A diary of torture

[Flagg]

Hey, notice how TheHammer turned a discussion about torture and his not believing victims over perpetrators (an indefensible position, which is why he stopped defending it) into a discussion of Awlaki and kill lists?

[Channel72]

I mean, the problem here is not "the government blew up al-Awlaki." The problem is "the government has a secret kill list of people it thinks it's allowed to kill, and you can't read the list, and the only people responsible for deciding who goes on the list are people who can easily be fired and replaced at the president's whim, so there is no independent review of who is on this list and why."

The president could put somebody on the list because they made a scene at his daughter's birthday party, and we would not know that. No one could get the president into trouble for doing that, because the list is secret and not subject to review by anyone except the president's duly appointed sycophants subordinates.

This was a problem well before the "War on Terror". It's well known that Nixon, at least, tried to assassinate a journalist for badmouthing him. The President simply has a lot of power, and is often able to abuse that power without consequence, unfortunately.

The difference is that Awlaki's assassination is publicly acknowledged and admitted by the administration as part of official policy, because unlike journalists, terrorists do not enjoy any sympathy from anyone, so the administration feels they can easily justify/get away with killing an American citizen if he can be shown to be associated with Al Qaeda.

[Simon_Jester]

What's to stop them from doing that now? Many actions of the government are going to have to be justified after the fact. When those justifications cease to satisfy the electorate, then the shit will hit the fan. That's why I don't have these same hypothetical fears that you do.

Except that this is a very bad thing to trust.

See, when a government does a normal scandalous thing, this works. If the government sells a bunch of drugs to finance arms sales to a shady Third World dictatorship, then that doesn't threaten the basic political order. Waiting for the electorate to sort it all out when the facts become clear will work. And that's because the normal processes by which the electorate finds out about what happened (the media) and makes its will known (elections) continue to function.

But when the state launches some kind of attack that strikes at the very mechanisms by which the state is held accountable for its actions, that doesn't work. Because then the state can rapidly gain the ability to suppress any attempt to reassert popular control over its actions. Or at least, any action short of open rebellion and a bloody civil war.

If the government gains the right to trawl your email looking for blackmail material, it can accumulate millions of blackmail dossiers, and then suddenly start using them... at which point it may be effectively impossible to coordinate resistance. Because people who try that keep getting blackmailed or targeted by others who have been blackmailed.

If the government gains the right to decide what news can and can't be published, it's very hard for the media to complain effectively about how they are being censored. That can affect whether or not the public is able to figure out it needs to complain.

Now suppose the government gains the right to kill anyone it wants to as long as they piously assure us that the victim was a Very Bad Man, or possibly someone who happened to be standing next to a Very Bad Man, or at least someone we thought was probably in the place where we imagined the Very Bad Man might be....

It really is very easy at this point for the state to whip up artificial fear of a domestic political faction, then start using targeted killings to neutralize it, and possibly anyone else who they can associate with it. Especially if they start using assassination techniques more subtle than drone strikes. At least, traditionally, it was illegal for the federal government to build up a cadre of assassins trained to go after American citizens, so if anyone found out you could be prosecuted.

But if that becomes legal, it becomes possible to develop the organization to a high level of effectiveness and then put it into action behind the scenes, and assassinations become just another tool of politics... IF you are the man who controls the White House.

Which means that, in essence, you are colluding with any future government that wants to assassinate domestic political opponents, by running interference for them and letting them set 'legal' precedents that they have the power to do that.

Only after the precedents are in place, and after the infrastructure to do it is in place, only after the tyrants have all their tools lined up and ready to go... do you propose to so much as frown at them... if they start using them.

They already have the tools. No law or precedent protects you from that fact. The only check they have now, and will have in the future is that the people who are physically (soldiers, police) using those tools will recognize that they are being abused and fight back.

This is the equivalent of locking your weapons away in a box the night before the enemy army attacks, and threatening to court-martial anyone who opens the locks early. You're letting the opponent get in the first shots and claiming that after the first shots are fired you will think about condemning the people firing them.

What the fuck are you talking about?

Simple. You are saying that it is perfectly fine for a would-be tyrant to set up all the things he needs in order to establish tyranny. Then, hopefully as soon as his preparations are ready, all the bureaucratic structures and legal precedents and carefully recruited and indoctrinated organizations the tyrant has established will just sort of... melt. Fall apart. Spontaneously rebel against him, possibly with some comical wah-wah-WAAAH noise.

Riiight.

See, the problem that you don't seem to grasp is that the mechanism by which people fight back against encroaching tyranny is protest, discussion of how the tyranny is a threat, and rejection of pro-tyranny ideas and propaganda. So when someone like you comes along and says "don't complain about it, no need to argue with this, it's not really tyranny because people haven't revolted yet..."

Basically, that's like arguing that we should disconnect the fire alarm because it's not really fire, because clearly if it were fire we'd already know about it. You're proposing that we don't need safeguard X because of mechanism Y, when without safeguard X, we won't know when to activate mechanism Y!

I was drawing a parallel to Awlaki, not trying to set a minimum set of requirements. Awlaki is the only example we have of this use of power.

Well, what are the minimum set of requirements? Are there any requirements? Or can the government just do this on a whim?

If so, then why is the state not required to prove any of these things in open court?

Since when do we subject military targets to court approval?

Since we started singling out individual American citizens in a paramilitary organization as "military targets?"
Why is the calculated and targeted decision to single out and kill one man NOT a decision requiring an open, legal review process just because we decided to use military weapons to do it with?

It's one thing when the 'military target' is a foreign citizen or a fixed structure or a location. It's not the same when we talk about individuals.

As it stands... once you get to use legal sleight of hand to (without legal review) call one of your citizens a 'military target,' YES you need some kind of legal review after you talk about killing that 'military target.' Otherwise, your rights are meaningless because they can be stripped away by a government official saying they've been stripped away. And you have no recourse.

Alternatively, it should take a court ruling to strip away a person's rights in the first place and call them a 'military target,' since that is equivalent to a death sentence all by itself.

But under no circumstances should you be able to go from citizen to persona non grata to corpse without any legal process to examine whether you are being treated justly.

Awlaki was an admitted member of a terrorist organization engaged in open hostility towards the US and operating from foreign soil. That fact alone meant he was a justifiable military target. That the administration went to such lengths beyond that to determine if he could legally targeted is evidence of how serious they took the matter. A trial is something you can afford when you have someone in custody locked away from the public, not while he is still on his crime spree.

Translation, al-Awlaki was a BADMAN who needed to die and we should be thankful the government believes in even a little bit of glasnost about how they came to that conclusion. And if they don't want to give us more glasnost, tough cookies. If we want to know who's on the kill list, tough cookies. If WE are on the kill list and want to sue in court to get an injunction to prevent us from being killed... also tough cookies. There is no need for a mechanism to prevent unjustified killings by the state, because state killings are always justified, without need for lockout mechanisms or the rule of law.

Riiiight.

The President and his staff ARE the review. He is not suggesting the targets, rather they are being suggested to him for approval. And we elected him to make those decisions. He's got his hands on the button for nuclear weapons. We elected him to make that decision too.

That decision is delegated to him only because under such circumstances there would be no time for Congress to mull over who we're supposed to declare war on. It's a red herring.

And no, the president and his staff do NOT constitute a legal review practice. Because it's very easy for a president to pick a bunch of cronies for his staff who will literally collaborate with him in committing major crimes and totally unjust offenses aganist 'enemies' both foreign and domestic. This literally just happened within the past forty years, for crying out loud! Would you consider the Nixon cabinet an acceptable review board to judge the legality of the Watergate breakins?

Simon, you're a fucking whackjob sometimes. Do you think that the president having someone killed over making a scene at a birthday party wouldn't come out?

Do you not find it problematic if he legally has the right to do so according to you?

I mean, we normally make outright unjustifiable murders illegal, rather than just trusting that everyone will know how immoral they are and punish the guilty party under their own power. But when it's the president who might commit such a murder, we are supposed to become very trusting, remove the laws against murder, and assume that the president knows what's best and will just happen to do what we need.

In other words, Fuhrerprinzip.

[K. A. Pital]

Hey, notice how TheHammer turned a discussion about torture and his not believing victims over perpetrators (an indefensible position, which is why he stopped defending it) into a discussion of Awlaki and kill lists?

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. TheMoron seems to be so deeply concerned about the Awlaki case and kill lists, he is bringing his apologia of this whenever he opens his mouth.

Now, I'd advise to get back on track: the US torturers or their victims, who deserves more trust? TheMoron has not been able to conceal his utter distrust for victims and absolute belief in the Government.

[TheHammer]

Hey, notice how TheHammer turned a discussion about torture and his not believing victims over perpetrators (an indefensible position, which is why he stopped defending it) into a discussion of Awlaki and kill lists?

Yes, thanks for pointing that out. TheMoron seems to be so deeply concerned about the Awlaki case and kill lists, he is bringing his apologia of this whenever he opens his mouth.

Now, I'd advise to get back on track: the US torturers or their victims, who deserves more trust? TheMoron has not been able to conceal his utter distrust for victims and absolute belief in the Government.

Don't even try to pin this shit on me. I offered to take it to another thread and instead was hit with numerous challenges from posters in this one. Did you fail to notice that?

[K. A. Pital]

Don't even try to pin this shit on me. I offered to take it to another thread and instead was hit with numerous challenges from posters in this one. Did you fail to notice that?

You should have stuck to the topic at hand, and that is torture by US government. Extrajudicial killings by the US government are only tangentially related to torture in captivity.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, I for one can't criticize the off-topic and may share some part of the blame.

I do think the real issue that makes this particular victim's credibility moot is that he isn't claiming anything new or extraordinary. It's disgusting, but it's not like we didn't already know the US government does that to the alleged terrorists it's had in interment camps for the past thirteen years.

[K. A. Pital]

In case we knew the US has done worse things to detainees, why attack the testimony at all? I believe I know why. TheHammer doesn't want a story of abstract torture turn into an easily-understood story of this particular person. So as long as torture is something impersonal done by who-knows-who to who-knows-them, it's all right.

[madd0ct0r]

The London Review of Books has a review, and they bring up a few points not mentioned yet:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n03/christian- ... can-xxxxxx

Slahi isn’t mentioned in the Senate torture report: he’s never been in the custody of the CIA. His memoir is a reminder that the CIA’s crimes are only part of the story. Torture was also practised by the US military after Donald Rumsfeld signed a memorandum on 22 December 2002 authorising ‘counter resistance techniques’. Rumsfeld personally signed off on Slahi’s ‘special interrogation plan’ at Guantánamo. It began with solitary confinement in a zone called India Block. Slahi was put in a ‘box’ where the temperature had him shivering. He was without soap, toothpaste, toilet paper and his Quran. Early on a Red Cross inspector arrived and asked him if he wanted to write a letter. He wrote: ‘Mama, I love you, I just wanted to tell you that I love you!’ He wouldn’t see another Red Cross inspector for a year. What followed were weeks of humiliation, starvation, prolonged standing and sleep deprivation. The interrogators turned his body against him, and he was often made to soil himself. His sciatic nerve was constantly inflamed and he developed hypertension. He was prevented from praying and subjected to sexual aggression by female guards. His account is heavily redacted, but the effect comes across:

That afternoon was dedicated to sexual molestation. ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ blouse and was whispering in my ear, ‘You know how good I am in bed,’ and ‘American men like me to whisper in their ears,’ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ I have a great body.’ Every once in a while ■■■■ ■■■■ offered me the other side of the coin. ‘If you start to co-operate, I’m gonna stop harassing you. Otherwise I’ll be doing the same with you and worse every day. I am ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ and that’s why my government designated me to this job. I’ve always been successful. Having sex with somebody is not considered torture.’

■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ was leading the monologue ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ . Every now and then the ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ entered and tried to make me speak, ‘You cannot defeat us: we have too many people, and we’ll keep humiliating you with American ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ .’

‘I have a ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ friend I’m gonna bring tomorrow to help me,’ ■■■■ said. ‘At least ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ co-operate,’ said ■■■■ ■■■■ ■■■■ wryly. ■■■■ ■■■■ didn’t undress me, but ■■■■ ■■■■ was touching my private parts with ■■■■ ■■■■ body.

Slahi was soon an emaciated, drooling wreck, doused in ice and blasted with rap and heavy metal (‘I didn’t really mind the music because it made me forget my pain’). They insulted his wife and his religion, and told him they were going to arrest his mother if he didn’t confess to masterminding the Millennium Plot and recruiting the 9/11 hijackers. He wouldn’t sign their forged letter.

The special interrogation plan came to a head with Slahi’s ‘birthday party’, in August 2003. After a weekend of complete isolation, a pair of masked guards entered his cell and punched him in the face and the ribs, a barking dog behind them. They blindfolded him, put him in the back of a truck, and sprayed ammonia in his nose. Then he was dragged into a speedboat. It was a three-hour cruise. He was forced to drink saltwater – ‘Swallow, motherfucker!’ they said – and vomited. They stuffed his clothes with ice cubes. ‘The goal of such a trip,’ Slahi writes, ‘was, first, to torture the detainee and claim that “the detainee hurt himself during transport,” and second, to make the detainee believe he was being transferred to some far, faraway secret prison.’ The deception in this case was meant to be enhanced by the presence of two Arabic speakers, according to Slahi an Egyptian and a Jordanian. The cruise was led by an American whose identity is redacted, but the editor, Larry Siems, thinks it may have been the navy reservist Richard Zuley, identified in court documents as the Special Projects Team chief for Slahi’s interrogations at Guantánamo, a retired Chicago cop now working for the aviation police at O’Hare International Airport.

Slahi was broken. After medical treatment and a few more interrogation sessions, some of them conducted by guards wearing Halloween masks, he gave in: ‘Now, thanks to the unbearable pain I was suffering, I had nothing to lose, and I allowed myself to say anything to satisfy my assailants.’ ‘People are very happy with what you’re saying,’ one of his interrogators told him: Slahi confessed to plotting to bomb the CN Tower in Toronto with redacted accomplices. He later admitted to guards that this was a lie. He was subjected to a polygraph test; the seven pages after the test begins are redacted: just what he did tell them is unclear. Military tribunals have thrown out his confessions because he was tortured.

It’s a strange ending to a book that is otherwise a relentless catalogue of grotesque abuses. Guantánamo Diary is no masterpiece: inevitably, it’s repetitive (Slahi likens his interrogations to Groundhog Day), and often banal when what it recounts isn’t revolting. But Slahi is an intelligent and sensitive writer whose sense of irony somehow survived along with his sanity. He’s not quite Holden Caulfield but his personality consistently comes through. His efforts at characterisation – of his interrogators, guards and fellow detainees – are thwarted by the military censors’ redactions, which turn a wide cast of villains, friends and villain-friends into so many undifferentiated black marks. But his collective observations of his jailers – especially the prison’s racial dynamics, with white guards dominating their black colleagues, and a Puerto Rican contingent showing the most sympathy to the jailed – are some of the book’s most striking details. (The broad outline of the abuses Slahi suffered, even the worst ones, has been a matter of public record for years.)

The difference between candidate Obama and President Obama became clear when he failed to enforce the executive order to close Guantánamo he signed two days after he took office. Michael Bloomberg and many Republicans objected to trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other accused 9/11 conspirators in New York City, as Attorney General Eric Holder proposed. It was a security risk. The same was said by then Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas about moving the detainees to the US Disciplinary Barracks at Fort Leavenworth; he and his allies threatened to block Obama’s appointments to halt the relocation. Their line was ‘no terrorists on US soil’ – as if a mass of dormant sleeper cells was waiting to stage the jailbreak. Obama has reduced the number of detainees at Guantánamo from 241 to 127. In his State of the Union address he said again that he wants to shut it, and reportedly plans to argue that once there are fewer than a hundred detainees, held at an annual cost of $3 million each, the prison makes little economic sense. But Republicans in Congress led by John McCain have said they’ll oppose him and have the numbers to do so. Dick Cheney appears on television, rather than in the dock, keeping the torture ‘debate’ alive. I wouldn’t have bet that diplomatic relations with Cuba would be restored before Guantánamo was closed. How many years until Slahi’s hut is a museum piece?

[Metahive]

"Slahi was broken. After medical treatment and a few more interrogation sessions, some of them conducted by guards wearing Halloween masks, he gave in: ‘Now, thanks to the unbearable pain I was suffering, I had nothing to lose, and I allowed myself to say anything to satisfy my assailants.’ ‘People are very happy with what you’re saying,’ one of his interrogators told him: Slahi confessed to plotting to bomb the CN Tower in Toronto with redacted accomplices. He later admitted to guards that this was a lie. He was subjected to a polygraph test; the seven pages after the test begins are redacted: just what he did tell them is unclear. Military tribunals have thrown out his confessions because he was tortured."

So they tortured someone until he falsely confessed a crime and then the court immediately threw his testimony out because it was acquired under duress...which the torturers should have known and yet they tortured him anyway?

So, this is the sort of people whose word you take over that of one of their victims, Hammershit? Nice company you are keeping there, buddy.