Breaking News: Torture confirmed at Gitmo, sky is blue...

[weemadando]

Is this the highest ranking person to actually come out and say that it was torture?

US official highlights Guantanamo torture

Posted 10 hours 2 minutes ago

A Saudi suspected of involvement in the September 11, 2001 attacks was tortured at the US detention site in Guantanamo Bay, the Washington Post has reported, citing a US official.

Susan Crawford, the Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to bring Guantanamo detainees to trial, told the Post that the suspect cannot be tried because he was tortured.

US military interrogators subjected Mohammed al-Qahtani, 30, to sustained isolation, sleep deprivation, nudity and prolonged exposure to cold, leaving him in a "life-threatening condition," Ms Crawford said.

"We tortured Qahtani," Ms Crawford told the newspaper.

"His treatment met the legal definition of torture. And that's why I did not refer the case [for prosecution]".

Qahtani, alleged to be the 20th hijacker in the September 11 attacks, was denied entry to the United States one month before the attacks but was captured in Afghanistan and flown to Guantanamo in January 2002.

He was interrogated over 50 days from November 2002 to January 2003, though he was held in isolation until April 2003, according to the Post.

"The techniques they used were all authorised, but the manner in which they applied them was overly aggressive and too persistent," Ms Crawford told the Post.

"You think of torture, you think of some horrendous physical act done to an individual. This was not any one particular act; this was just a combination of things that had a medical impact on him, that hurt his health.

"It was abusive and uncalled for. And coercive. Clearly coercive. It was that medical impact that pushed me over the edge [to call it torture]," she added.

Ms Crawford dismissed war crimes charges against him in May 2008.

Defence Secretary Robert Gates named her the top authority on whether to try Guantanamo detainees in February 2007.

Ms Crawford, 61, is a retired judge who previously worked for the Pentagon.

- AFP

[spikenigma]

ah torture, combined with Britain honouring the extradition treaty

[Siege]

So the techniques they used did not constitute torture, but using them too often does? What, you can only deprive an inmate of sleep for a little while? That strikes me as an absurd load of legalistic bollocks. A technique is either torture or it isn't- or do they have little charts in Gitmo describing which temperatures its still okay to expose the inmates to? "Well, he was exposed to extreme cold and we deprived him of sleep, but he could keep his clothes on and we didn't stick him in isolation for more than 24 hours at a time so it wasn't torture!"

[K. A. Pital]

So the techniques they used did not constitute torture, but using them too often does?

Yeah. "Well you see, if you subject him to a little beating/electrocuting/waterboarding that's not torture... but if that damages his health, that's torture". Not caught - not a thief, as the proverb here says. That's the exact same reason torturers devise techniques which produce minimal amount of visible harm but maximal amount of physical suffering and nervous pain at the same time.

The techniques they used were all authorised

Um... authorization. Yeah. Saying that better: "Well, you see, all those guys were acting under government orders which allow to torture these chaps. So that's legal!".

Oh, and if his condition was "life-threatening", I guess that's a whole lot of torture. You don't get to that stage of physical damage without torturing the person like mad.

[Edi]

"Befehl ist Befehl" didn't fly when used as defense in the late 1940s, so all this is going to accomplish is unfavorable comparisons for a long time to come. It also serves as a good example of "might makes right".

It just depresses the hell out of me.

[Count Chocula]

"Torture is bad! They're being unlawfully held! They're really OK guys!"

In other news, 60 or more Released Guantánamo Bay detainees 'return to terrorism'. And what will they attempt to do, hmmm?

Do our interrogation techniques cause extreme discomfort, fear and apprehension? Yeah, probably. How about broken bones or permanent scarring? Nope. Cigarette burns to the forehead? Nope, not at Gitmo. Any car batteries in the corner with wet steel wool on jumper cables? Nope, not a one.

"Well OK, fine. But we treat them horribly. They are in cells and mistreated!" Bzzt...wrong again. The detainees - let's call them prisoners - are fed in accordance with halal, get better medical service than they would in their home countries, pray to Mecca, etc. etc.

These are people who were captured while fighting American soldiers, and at least 60 of them are proven terrorists. If these detainees were Americans being interrogated in Iran or Syria, or North Korea, they would certainly be tortured and mutiliated for whatever information they had, then most likely killed. All this "waterboarding is torture" talk annoys the hell out of me because we're treating these prisoners - who are sworn enemies - far, far better than our soldiers would be treated if the positions were reversed.

[Posner]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/15/ ... index.html

Incoming Attorney General Holder says that waterboarding is torture. That's a refreshingly sane analysis.

[Darth Wong]

These are people who were captured while fighting American soldiers, and at least 60 of them are proven terrorists.

According to American law, they have not been "proven" terrorists until they're convicted lawfully.

If these detainees were Americans being interrogated in Iran or Syria, or North Korea, they would certainly be tortured and mutiliated for whatever information they had, then most likely killed.

Congratulations. You're not quite as bad as Iran, Syria, or North Kora.

All this "waterboarding is torture" talk annoys the hell out of me because we're treating these prisoners - who are sworn enemies - far, far better than our soldiers would be treated if the positions were reversed.

The US executed Japanese officers after WW2 for waterboarding American POWs, asshole. It's torture.

[Kanastrous]

All this "waterboarding is torture" talk annoys the hell out of me because we're treating these prisoners - who are sworn enemies - far, far better than our soldiers would be treated if the positions were reversed.

I think we usually want to avoid taking our cues for correct prisoner treatment, from our sworn enemies.

If drowning someone under controlled conditions for the purpose of extracting information isn't torture, then the word's become devalued.

[Darth Wong]

You've gotta love the torture apologist bullshit logic of saying that torture method A is not really torture because torture method B is more gruesome. How the hell does that follow?

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I didn't get the impression that Count Chocula was saying that torture method A is not really torture but rather that torture method A is acceptable because torture method B is more gruesome and is used by the other side. And if that's the case, it's still a pretty terrible argument.

[weemadando]

"Torture is bad! They're being unlawfully held! They're really OK guys!"

In other news, 60 or more Released Guantánamo Bay detainees 'return to terrorism'. And what will they attempt to do, hmmm?

You know what? If I was abducted, held incommunicado and tortured for 2-3 years by ANY government/faction around the world and then released without them even saying "sorry", I would probably become a terrorist/violent opponent of that country too.

And lets not forget - a good many of the Guantanamo inmates have a) never been proven to have terrorist connections and b) have often proven to have been no more guilty than anyone else who was sold out for a bounty by a warlord getting buddy-buddy with US forces.

[weemadando]

You've gotta love the torture apologist bullshit logic of saying that torture method A is not really torture because torture method B is more gruesome. How the hell does that follow?

Because AMERICANS only use method A, they're too righteous and moral to stoop to using B.

[Count Chocula]

Darth Wong wrote:

The US executed Japanese officers after WW2 for waterboarding American POWs, asshole. It's torture.

I didn't know that.

Hmm. I've thought about it a bit more, and looked up a few definitions of torture. I stand corrected. Having said that, it seems to me that, discussion of the ethics of torture aside (I am happily not well versed in that area), we are doing everything possible to get information out of suspected terrorists without physically harming them. I personally wish those detainees weren't imprisoned in Cuba, and that US military officers were not torturing them for information.

I also wish that they or their fellows hadn't, oh, blown up a Pan Am airliner, bombed the World Trade Center, driven an explosives-laden truck into a Marine barracks in Beirut, ran planes into the Twin Towers, set off bombs in Indonesia, Spain, England and India, and on and on. While I don't like that we're torturing prisoners, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's getting us results - otherwise we would have stopped it.

[Kanastrous]

While I don't like that we're torturing prisoners, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's getting us results - otherwise we would have stopped it.

Your faith in the competence and morality of our leadership is heartwarming, but I think it may be slightly misplaced.

[Samuel]

I also wish that they or their fellows hadn't, oh, blown up a Pan Am airliner, bombed the World Trade Center, driven an explosives-laden truck into a Marine barracks in Beirut, ran planes into the Twin Towers, set off bombs in Indonesia, Spain, England and India, and on and on. While I don't like that we're torturing prisoners, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's getting us results - otherwise we would have stopped it.

First, we haven't proven they are "one of those fellows".

What makes you think that? Remember, they were torturing people at Abu-Grab, even though it didn't get results and was just for fun. We are talking about people who got their cues from 24, so having a low expectation isn't unreasonable.

[weemadando]

While I don't like that we're torturing prisoners, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's getting us results - otherwise we would have stopped it.

Your faith in the competence and morality of our leadership is heartwarming, but I think it may be slightly misplaced.

That's a lot more balanced and reasonable than what I was going to say.

[Ekiqa]

The US executed Japanese officers after WW2 for waterboarding American POWs, asshole. It's torture.

But they didn't execute the Japanese scientists who vivisected US airmen. Doug MacArthur personally released them, because by 1950, Japan was "our friend".

Back on topic, didn't Cheney recently admit to authorising war crimes?

[Rahvin]

I didn't know that.

Of course you didn't.

Hmm. I've thought about it a bit more, and looked up a few definitions of torture. I stand corrected. Having said that, it seems to me that, discussion of the ethics of torture aside (I am happily not well versed in that area), we are doing everything possible to get information out of suspected terrorists without physically harming them.

Controlled drowning does not involve physical harm? Exposure to cold temperatures does not constitute physical harm? Apparently by your definition if a lasting, permanent physical mark is not made, it's "okay." Do you have any idea what can be done to a human being to cause extreme physical and mental duress without ever leaving a lasting physical mark, and what damage it does to the victim?

Do you even understand what torture results in? I'm not only talking about physical "electroshock to the genitals" torture, but any kind of coercive interrogation technique. The victim (and despite what they may or may not have done in the past, now they are victims) will simply tell the interrogator what he believes the interrogator wants to hear. The victim will say anything to stop the torture. Does your simple mind not comprehend that any "confessions" would be highly suspect at best?

What information precisely are we "trying as hard as possible" to extract? The Guantanamo victims have been removed from any possible planning for so long that anything they may have known is likely wrong now. Even in a "ticking time bomb" scenario (a stupidly unlikely possibility), what stops the victim from pointing the US in the wrong direction under duress from torture until it's too late? What ensures that the victim actually knew anything int he first place?

What tells you that Prisoner 23 at Guantanamo wasn't a completely innocent bystander who was sold out by someone else, or a combatant who was only trying to defend his home against invasion and had no ties to organized terrorism? How can you possibly justify torture of individuals who have never even been tried in a court of law? If Prisoner 23 "confesses," how do you know he's not lying just to make the torture stop?

I personally wish those detainees weren't imprisoned in Cuba, and that US military officers were not torturing them for information.

Then why try to justify American torture with examples of worse torture? We may not use teh Rack or the Iron Maiden, but that doesn't make our techniques any better. That murder is worse than assault doesn't make assault any less a crime.

I also wish that they or their fellows hadn't, oh, blown up a Pan Am airliner, bombed the World Trade Center, driven an explosives-laden truck into a Marine barracks in Beirut, ran planes into the Twin Towers, set off bombs in Indonesia, Spain, England and India, and on and on. While I don't like that we're torturing prisoners, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's getting us results - otherwise we would have stopped it.

...or perhaps now that we have tortured them, they cannot be tried in any US court because everything gleaned under duress is inadmissible, and so the incompetent administration simply left them there to rot?

If it's not "working" well enough to be able to try them in court and convict them fairly under the law, then it's not working. You don't get to suspend rule of law just because you're really scared, or your enemy has less ethical laws.

[Elfdart]

I didn't know that.

Then you are one dumb twat.

LINK

The US also prosecuted its own soldiers for water torture in the Philippines and Vietnam. We also convicted a sheriff in Texas for using it. It's been illegal for over a hundred years.

Hmm. I've thought about it a bit more, and looked up a few definitions of torture. I stand corrected. Having said that, it seems to me that, discussion of the ethics of torture aside (I am happily not well versed in that area), we are doing everything possible to get information out of suspected terrorists without physically harming them. I personally wish those detainees weren't imprisoned in Cuba, and that US military officers were not torturing them for information.

Forcing water into a person's lungs DOES physical harm, fucktard.

I also wish that they or their fellows hadn't, oh, blown up a Pan Am airliner, bombed the World Trade Center, driven an explosives-laden truck into a Marine barracks in Beirut, ran planes into the Twin Towers, set off bombs in Indonesia, Spain, England and India, and on and on. While I don't like that we're torturing prisoners, it seems reasonable to conclude that it's getting us results - otherwise we would have stopped it.

What evidence is there that ANY of the people who have been tortured and murdered in US custody had anything to do with those attacks? By evidence I mean information that was not the result of torture.

[Kanastrous]

What evidence is there that ANY of the people who have been tortured and murdered in US custody had anything to do with those attacks? By evidence I mean information that was not the result of torture.

There's evidence that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshib were involved, obtained before their relegation to Guantanamo.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Coercion is probably one of the least effective ways of getting the right answers but it's probably one of the most effective ways of getting false confessions. In fact, even psychological stress produced in a police interrogation is sometimes enough to produce false confessions from people. But of course, most police departments continue the practice of harassing their suspects because it leads to higher conviction rates and it makes them look tough, which is what I guess the Bush administration have been aiming for.

[Rahvin]

Coercion is probably one of the least effective ways of getting the right answers but it's probably one of the most effective ways of getting false confessions. In fact, even psychological stress produced in a police interrogation is sometimes enough to produce false confessions from people. But of course, most police departments continue the practice of harassing their suspects because it leads to higher conviction rates and it makes them look tough, which is what I guess the Bush administration have been aiming for.

It's all part of the "If you are not guilty, comrade, then why have you been accused?" mentality. Suspects in a crime are presumed to be guilty and to deserve any amount of harsh treatment to extract a confession or other information that will lead to a conviction. meanwhile, we pretend that "innocent until proven guilty" is the basis of our legal system. Strange how most people only seem to presume innocence when they sympathize with the accused, and are so quick to assume that terrorism or <insert crime involving children here> suspects must be guilty even before a fair trial. After all, we have to show how tough we are on those sorts of crimes, right Internet Tough Guys?

[Stark]

"Torture is bad! They're being unlawfully held! They're really OK guys!"

In other news, 60 or more Released Guantánamo Bay detainees 'return to terrorism'. And what will they attempt to do, hmmm?

You're a fucking moron and disgust me personally. I hear that if x number of detainees are actual terrorists (something nobody has ever disputed to my knowledge) then all the people they hold FOR YEARS without trial AND THEN RELEASE BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT NOTHING are also terrorists/deserve it/contribute to US security.

I just want someone to tell me how this is all 'realpolitik' so we can all talk about how a nation really doing what was best would have manipulated their allies into choosing to do this shit on their behalf and providing the intelligence instead of destroying their moral high horse themselves.

It actually sickens me how pathetic his absurd rationalisation for how torture is bad but really okay is. Oh, it doesn't leave marks! Oh it doesn't actually hurt them! Sure we're torturing people we haven't bothered to convict of a crime, but... but... some other guys did something I don't like!

[K. A. Pital]

How about broken bones or permanent scarring? Nope. Cigarette burns to the forehead?

Just as I said, the torturer, to cover up his deeds, would seek to find a method of torture that minimizes external visibility and causes not much damage, but a whole load of pain. That would be seen as most effective (hence, widespread use of sleep deprivation).

I am amused there are people who actually dare to rationalize this line of behaviour - making torture less gruesome on the outside is making it more acceptable!

If anything, they should be afraid of speaking such things. Making torture easier to conceal, gasp, makes it more appealing for the people who want to use it but fear they will get caught and punished for torture. Non-damaging forms of torture are maybe even more evil, since they could be forced around to have some sort of "discussion" whether it's "torture" or just kiddie games!