The Wages of Torture and their Repercussions

john garrett

Iraq can be considered a blunder?
A million dead Iraqi's three million displaced by a war that was declared illegal by the UN secretary general a blunder?

Deegee

ALex - i feel that it is people like you with big tolerant smiles and very short memories that are the reason we are in this mess! actions taken 'months' after a tragic, deliberate attack are unreasonable you think? better to scrap the blood off the side walk and live and and let live?
someone who can be so blase about terror and loss ha obviosuly been fortunate enough to have been spared direct contact. i wonder how you'd feel if you'd lost all your loved ones??

porkbelly

Surely the discomfort of a few bearded psychopaths was a small price to pay for the complete absence of attacks on U.S. soil since 9/11? Or are we supposed to imagine they are unconnected? Spain has long been attempting to ingratiate itself with the Caliphate; perhaps it hopes this latest stunt will forestall any more train bombs. Disgusting.

john

No mention of Bush and Blair being tried for war crimes?
The ICC prosecutor Ocampo when asked on ALjAZEERA why no Western leaders were charged with war crimes replied, where is the evidence?

elixelx

Baltasar Monzon is a coward who dares to distract the Media from his own local problems like his undeclared income and non-payment of taxes on $250,000 earned in 3 months, in the USA, DURING THE BUSH PRESIDENCY, from an unknown endowment at a small University, otherwise called "SOROS"....
The fact that he hadn't the pelotas to do this while in the USA, while Bush was POTUS, while Cheney still had a say with the CIA, while it would have been a courageous act rather than just a sit-up-and-beg response to his master's whistle, all this will tell you what Baltasar Monzon can do with his toilet-paper indictment....!
But we're gonna defecate on it first....!!

elixelx

Oh! and by the way, Thank you George and Tony for helping expose this charlatan (from the Spanish verb "charlar", meaning "to blabber")to the public scrutiny and ridicule he so richly deserves---and for exposing 50 million people to "the sweetness of Democracy"...

elixelx

Baltasar Monzon is a coward who dares to distract the Media from his own local problems like his undeclared income and non-payment of taxes on $250,000 earned in 3 months, in the USA, DURING THE BUSH PRESIDENCY, from an unknown endowment at a small University, otherwise called "SOROS"....
The fact that he hadn't the pelotas to do this while in the USA, while Bush was POTUS, while Cheney still had a say with the CIA, while it would have been a courageous act rather than just a sit-up-and-beg response to his master's whistle, all this will tell you what Baltasar Monzon can do with his toilet-paper indictment....!
But we're gonna defecate on it first....!!

cuffleyburgers

Alex

I'm with you on this, I was in favour of the Iraq war at first and watchd wih horror the blunders committed by the occupying forces, and Guantanamo was never right. If it had been limited to a holding operation for a few months, then fair enough, but to hold people there for yers witout trial and without prospect of legal process - it's obvious that that is to undermine the whole point of what the fighting was about.

elixelx

Bush, Cheney, Bush officials, Petraeus, Ariel Sharon (even if he is in a coma!) Olmert, Livni, Halutz, the Knesset, BUT NOT, repeat NOT, Nasrallah, Haniyeh, Hamas, Hezbollah, Omar al Bashir, Chinese or Burmese Generals.....These are and aren't war criminals according to Baltazar, "El Mono", Monzon!
"To dance beneath a diamond sky with one hand waving free..." and without music, partners or reason....
There you go Alex; a chance to dance with a crazy partner on your hour out of the asylum!
And to think that someone actually pays you to BRING IN this garbage! Tsk! Tsk!

Ronnie

Wrong again Porkbelly.

If we are fighting a war, against terrorist nutters, to defend and uphold our values then we must also uphold them during that war. If not we ultimately lose it and become like them.

This includes the rule of law, which in iteslf defines us as truly 'Western', and our adherence to international treaties, without which few allies will join us.

Things were done Cheney's way, a truly devisive figure.

Alf Tupper

You and the Spanish deserve each other Dr Massie.

Good kids in harbour.

It's a war, and it's being fought because people want to kill us and our way of life - just as true now as it was when - and before - the towers fell.

Ken Bigley had his gurgling head taken away and we prattle about the evils of waterboarding followed by coffee.

Ronnie

Alf Tupper, you want to start beheading people?

Alf Tupper

Ronnie.

Does it sound that way? No. Honestly I don't. What I said has to be put through some severe mangling to be read as such.

MattF

I think it's quite appropriate for investigation and prosecution to be outsourced to the Spanish in this case-- after all, the crimes were often outsourced as well...

And there's a more serious argument-- The phrase "crimes against humanity" isn't just a term of art, after all.

Fergus Pickering

Repercussions, my dear fellow. The root word is percussion, don't you know?

Olaf Rye

It is amazing that a conflict becomes 'illegal' by dint of the UN Security Council not being unanimously in favour of the action. If this is indeed the law, then it is ridiculous: the partisan interest of nations dominates the UN Security Council. Does this mean that the action against Serbia was illegal ? Or perhaps any other military action not sanctioned by the UN ?

I should also like to see anyone try to charge Bush and Blair, much less see them convicted. Speaking of international law and war crimes, why are not all the old Warsaw Pact leaders and apparatchniks arrested and charged, along with the Cuban leadership ? The left would never go along with that--the murders and disappearances in those nations were small sacrifices to be made for world socialism.

Ronnie

So what are you saying Alf Tupper? Try to be clear.

Olaf, I'm afraid it's pretty simple. Torture is torture and it is generally regarded as beneath the standards of behaviour that we set ourselves whether committed by Nazis, Japanese imperial forces, Serb irregulars, Colombian narco-terrorists, Contras in Central America trained by the CIA or Cheney's pals. Defend it if it suits your agenda but you just look stupid.

There is no reason why prosecutions cannot be brought against all the people you list. Just that no-one's done it, yet.

Olaf Rye

I did not mention torture--I was discussing the legality of the Iraq conflict. It is worth reflecting on torture, though, and what is thought to constitute this act. Indeed, sleep deprivation and the stress positions common to most soldiers in their exercises has been described as torture--if so, my escape and evasion courses were torture inflicted on us by the army ! The water-boarding would probably be torture, but as for many of the other allegations, I doubt many would agree that the discomfort and harassment is torture.

The legality of the detentions at Guantanomo should not be a matter of legal controversy either. These people are illegal combatants and as such they can be summarily executed without trial in accordance with the Geneva Convention. I think that there needs to be better evidence and the 'torture' needs to be defined clearly, not a term carelessly thrown about to describe interrogation methods that are not employed by the police.

ndm

The war in Iraq was a war of choice started by the US. It is now pretty clear the Bush Administration sanctioned torture and created a phony legal climate in which acts of torture were not only permitted but expected. These acts were a violation of both international humanitarian law and US law.

It seems that President Obama, just as were many Chilean Presidents, is unwilling to initiate a criminal investigation of the Torture Six. Hopefully, the actions of Baltasar Garzón Real will spur the Americans on just as his actions against Pinochet spurred on the Chileans.

Although many countries would claim universal jurisdiction over International Humanitarian Law the Spanish have been very careful to bring cases only when a Spanish citizen is directly involved. The British Justice system needs to learn the meaning of that great Spanish word "cojones."

Olaf Rye

The British judicial system scarcely has any 'cojones'--after all, they let killers out in less than ten years and think that community service sentences are appropriate for career criminals. Even when we see episodes of criminal torture at home, the courts and their mob of specialists in psychology and social work think it is perfectly reasonable to offer them counselling and claim that the perpetrators are victims of poverty or some other nonsense. The judicial system throughout the western world largely operates with the same misplaced tolerance, so it is quite remarkable that anyone involved in this flawed system has the audacity to worry about politicians abroad when they are so useless domestically. After all, no one has done anything about our delightful friend Mr. Mugabe or the Dear Leader.

ndm

-- The legality of the detentions at Guantanomo should not be a matter of legal controversy either. These people are illegal combatants and as such they can be summarily executed without trial in accordance with the Geneva Convention.

The precise status of the people interned in Guantanamo Bay has been the subject of legal controversy precisely because their status has never been clarified by a court of law. Indeed, the fact that many were released after years in detention pretty much proves that they were not the claimed "worst of the worst." They should certainly never have been put in a situation where the likes of Olaf can claim they could be "summarily executed."

Perhaps the United States should keep Guantanamo Bay open as a Federal Penitentiary so that anyone found guilty of torture by Spain can serve out their days in the splendour of an American jail.

Alf Tupper

Ronnie.

Your point is one that is frequently stated: that we risk debasing and thereby weakening ourselves if we employ the savagery of our opponents.

If we did then yes we would. But my argument is that there is a massive difference between the interrogation techniques used by Western forces, and the scripted, filmed and broadcast, medieval slaughter of prisoners. The motivation and intent of these acts, makes them qualitatively different.

In addition though, the term 'torture' should be used subject to degree. At one end is the hideousness that Ken Bigley and many more have been put through. Those detained by Western forces - some of them released and others who will one day go home alive and in one piece - should not be put in anything like the same category.

Olaf Rye

Did we ever have a court decide that illegal combatants in WW2 were, indeed, illegal combatants ? The decision was made in the field and attempting to insinuate a civilian court process into a military decision seem unusual. The military court has priority in such situations and the efficiency of this process has been underscored by the release of some suspects. This does not change the status of those at Guantanamo, as illegal combatants. I am therefore surprised that those most vociferously in favour of the Geneva Convention protocols conveniently forget the provisions for the lawful execution of illegal combatants and the fact that they have no legal status as prisoners of war and are not subject to criminal proceedings under a civilian court.

ndm

-- Did we ever have a court decide that illegal combatants in WW2 were, indeed, illegal combatants ? The decision was made in the field and attempting to insinuate a civilian court process into a military decision seem unusual.

Here is an extract of an Amnesty International report about a British resident who ended up in Guantanamo:

-- Bisher al-Rawi is an Iraqi national, all of his immediate family are UK nationals and he has lived in the UK for nearly 20 years. Jamil al-Banna is a Jordanian national who was given refugee status by the UK authorities. Both have legal residency in the UK. They and two others were arrested by the Gambian National Intelligence Agency on arrival at Banjul airport in Gambia on 8 November 2002, purportedly on suspicion of alleged links to al-Qa’ida. They had previously been held at Gatwick airport in the UK for questioning on suspicion of alleged terrorist links, but were released without charge. The four men had reportedly travelled to Gambia for business purposes. The two other men were released without charge in December 2002, but Bisher and Jamil remained in incommunicadodetention in Banjul for a further two months where they were questioned by US investigators. They were later transferred to Bagram airbase in Afghanistan and then on to Guantnamo.

Bisher al-Rawi was not detained "in the field" - he was detained at Banjul Airport in Gambia having just arrived there from Gatwick where he had been detained and released. It should be a national scandal that the British authorities detained a British resident at Gatwick only to release him to travel to another country where he could be rendered without legal recourse to Guantanamo Bay. It is pretty obvious that the British Authorities knew his likely fate when they released him and they should be held criminally accountable for their connivance in his rendition and internment.

I suspect there are many around Tony Blair who now regret their admirable support in the Spanish prosecution of Pinochet. Tony Blair can use the confessional as often as he likes but no amount of confession will ever erase the stigmata from his acquiescence and participation in the moral failures of the Bush Administration.

ndm

The "ICRC Report on the Treatment of Fourteen High-Value Detaineess in CIA Custody" stated:

-- The allegations of ill-treatment of the detainees indicate that, in many cases, the ill-treatment to which they were subjected while held in the CIA program, either singly or in combination, constituted torture. In addition, many other elements of the ill-treatment, either singly or in combination, constituted cruel inhuman or degrading treatment.

And that is just the ones who survived. We know, for example, that one individual was tortured to death in Abu Ghraib. The grunt photographed doing the thumbs up over his bloody corpse got 18 months while the individuals who tortured him to death got off Scot free. The individuals who created the legal climate in which he could be tortured to death and others subjected to torture continue to have positions at the pinnacle of the legal profession - be it a position on the 9th Circuit like Judge Bybee or a Professorship at UC Berkeley like John Yoo.

If Americans are to once again hold their heads high it is not sufficient to have a dazzling new President it is necessary to hold criminally accountable those who brought so much disgrace on the country.

Ronnie

Alf Tupper, all you need is a camera if you want to bridge the gap.

elixelx

Is there anything, but anything, about "TORCHER" that ndm doesn't know and love....?
AFAIC waterboarding id kids' play; Stress positions are Theatre Arts...
Loud Rap, OTOH, is really really heartless torture, but I don't hear ndm asking for the indictment of Puff Daddy or Eminem, and I'm not a nameless victim from Abu Ghraib (first I've heard of this!)
And, of course, cutting genitals off while the victim is still alive and then putting them in his mouth while hanging his still kicking and screaming body from a bridge to be whacked like a pinata--well, that's OK as long as we don't do it...or try to prevent it!
Oh, yes...and pulling 8-month-old babies from their mothers' wombs...

Olaf Rye

Well, here we have it again: 'inhuman and degrading treatment' as defined by Amnesty International.Being shouted at, ridiculed, put in stress positions and so forth are part and parcel of military interrogation techniques. This is not to defend the obscenity of the acts at Abu Ghraid, but I think that it must be recalled that the perpetrators were moronic grunts and not interrogators. This was, moreover, dealt with through the military courts.

The treatment at Guantanomo is rather different.I wonder if most people would accept that the techniques employed at Guantanomo are indeed torture--after all, Amnesty International is not the body to define whether this occurred or not. It is not sufficient for them to make assertions and not defend or justify their criteria for defining torture. One of the principal problems is that this is a matter that civilians attempt to pronounce on, and thus anything that does not comform to police interrogation protocols is regarded as torture. Loud music, sleep deprivation, disorientation, shouting, stress position, humiliation and ridicule are standard for any soldier that has undergone resistance to interrogation training. It is not torture--if these poor darlings feel offended by someone defacing the Koran, or being served pork, this is just too bad.

Alf Tupper

OK Ronnie, thanks for the illuminating exchange of ideas.

ndm

Not all victims are nameless.

Scott Horton of Harpers writes:

-- The Army’s Criminal Investigation Detachment studied the death of Manadel al-Jamadi (photo left), who died in Swanner’s custody, and concluded that he had been murdered. [Mark] Swanner, a long-time CIA officer, was fingered as the perpetrator, and the case was referred to the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for prosecution. That was 2004. So five years later, what has happened? Nothing happened.

Their respective Wikipedia pages provide photos of Spc. Charles Graner and Spc. Sabrina Harmon giving the thumbs-up over the tortured body of Manadel al-Jamadi. Graner got a ten-year sentence and Harmon got a 6-month sentence. The people who created the legal environment authorizing his torture and those who tortured al-Jamadi to death remain unpunished.

ndm

Scott Horton, of Harpers magazine, writes:

-- The Army's Criminal Investigation Detachment studied the death of Manadel al-Jamadi (photo left), who died in Swanner’s custody, and concluded that he had been murdered. [Mark] Swanner, a long-time CIA officer, was fingered as the perpetrator, and the case was referred to the U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia for prosecution. That was 2004. So five years later, what has happened? Nothing happened.

Their respective Wikipedia pages provide photos of Spc. Charles Graner and Spc. Sabrina Harmon giving the thumbs-up over the tortured body of Manadel al-Jamadi. Graner got a ten-year sentence and Harmon got a 6-month sentence. The people who created the legal environment authorizing his torture and those who tortured al-Jamadi to death remain unpunished.

THX1138

It wasn't a scoop from The Beast it came from the New Yorker a day earlier.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2009/04/13/090413ta_talk_mayer

President D

"Did we ever have a court decide that illegal combatants in WW2 were, indeed, illegal combatants?"

Yes, we did ndm, and if you had even the foggiest idea of what you're talking about you would know.

The US Supreme Court (who is the highest authority regarding illegal combatants held by the US in WW2 said in Ex Parte Quirin, that the President of the US and the military commissions he appointed had the authority to determine that question.

And don't you have to laugh at those clowns at The Daily Beast?

Spain isn't going forward with these prosecutions Scott Horton had it completely, absolutely, 100% wrong.

Ha ha ha!

ndm

-- "Did we ever have a court decide that illegal combatants in WW2 were, indeed, illegal combatants?"
-- Yes, we did ndm, and if you had even the foggiest idea of what you're talking about you would know.

And if President D had even the foggiest idea of how to read he would have known I did not ask the question.