Torture Inc.

Hastert Supports Torture Extraordinary Rendition

In a column in today's NYT, Bob Herbert writes about extraordinary rendition - the practice of shipping individuals accused of terrorism to other countries for incarceration. It so happens that these countries often are ones that are known to engage in torture. Herbert writes::

A Massachusetts congressman, Edward Markey, has taken the eminently sensible step of introducing legislation that would ban this utterly reprehensible practice. In a speech on the floor of the House, Mr. Markey, a Democrat, said: "Torture is morally repugnant whether we do it or whether we ask another country to do it for us. It is morally wrong whether it is captured on film or whether it goes on behind closed doors unannounced to the American people."

Unfortunately, the outlook for this legislation is not good. I asked Pete Jeffries, the communications director for House Speaker Dennis Hastert, if the speaker supported Mr. Markey's bill. After checking with the policy experts in his office, Mr. Jeffries called back and said: "The speaker does not support the Markey proposal. He believes that suspected terrorists should be sent back to their home countries."

Surprised, I asked why suspected terrorists should be sent anywhere. Why shouldn't they be held by the United States and prosecuted?

"Because," said Mr. Jeffries, "U.S. taxpayers should not necessarily be on the hook for their judicial and incarceration costs."

This is ridiculous. The biggest problem with the response from Hastert's office is that extraordinary rendition isn't the equivalent of deportation - sending an individual back to their country of origin. Instead, these people are sent to countries that they have no connection to at all - like Syria. That's what happened to a Canadian citizen who was not sent to Canada but was instead sent to Syria, where he was tortured. The intent of extraordinary rendition is not deportation, it's not a money saving exercise. It's moving the prisoner outside the scope of US law so that 'coercive interrogations' can occur with no repercussions. If our government leaders are going to endorse such a practice, they ought to have the courage of their convictions and say so.

Torture in Brooklyn

I grow weary of posting about prisoner abuse, the torture of detainees, legal loopholes to support inhumanity, the administration's word games designed to allow torture while convincing the public that they don't. It's the one topic, though, that I feel morally obligated to address. I don't hear an outcry of protest, I don't hear any leaders' voices raised in opposition, I don't see media frenzy trying to unravel the insanity. I see the occasional article, the concerned editorial, MSM voices raised briefly as new information comes to light. I see some blogs hitting the issue, solidly and regularly. But not the a-listers. So I raise my voice, in the hopes that if enough of us do so we can make a difference. Despite the weariness I feel when I hear new information, the tendrils of despair that creep closer to my heart, it is an issue that demands my attention.

Today, I am grateful to Jeanne at Body and Soul for providing the latest Torture Inc. entry, for giving us the latest information -  thoroughly, sourced, with insightful comments. She's given me a respite by telling us about the torture in Brooklyn, done in the name of fighting terrorism. She highlights the painful inconsistency in the words of the party that proclaims to be the sole source of values and the actions of those who belong. And then there's her acknowledgment of the strange seduction of sodomy for those people. It's a worthy read, the latest in what seems like a never ending story of torture and abuse. Go read it. And weep.

It Just Keeps Getting Worse

Details about widespread abuse of detainees continues to slowly leak out as more documents requested under the Freedom of Information Act, are released to the ACLU. Terrorizing Afghan villagers, using detainees as props in souvenir photos, using detainees and villagers as punching bags, et al. And the most serious new information is in reference to Manadel Jamadi, the Iraqi who died while in the custody of Navy Seals and CIA interrogators. The latest report is that at the time of his death, he had his hands handcuffed behind him and was suspended by his wrists in an effort to coerce his cooperation. This is known as 'Palestinian hanging'. No-one is yet arguing that this was an approved interrogation practice. It's hard to argue that it's just a 'stress position'. It's torture. So what is the military command's response to this incident? Eight Navy workers have received nonjudicial punishments in the case, while one is awaiting court martial and another is awaiting a hearing. Note that the punishments are non-judicial. That means they were never charged with criminal behavior. Only one of those involved is being charged with criminal behavior in this case where a man was tortured and died.

Other new reports tell us about alleged abuse of detainees and villagers in the field. The latest reports tell us of Special Forces abusing villagers who offered no resistance and who didn't try to escape. Two Army psychological operations officers filed complaints citing soldiers who indiscriminately punched people, slapped them, threatened to shoot them, who took one man, whose hands and eyes were covered, behind a wall and beat him. (The soldier here claims the villager fell, that he had an explosive device. Perhaps that's why he told other villagers that he was going to kill him and then when he had the man behind the wall shot his gun into the air.)  The investigation into the actions reported by the Army psyops officers was terminated before it was completed, since the village where it occurred is "a high-threat combat area" and the villagers are allegedly anti-U.S. combatants. (If they weren't so inclined before our Special Forces rampaged through their village, they certainly were after our guys were through.)

This decision implies three  things. First, the eye witness accounts and complaints of psyops officers were insufficient to make a case. Second, that no conclusions will be drawn unless the Iraqi or Afghan citizens involved can be questioned - a standard which must make investigations quite difficult to complete. Third, by justifying the termination of the investigation by saying the villagers were allegedly anti-US combatants, the military is implying that the reported behavior isn't a problem if the villagers are enemy combatants (but that it would be if they were allies). In my opinion, that's the clearest statement I've read that underscores the permissive culture that has arisen under the leadership of this administration. The cited behavior violates the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions. It certainly doesn't rise up the Bush's standard of "humane treatment". But hey, who cares, the abusers said they were enemies.

This almost casual response to abusive behavior is further seen in the Army's response to behavior depicted in a new batch of photos from Afghanistan. These pictures show masked US soldiers "standing with their weapons pointed at the heads of handcuffed and hooded or blindfolded detainees at a base in southern Afghanistan and, in one case, pressing a detainee's head against the wall of a "cage" where he was brought for interrogation." The photos are also said to depict mock executions. We don't know firsthand because the Army conducted a lengthy search to acquire all of the copies of these photos and none have been published. The Army says it has to protect the identity of the Afghan victims (um, right). The interesting thing here, beyond the fact that the Army thinks we'll buy their "protect the victims" explanation is the use of the word "victims". This implies one or more perpetrators. So what's happened to these perpetrators, the soldiers in the photos whose behavior violated Army regulations? Six of the soldiers received unknown  administrative punishment for dereliction of duty, specifically for taking part in the photos - not for the treatment depicted in the photos. The Army found probable cause to charge the seventh soldier with  with assault, but there's no indication that the charge was made or any punishment was handed down. Again, punishments are apparently non-judicial, meaning their behavior was not deemed to rise to the level of criminal behavior.

To those folks who sneer at my concern over the way our soldiers treat villagers and detainees, let me remind you that it was Army officers who reported this treatment and a Special Forces commander who said such behavior was counterproductive for his unit. Additionally, I'm fully aware that it's way too easy to sit  in the comfort of my home and comment on the actions of soldiers in a war theater, that I can't and don't understand what it's like for them. I don't expect our military to be perfect, to be so careful in their treatment of villagers and detainees that they increase their own risks. But I do expect them to be held to the high standards they make a commitment to uphold, to be accountable for their actions. If they f**k up, they pay the price - that's the military way. Our military culture is one based on the principles of integrity and honor. I expect our soldiers to maintain that culture in war time as they do in peace time. Otherwise, it's all just airy talk. And I expect our military leaders, and the civilians at the top of the chain of command, to set the tone, raise the bar, and reinforce the culture of honor and integrity. I fear that this is where the problem started and that it won't end until there's a change in the attitudes and opinions of the civilians at the top. And yes, that's Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush. It's their job and they aren't doing it.

Sources
Washington Post, Army Files Cite Abuse of Afghans
Associated Press, Iraqi Died While Hung from Wrists
ACLU: Department of Defense Documents (released by DOD on1/3/05, published by ACLU 2/15/05)
ACLU: Gateway to Documents Released under FOIA

Freedom from Oppression (Except if it's Us Oppressing You)

Today's NYT's editorial sums up well the real state of affairs in regard to detainee abuse.

Now it is also becoming increasingly clear that this extensive, random prisoner abuse is a wretched failure that does nothing to aid the war on terror.

Report after report shows that a vast majority of those swept up in American anti-terrorism campaigns were innocent. Those who may have been guilty produced little if any useful information - and now cannot be put on trial and punished because they were illegally detained and tortured. Others simply lied under duress, providing an ample supply of disinformation purchased at the cost of American self-respect. Military doctrine says that interrogation becomes pointless after a few days, while torture produces false confessions.

[snip]

What's been going on here is not what supporters of the administration's policies depict: an awful but necessary and skilled inquiry reserved for the worst terrorists, who hold secrets that could cost innocent lives. That's the stuff of 21st-century fiction, where Kiefer Sutherland saves mankind with a well-placed pistol butt. This is about a system that was hastily conceived, ineptly formulated, incompetently administered and now out of control. It lowers the humanity of the people who practice it, and the citizens who condone it.

There's no question that there has been widespread mistreatment of prisoners, from the GI in the field whose frustration leaks out inappropriately to the systemic torture of prisoners shipped off to countries like Syria. Victims include a huge number of people who aren't the enemy but are instead criminals or guilty of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The administration's insistence that they don't condone torture has worn thin, as they succeeded in preventing Congress from banning it in all instances, argue that deporting detainees to countries they aren't from but countries that happen to engage in torture, fight to prevent any due process rights from applying to those in custody, and tap dance their way through any effort to definitively state what is and is not legal.

Whether it's water-boarding, applying fake menstrual blood to the face of an orthodox Muslim, piling naked prisoners on top of each other, forcing prisoners to stay in "stress positions" for excessive periods of time, or any number of other prohibited acts, it's wrong. It's ineffective. It's dehumanizing. It's unamerican.

I cannot accept the pious "culture of life" pronouncements from Bush, the "compassionate conservative" claims, the grand declarations on freedom from tyranny, as anything but cynical political speech. Not as long as there is no action on the widespread, systemic mistreatment of prisoners. He can proclaim all he wants that he doesn't condone torture and that everything being done is legal, but when he's accepted a  legal definition that permit tortures, he's not credible. His supposed refutation of torture is just another dodge to ensure that he can spout the platitudes he knows so many want to hear while condoning or at least permitting behavior that directly contradicts his words. It's disgraceful and I reject it. We all should.