The Great Torture Scandal
McClatchy and other reporters are abruptly pulling the curtain away from the Bush team's illegal practices in arresting people arbitrarily, declining to offer proof that they were guilty of anything, detaining them indefinitely without trial or charges, and deliberately torturing them to the extent of leaving long-term scars and disabilities. The torture practices originated not with lower-level officers but with Donald Rumsfeld and others in Bush's inner circle, who then later blamed lower-level officials for developing the ideas that Rumsfeld ordered them to develop. Nothing they have done has survived a court challenge where one has been permitted.
Courtesy Salon.com.
Recent reports, taken together, provide a chilling glimpse of a vast torture operation, deliberately planned out by serial torturers in Bush's White House and possibly by the president himself. The program was designed to repeal the Geneva Conventions, which the US and Israel have long found inconvenient, even though they were legislated to prevent futher abuses such as those of the Nazis. AP interviews with former detainees show that they were systematically tortured and sometimes permanently injured.
A Senate report details the evidence that Rumsfeld and other high officials were complicit in ordering torture. That is, they are war criminals.
The Bush administration committed clear war crimes at Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram, according to Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba. The only question, he says, is whether anyone will be held accountable.
The Underscretary of Defense for Planning, Douglas Feith abruptly pulled out of his testimony on Capitol Hill about torture techniques, apparently because he was afraid to testify in the same session as Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff of Colin Powell. Wilkerson was high enough to hear the real story on a lot of issues and could have shredded Feith's lies into confetti if they testified together.
Medical examinations of former US detainees shows that they were tortured. The full report is here.
CIA counterterrorism lawyer Jonathan Fredson appears to have argued that virtually anything short of lethal force was permitted. He told the Pentagon that torture "is basically subject to perception." He did admit the principle that "If the detainee dies, you're doing it wrong."
Then there is the McClatchy series, based on extensive interviews with dozens of released former detainees from Guantanamo and Bagram:
Tom Lasseter writes:
"The framework under which detainees were imprisoned for years without charges at Guantanamo and in many cases abused in Afghanistan wasn't the product of American military policy or the fault of a few rogue soldiers. It was largely the work of five White House, Pentagon and Justice Department lawyers who, following the orders of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, reinterpreted or tossed out the U.S. and international laws that govern the treatment of prisoners in wartime, according to former U.S. defense and Bush administration officials."
A lot of Bush's detainees had no connection to international terrorism. Some had even fought the Taliban, been captured, and then were sold to the Americans by the Taliban, who had in the meantime changed turbans and begun pretending to be loyal to Karzai.
At Afghan bases, the US military routinely practiced torture on prisoners.
In fact, the US torture turned some innocent detainees into terrorists, determining them to attack the US on their release.
McClatchy has posted many of the documents on which its series is based.
Aljazeera International interviews McClatchy reporters, who spent a year tracking down and interviewing former detainees.
Part I:
and Part II:
The Public Record wonders why Bush, McCain and the Wall street Journal are rushing to defend torture now.
The tendency of the bureaucracy to experiment on human guinea pigs reached beyond the torture of detainees to mentally distressed Veterans. The Veterans Administration experimented on them with pharmaceuticals, without their knowledge. The VA neglected to tell them the drug they were being fed had serious side effects, including "anxiety, nervousness, tension, depression, thoughts of suicide, and attempted and completed suicide." Oh, yeah, that's what a person who has been through hell in Iraq and has post-traumatic stress really needs.
So all these revelations should be on cable news 24/7, right? Not so much.
As Gen. Taguba says, the fact of the extensive torture is not in doubt. The question is whether the Bushies will get away with it. It is looking as though they will. But there are going to be some European countries where Bush and his cronies would be ill advised to visit.


12 Comments:
Millions of German soldiers surrendered during WWII, and some of them even surrendered because they had heard how decently they would be treated.
Soldiers in any war are liable to overreact to an enemy in their presence, even bound and subdued.
During WWII some of the US government's propaganda films were about correct treatment of captured enemies. Even if it was sometimes ignored, it provided a collective understanding shared by US troops.
How many people know what "organ failure" feels like, anywa?
Juan, thanks so much for bringing together all these resources into a single place. Outstanding-- and of course, very, very troubling.
Attempts by dying empires to hang onto the last shreds of their overseas properties have very often involved mass incarceration scenarios linked with the infliction of torture. One main goal of torture, most psychological experts agree, is to 'break' the independent personality of the victim, if possible forever. These men all need considerable, lengthy efforts at psychosocial rehabilitation. But that's almost impossible to provide so long as their societies and communities also-- as in so much of Iraq-- remain substantially broken.
First, our country must absolutely cease from continuing to inflict this harm. Gitmo and the vast US detention facilities in Iraq and Afghanistan must all be closed.
Hitler's atrocities were done in accordance to the (bad)laws of his country. G.W.Bush's atrocities are illegal nationally, let along internationally.
It's well over a month since Marjorie Cohn posted National Lawyers Guild Calls for Special Prosecutor, Issues White Paper on Torture Liability on her website.
The accompanying white paper.
All that remains to do is to follow through.
The buck stops with the voter and citizen. It is our government, right or wrong. It was our young men and women serving in the army we pay for, whether they were heroes, just guys doing their jobs, or guards abusing captives.
When we sent our military off to exact 'revenge', and then don't want to know what the dirty side of that looks like, then we are there with Don Rumsfeld and Combone and Bush, saying "I never told them to break the law..."
Yeah, well we never took the trouble to know the law, to know that an occupying army can't just decide "they don't deserve the protection of the law".
"Do whatever it takes... but I don't want to know about it." means what it says.
The law is there to protect us, our government, our military, from our own dark side. Our laws can't be put in a drawer and ignored, without hurting ourselves. By turning a blind eye, 'we the people' became complicit, and complete the 9/11 attacks on the USA. We have let our leaders attack our own Constitution, in ways our enemies never could have accomplished by their acts of murder.
The buck stops here, with citizens and voters. Lasseter and Hersh and Taguba have laid it out for us. It's a tough read, things I really don't want to know about. But if not me, then who stands witness? Is this information just for use in recruiting suicide bombers?
Read it with discernment, and weep. And then take the necessary actions; to select new leaders, to remove certain actors from our payroll, to call for accountability of these illegal behaviors.
I wrote a letter to the editor of my local paper last month saying that bush & cheney need to be impeached for their policies of torture, rape, wars of aggression, kidnapping, illegal detention without charges, and ruinous occupations of other countries.
They would not publish the letter. They told me my charges were not substantiated, particularly the "rape" policy charge. Well, I have been forwarding articles that I have found to them the last few days. The guy at the paper accused me of having a lot in common with the local Baptist preachers who rant and rave.
Except for one detail: I have the facts on my side.
Oh, and they did publish a letter that said that the US military is the most decent in the world, and that people know this so the make up lies about them, and that our US military is known to deliver kindnesses during hostilities.
I think they should have published that letter, but I sure would like to see those claims substantiated.
I have been speaking out about this since 2001. I wonder when anything will be done to stop these criminals or bring them to justice. I wonder what will become of this country if we fail to do that - which looks quite likely. I wonder when people in the US will wake up.
There is no way I can salute the flag or sing songs like the national anthem anymore.
As this is the first time I post here, I would just like to say that I'm an avid reader of your website, and that I have enormous respect for your work.
I'm puzzled by your use of the word "detainee". Isn't that just bushspeak for prisoner? They say "surge" because it doesn't convey the same meaning as "escalation", and I believe this to be the case here as well. We should be careful not to accept the vocabulary of the propagandists.
America doesn't belong to Bush, or Cheney, or Feith, or anybody else. America is a country governed and directed by it citizens. Or was.
Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values
by Philippe Sands (May 2008)
Law professor Sands was interviewed on NPR's Fresh Air Program today.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91684540
Sands argues that war crimes have been committed and that if we do not prosecute the criminals, it is quite likely that other nations will be obliged to do so. There is no immunity for war crimes and many nations are required to capture and extradite anyone charged with a war crime. All that it takes is one judge who looks at the evidence and decides that there is enough there to issue a warrant.
Could officials of the bush Administration face war crimes charges? Criminal cases are in fact being prepared. Which is why the bush Administration torture-team members need to think twice before boarding an airplane that will take them beyond the sheltering confines of the United States.
http://harpers.org/archive/2008/06/hbc-90003104
The US isn't likely to try bush administration officials for war crimes - but it's likely that a European country will.
http://tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=597957fd-6bbf-4d02-b29f-3dbd35176038
Could it be that this is why the UN was created here in the US?
Did Ike know that there was a big elephant in the corner waiting to stomp on something.
Now it has, Iraq, and it may take an external request from an International body of experts to ask that the offending players involved (Rumsfeld, Cheney, Feith, Bush, Powell, Rice, Libby, etc.) be called into a tribunal?
Will we as a nation respond by throwing the UN out of our country, or will we track down the people in charge for the last 6 years and ask them to be held accountable?
I would hope we could settle this internally, with US legal settlements for the next 10 years against those mentioned. But if there needs to be an external player asking for answers, I would support the UN to start digging.
I sure don't want to see this as a political tit-for-tat that just gets worse... I mean the impeachment of our last president by the other political party, and the War Crimes question for this president.
There is no easy solution. But there is Novemeber when not only do we get a new "leader", but new staff all around.
Dancewater's experience is typical. That's why John Kerry wouldn't make torture an issue in his campaign, why Hillary Clinton also has spoken in favor at various times - along with proposing to annihilate 70 million people with nuclear bombs - and why McCain, Lindsey Graham, and others have backpedalled on their opposition to torture.
They're politicians. They earn their livings reading correctly the sentiments of the American people, and the testimony of this wide range of politicians is clear.
The American people are OK with torturing people, and they're not OK with those who consistently oppose it.
So Dancewater is quite right not to say the pledge of allegiance, simply because there are no true statements in it, and God didn't give man a mouth in order to utter brazen lies with it.
There was no truth in this pledge in 1892 when it was published, the year of the Homestead Strike and the all time high for lynchings, when the process of expelling black people from vast areas of the northern and western states was at its height.
Conceited proclamations like this about ourselves are popular precisely so far as they're false, the same as for individuals. When a guy at work announced that he was one of the ten best database analysts in the country, it soon became clear that he boasted thus because it was far from true. None of the ten best in any field needs to say so, in any field. Who among us has not observed this for ourselves?
Post a Comment
<< Home