Torture Inc.

UK Torture Memos and a Blast at Yoo's "Hard Work" Defense

For a great fisking of Yoo's claim that there's no legal basis for defining torture, head over to Looking for Someone to Lie To's post, Yoo can't be serious.

For the latest torture memos, look to the UK. In defiance of a gag order, the former British ambassador to Uzbekistan, Craig Murray, has released memos that are being described as revealing US/UK collaboration to condone torture. I'll read and analyze these in the near future, but you can read them for yourself at this Craig Murray blog.

BlairWatch is calling on all bloggers to replicate the documents to prevent them from being pulled back behind the veil of secrecy. So here they are in PDF format:

Telegrams.pdf: A series of telegrams that Craig sent to the Foreign Office, outlining his growing concern and disgust at our use of intelligence passed to the UK by the Uzbek security services.

Legal Advice.jpg: A copy of legal advice the Foreign Office sought, to see if they were operating within the Law in accepting torture intelligence, and according to Michael Wood the FCO legal adviser; it is fine, as long as it is not used as evidence.

UPDATE: Check out this Crooks and Liars audio of John Yoo explaining just how far he believes the president can go - torturing children.

Staying Current on the Torture Scandals

I have been terribly remiss in not covering news on Abu Ghraib, Gitmo Bay, and related detainee mistreatment information. Whether it's the Schmidt report, the use of Abu Ghraib techniques in  Gitmo Bay first, or the allegation that Gen. Miller lied to Congress by saying he didn't brief Rumsfeld or his top deputies on his tour of Abu Ghraib - I've been silent. I'll post on these and more in time, but for now, please head over to Andrew Sullivan's site, Daily Dish, to stay up to speed. It's too important to ignore, despite my own silence.

Former Bush Physician Speaks Out Against Detainee Mistreatment

Think those concerned about detainee mistreatment are partisan players intent on using the issue to damage Bush or that it's inherently a criticism of our troops? Read this excerpt of an op-ed on the issue by a former personal physician to President Bush:

Today, however, it seems as though our government and the military have slipped into Joseph Conrad's "Heart of Darkness." The widespread reports of torture and ill-treatment -- frequently based on military and government documents -- defy the claim that this abusive behavior is limited to a few noncommissioned officers at Abu Ghraib or isolated incidents at Guantanamo Bay. When it comes to torture, the military's traditional leadership and discipline have been severely compromised up and down the chain of command. Why? I fear it is because the military has bowed to errant civilian leadership.

Now go read the rest. And consider whether this is an issue we can afford to politicize or ignore. I believe it is a stain on our nation and an injury to our national character. I still don't understand others who don't.

Protecting the Brass from Abu Ghraib Fallout

Is anyone surprised that the only senior officer charged in the Abu Ghraib mess is a reservist? That career officers and civilian leadership is somehow off the hook, that responsibility only flows so far up the chain of command?

I'm not sure what the rationale is for deciding that Gen. Karpinski is accountable but Gen. Sanchez isn't since he's the one who gave the military police undue authority in the prison (effectively removing control for the interrogation units from Gen. Karpinski), who authorized inappropriate interrogation practices, who allowed ghost detainees, who didn't meet the requests for human resources necessary to meet our obligations under international law. I don't know what the rationale is, but I'm hoping the Senate Armed Services Committee finds out. They aren't so happy that accountability only goes so high up the chain of command and is largely the preserve of the reservists and not active duty forces. We'll see if they can follow the chain higher.

Abu Ghraib Plea Deal

Lynndie England, the star of the Abu Ghraib photos who won that role with her portfolio of photos that showed her smiling as she held naked prisoners on leashes, is pleading guilty to two counts of conspiracy, four counts of maltreating prisoners and one count of dereliction of duty.

This 22 year old reservist, a file clerk with no training as a prison guard, is expected to get an 11 year sentence to the brig. Her planned defense was that she was just following orders. That defense hasn't worked for any of the other grunts charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal and it likely wouldn't have worked for her. And I don't think it should have.

I do think she had orders to mistreat the detainees. I don't think she came up with this stuff on her own or necessarily acted on her own initiative. But unlike other armies, our military men and women aren't given a pass on illegal conduct simply because they received orders to engage in that conduct.

It's a tall order to insist that our servicemen and women, who are schooled in the necessity of following orders as a fundamental military necessity, be prepared to reject an illegal order. It presumes that they know where the line between legal and illegal is, that they have the spine to stand up to their commanding officers and act counter to the weight of military tradition. And yet that is exactly what we ask of them. And we must. We can't eliminate personal responsibility for the legality, even the morality, of the acts they engage in. We can't remove all fear of consequences under the umbrella of obedience to a commanding officer. And yet to expect a private first class to know what is and isn't legal and to have the wherewithal to stand up and say "NO" in the midst of a war, in the war theater, is almost unrealistic.

Because what we ask is more than so many people could bear, I think there's a real chance that a "following orders" defense might work, even for the Abu Ghraib abusers. If only the defendants, here the diminutive England, didn't seem to be enjoying themselves so much. It's the pleasure they seem to take in their abuse that condemns them, that leaves no room for an argument that says they had no choice. The photos tell us that they didn't want that choice.

I continue to believe that complicity for the crimes at Abu Ghraib and those like them that occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay, is shared with officers and senior officials who have been absolved of all blame. But that doesn't mean the folks holding the leash, unleashing the dogs, manhandling and abusing the prisoners are guilt-free. It just means they aren't alone in their guilt.

Military Accountability for the Brass: Forget It

So, the Army has issued it's final word and declared that only one Army officer is culpable in the abuse at Abu  Ghraib - Gen. Karpinski who was in charge of the prisons in Iraq. Another twelve officers were absolved. If you're tired of the whole detainee abuse discussion and want to accept the Army's findings, you'll have to engage in some mental gymnastics.

• Forget General Miller's declaration that it was time to "gitmo-ize" Abu Ghraib.
• Forget Gen. Sanchez's approval of carte blanche use of dogs and other extreme methods in prisoner interrogation. (Fay Report) 
• Forget the failure to apply the military standard of holding commanders accountable for the actions or inaction of the units they command. (Schlesinger Report)
  
• Forget Gen. Sanchez's failure to make sure his staff was addressing problems at Abu Ghraib.  (Schlesinger Report)
• Forget the failure of Maj. Gen.  Wojdakowski to respond in a timely manner  to urgent requests up the chain of command for more troops at Abu Ghraib, which was severely under-resourced. (Schlesigner Report)
• Forget the one month delay by Col. Warren in reporting to his boss the prisoner abuse that the Red Cross witnessed and reported. (Schlesinger Report)
• Forget the failure of Gen. Fast to direct Gen. Sanchez adequately on appropriate interrogation methods. (Schlesinger Report)
• Forget the possible perjury of Gen. Sanchez, who told the Senate Armed Services Committee (under oath) that there was no system for tracking ghost detainees at Abu Ghraib, a statement he later corrected.
• Forget Rumsfeld's admission that he authorized the military to hide a prisoner from the Red Cross, contravening the Geneva Conventions.
• Forget the Department of Justice memos that defined torture so narrowly as to make most torturous actions legal.
• Forget the failure of "senior American officials" to establish clear interrogation policies. (Church Report)

Forget what you learned in the reports released to date and in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings. Because despite the fact that  the information in the Fay, Schlesigner, and Church  reports seems to implicate higher level officers, the reports specifically absolve the officers. They draw a fine line between responsibility and accountability or culpability and say that while the officers might be responsible, that doesn't mean they're culpable or that we should make them accountable.. So, you see, you really can forget what was reported in the past.

Forget it and embrace the official position: the only Army folks responsible, er, um, I mean accountable for the abuse at Abu Ghraib are a handful of grunts. That's it. Of course, military intelligence isn't off the hook yet. Two officers may face charges. These are the officers that Gen.Sanchez, against standard military operating procedures, put in charge of prisoners at Abu Ghraib. Yep, the same Gen. Sanchez who has been absolved of all culpability.

Torture and Values in Today's America

I post on the disgrace of our government's blind eye when it comes to detainee abuse, torture, extraordinary rendition, and the like. For me, it's a core moral issue and I'm constantly dismayed at our government's complicity and at the public's disregard. Even the blogging world goes lightly on this issue, with a handful of exceptions.

One of those exceptions is Body and Soul. And there you'll find the post I wish I wrote, that speaks of and to my heart, while listing the latest news in the torture world. Children imprisoned at abu Ghraib, the use of dogs to threaten imprisoned children, the refusal to release innocent detainees, CIA lies and Army complicity in hiding prisoners (ghost detainees) at abu Ghraib, details of abuse torture at Baghram. It's appalling and it's true.

Go read Body and Soul's post and then can you please tell me, in this day of the values voter and discussions about religious principles and America the Christian nation, where is the outrage? If values don't apply here, where do they apply? If religious principles aren't relevant here are they relevant anywhere? If this is a Christian nation then how deeply has Christ's message been subverted so that this isn't on the Church's radar screen? Tell me, how does this make sense? I can't understand it. I really can't.

The Church Report: Accountability Still Missing

The Church Report executive summary (now available in the Torture Inc. archives) doesn't really break new ground on the issue of detainee treatment. And I mean it really doesn't break new ground - no senior officials are held responsible or accountable for the abuse. No policies are identified as directing, condoning, or contributing to detainee abuse. And remember, we aren't just talking about abu Ghraib here. Detainee mistreatment, abuse, and possibly torture have taken place in the battlefields and war theater temporary prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as in the actual prisons in those countries and in Guantanamo. Undoubtedly, it's also taken place in the secret CIA prisons that are allegedly sprinkled throughout the world.

The Senate Armed Services Committee held hearings yesterday on the report, hearings which only 10 of the 24 committee members managed to attend. (No transcript available yet.) The issue of senior level accountability was hit hard by Senators on both sides of the aisle.

Senators expressed dismay yesterday that no senior military or civilian Pentagon officials have been held accountable for the policy and command failures that led to detainee abuse in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Navy admiral who wrote the most recent review of U.S. detention policies was largely unable to say where that accountability should lie. (WaPo)

There was the usual cheer leading, however, from Sen. James Talent (R-MO) who earns the rank of bishop in the faith-based community with this comment.

"[I don't ] need an investigation to tell me that there was no comprehensive or systematic use of inhumane tactics by the American military, because those guys and gals just wouldn't do it." (WaPo)

Nice. No need to investigate you see because he just knows. I don't know how he just knows, but he does. What a loser. Is this guy really a Senator? How about we don't investigate criminal charges against people we think are nice, the ones whose neighbors say "but he seemed like such a nice guy". Because, you know, it's not the truth that matters. It's our belief in what the truth is that really counts. Ugh, this kind of stupidity, this abandonment of process and thought, drives me crazy.

It's interesting to note that Adm. Church didn't interview Def. Sec. Rumsfeld. He stopped once he got to Undersecretary Wolfowitz. Why? In a press briefing after the hearing, he said that he didn't have any more questions, had resolved everything that needed resolving (except that pesky accountability issue, but hey I don't want to get petty here). Church implied pretty clearly that there was no value in talking to Rumsfeld. (NYT) Huh. How surprised are you?

On the issue of senior level accountability, the New York Times reported that:

But under repeated questioning, Admiral Church acknowledged that "with hindsight I think guidance should have been issued to Afghanistan and Iraq either by the Central Command or higher authority." He said that was consistent with the Schlesinger panel's findings, which he endorsed.

Despite the recognition that there was a "missed opportunity" or rather a f**k up at high levels, Adm. Church deflected assigning responsibility and its partner, accountability, this way:

"I don't think you can hold anybody accountable for a situation that maybe if you had done something different, maybe something would have occurred differently," he said. "It's a lesson learned that we need to capture and think about for the future."  (WaPo)

Interesting theory. You can't hold someone accountable just because if they'd done their job then detainees might not have been abused. But isn't that the idea behind criminal charges of negligent homicide or neglecting a child? Is it a defense to say that if you hadn't been negligent the person still might have died? The child still might have gotten hurt? I don't think so. It might mitigate penalties, but it doesn't eliminate your responsibility. Except in Bush's military, apparently. But only for senior level officials. It's outrageous, really, that there have been no real repercussions at high levels for detainee abuse while six Ohio reservists were court-martialed for taking  Army vehicles abandoned in Kuwait so they could complete their mission of delivering fuel to troops in Iraq. Rank matters, doesn't it?

There is still the possibility that those high up in the chain of command might be held accountable. "The Army is reviewing the cases of at least five senior officers, including Lt. Gen. Ricardo S. Sanchez, the former ground commander in Iraq. The reviews could lead to disciplinary action but are unlikely to lead to criminal charges, Army officials said." (NYT)

And on a final note, I'd like to highlight the Pentagon's continued whine that paying attention to the abuse of detainees - violations of the Geneva Conventions, administration efforts to make torture legal, actions that stain our national character and invite torturers elsewhere to use our behavior to justify their own - paying attention to this is unfair to our troops.

One thing to note, I think, is that the focus on the abuse really does overshadow the efforts that these service men and women are performing on a daily basis. Obviously, in the global war on terrorism they continue to serve with honor and distinction. And the service men and women who committed some of these abuses are certainly not characteristic of the great majority of whom that serve with distinction and honor every day in the cause of freedom.(DOD press briefing)

The Church report ultimately clarifies to some degree how things got out of control and in my read it's a command problem.  It uncovers no new ground in terms of actual detainee treatment but does make it clear that those in command didn't train or inform the servicemen and women under their command effectively. That's being addressed now but I'm still clearly upset that instead of stepping up and taking responsibility the military prefers to think of what could be construed as dereliction of duty as "missed opportunities". There are folks on the right side of the political aisle who disagree and see the Church report as the final word on the issue. (See this Slate post, which kindly includes an excerpt from this blog.) I think that's wishful thinking. At least I hope it is. One bright spot is that the Senate Armed Services Committee intends to have at least one more hearing on the issue. Let's hope that Senators think it's important enough to attend.

Bush Values: Parsing Accountability

There's a new report out on detainee treatment, this one by Vice Admiral Albert T. Church, the naval inspector general. This report, referred to as the Church report, is a result of a broad investigation into interrogation practices applied in prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. In reading the NYT article on the still classified report (the NYT says they got to read the summary), this paragraph jumped out at me.

Admiral Church's report faults senior American officials for failing to establish clear interrogation policies for Iraq and Afghanistan, leaving commanders there to develop some practices that were unauthorized, according to the report summary. But the inquiry found that Pentagon officials and senior commanders were not directly responsible for the detainee abuses, and that there was no policy that approved mistreatment of detainees at prisons in Afghanistan, Iraq and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

So once again, "senior officials" are faulted for not doing their jobs but declared "not directly responsible". Here's the problem. When you don't do your job and as a result people under your supervision two, five, or ten levels down screw up, YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE. It doesn't require a memo directing people to abuse detainees to find senior officials directly responsible. The very culture of the military is one in which the command officer is held accountable for the actions of the men and women under his or her command. So when senior officials didn't establish clear interrogation policies, i.e. when they didn't do their job, people under their command filled in the gaps and people under their command abused detainees. The line is clear, the responsibility is ultimately owned by the commander. In the military, shit rolls uphill and downhill. But not in Bush's military. And that's a shame. The integrity of an officer taking responsibility for the men and women in his or her command, falling on the sword so to speak, speaks of honor, duty, respect. Core values that our military embraces as it represents America in the world. We can't afford to sacrifice those values to save a few political lives. The price is too high and it's one we'll continue to pay until someone steps up and takes responsibility.

Render, Detain, Interrogate: White Washing Torture

Here's a question for you: what is the benefit of being able to transfer suspected terrorists to a foreign country for interrogation?

The Bush administration wants us to believe that they don't and won't condone torture. They've proclaimed their support for humane treatment of prisoners and denounced torture at the same time they redefined torture so narrowly that they could approve of what we all recognize as torture without contradicting themselves. And don't forget how quaint the Geneva Conventions are - we pick and choose when they apply. And we contort ourselves to meet the letter of the law but not the spirit. Why else is Guantanamo where it is but to be sure that we are holding prisoners in a no man's land that isn't subject to laws that apply in the states or in US territories? What laws? Due process and anti-torture statutes.

You see, the Bush administration has bent over backwards to use any means necessary to extract information from suspected terrorists and still be able to say with a straight face that they don't condone torture and that they've followed the law.

Well here's the latest revelation on the administration's deep respect for the law. Since shortly after 9/11, the CIA has had permission under a classified directive from President Bush to transfer suspected terrorists to foreign countries for interrogation. The unstated value of this practice called rendition is the willingness of some countries to torture prisoners and the theoretical clean hands it gives this administration, which found a way to extract information through torture while publicly proclaiming that it wasn't in the business of torture.

Screw due process. That's a luxury we can't afford in this time of war on terror.  Screw our national commitment to humane treatment, another luxury. Screw our national reputation, it's a luxury to care what the world thinks (we're more powerful than anyone else after all). Screw the law, it's a luxury to follow it. Screw the Geneva Conventions, it's a luxury to honor international agreements. This is a time of war, of military necessity, of fear and loathing. It's us against them and screw them, even if they're innocent. Casualties of war happen, you know.

Yes, I'm pissed. Information about our conduct in this war in regards to the treatment of detainees -  suspected, innocent, and terrorists alike - is leaking out drip by drip and I am not proud of the conduct of our nation or the values we represent through our actions.

We've sent suspects to Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Pakistan, Morocco, and Kuwait - all countries that our state department has identified as states that torture prisoners. It might not be so bad if we knew, knew, that those sent to these countries' prisons were guilty of terrorist acts. But that's simply not the case.

Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, who was detained at Kennedy Airport two weeks after the Sept. 11 attacks and transported to Syria, where he said he was subjected to beatings. A year later he was released without being charged with any crime.

Khaled el-Masri, a Lebanese-born German who was pulled from a bus on the Serbia-Macedonia border in December 2003 and flown to Afghanistan, where he said he was beaten and drugged. He was released five months later without being charged with a crime.

Mamdouh Habib, an Egyptian-born Australian who was arrested in Pakistan several weeks after the 2001 attacks. He was moved to Egypt, Afghanistan and finally Guantánamo. During his detention, Mr. Habib said he was beaten, humiliated and subjected to electric shocks. He was released after 40 months without being charged.

Either these men were not guilty or we're letting terrorists go. I'm guessing that it's the former. The government is claiming that information that saved lives has been gained from those "rendered, detained, and interrogated". That's their justification. I'm not buying, and believe me that I had to stop typing a while and make sure I meant that. I don't know if we would have gleaned the same information from these folks with alternative methods of interrogation, but everything I've read says that torture is one of the least effective ways to gain information. And frankly, if as a nation we believe that torture is the best way to save lives then we ought to have the courage of our convictions and do it ourselves in our own facilities. Our unwillingness to do so speaks of cowardice or shame - political cowardice and moral shame. If you're doing what's right, neither applies. And in this case, both do. It ain't right.

Source: Rule Change Let's CIA Freely Send Suspects Abroad to Jails, by Douglas Jehl and David Johnston,  New York Times, 3/6/05

UPDATE
More blog posts and news on extraordinary rendition and this new info on the CIA:

• Kathy at Liberty Street posts here and here.
• 60 Minutes has a story here which includes truly disturbing comments by Michael Scheuer, who was the senior CIAofficial in the counter-terrorism up until just three months ago
• Jeanne at Body and Soul posts on the practice, the intent, and wonders if panic is beginning to set in

UPDATE II
In an editorial titled Torture by Proxy, the New York Times says it well:

Let's be clear about this: Any prisoner of the United States is protected by American values. That cannot be changed by sending him to another country and pretending not to notice that he's being tortured.

Go read the rest.