is how all these "ennemy combatants" got there. Only 7% were captured by US forces. The rest were captured in random sweeps by Northern Alliance and Pakistani forces in exchange for cash. A convenient way to get rid of a pesky neighbor or opposing warlord...

 

[JustBob]

Yep. http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/docs/art98analysis.htm

Yup, also see hrw link in post 29.

 

[Kepler]

U.S. State Department Legal Advisor Monroe Leigh has said: "The list of due process rights [...] are, if anything, more detailed and comprehensive than those in the American Bill of Rights. . . . I can think of no right guaranteed to military personnel by the U.S. Constitution that is not also guaranteed in the Treaty of Rome."

That's a joke. First, US military personnel have less rights than the average US citizen. That's already a hint that something is rotten.

Second, the Bill of Rights is vague, but US (and Canadian) jurisprudence have codified numerous additional fundamental rights. The ICC is missing important rights, such as: trial by a jury of one's peers, true protection from double jeopardy, and the right to confront (all of) one's accusers. Worse yet, the judges are voted in by the UN member states, most of which aren't even democracies!

Any sane Canadian citizen would prefer to be judged by a Canadian court than by the ICC.

The ICC is not a kangaroo court, but that is not the standard against which I measure it. I measure it against the protections that I am entitled to under the Canadian Charter of Rights.


As for "why" Bush opposes it, I don't care. Even a broken clock is right twice a day. This is one of those (few) cases where he is right to oppose it, no matter what his personal reasons.

This hardly qualifies as the "ticking time bomb" (with emphasis on "ticking") scenario.

You'll hardly ever get a true "ticking time bomb", but this scenario (agents planning mass civilian casualties soon) is close enough for me. As for "detailed plans" I was referring to the papers and laptops recovered from the detainees which contained their various schemes and ideas.

The other problem is how all these "ennemy combatants" got there. Only 7% were captured by US forces. The rest were captured in random sweeps by Northern Alliance

Yet another example of the incompetence of the Bush administration. That's why "due process" (and all it entails) are so fundamental.

But to take a very specific example, I think "tough interrogation techniques" are perfectly warranted against http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Shaikh_Mohammed and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramzi_Binalshibh .

The fact that many innocents are detained at Gitmo is a travesty for which Bush should be held accountable. But it does not change the fact that some terrorists interned there should be subjected to tough interrogations to save other innocent lives.

 

[EagerBeaver]

I find that this thread has not taken on the level of analysis that is necessary to properly analyze this issue.

The thread has focused exclusively on the use of torture by government agents against criminals/terrorists. How about the problems and security issues created by the reverse situation, namely, the use of torture by terrorists/criminals against captured government agents?

A few years back, I read a story about an unfortunate DEA Agent who was caught by members of the Mexican drug cartel and mercilessly tortured to death. What they did to the DEA agent (as I recall he was a Mexican American) was they strapped him to a table and poured some kind of liquid jalapeno pepper sauce down his nose which, from what I understand, creates not only a horrible choking sensation but also blinding sinus pain. This is a favored method of torture in Mexico by the drug cartel operatives. Apparently some compromising information was obtained from the DEA agent before he was killed.

So what if the Mexican drug lords catch another DEA operative, torture him, and get the names of 12 other operatives whose lives are placed at risk. In that situation, if DEA catches one of the cartel's planted guys who has that information, should they be allowed to torture it out of him if those DEA agents' lives can be protected? If so, can the DEA use the cartel's chosen method of torture, or is waterboarding more appropriate? Would it be disrespectful to the cartel to use waterboarding method rather than jalapeno sauce poured down each nostril?

 

[Doc Holliday]

"We do not condone torture!"

Yeah right, Mr. Bush!!!!

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/01/we-do-not-condo.html