Vyan

Showing posts with label Gitmo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Gitmo. Show all posts

Monday, January 18

Gitmo Torture/Murder Coverup Continues on Obama/Holder's Watch

Last Night was the Season Premier of "24" - Before the second commercial break Retired CTU Agent Jack Bauer had already put a gun to someone's throat, shouting "Tell Me Everything You Know!" into his face.

This he did when the person was voluntarily coming to give him information in the first place.



If the mendacity of such a scenario has become somewhat blase after 8 years of struggle with international terrorism, the following real life story as Reported by Harper's of the systematic cover-up of the death of three Gitmo Detainee's who may very well have been tortured to death in 2006 should send a chill down your spine.

Were these the murders that Jack Wrought?

Today is MLK Day. A single day dedicated to a man who helped raise the nations awareness to a system of brutality and injustice that had plagued this nation from it's inception. A system that may indeed continue today in new forms and new shapes.

In the many years since 9-11 we've been told repeatedly that we needed to "Re-Write" the old rules. To take the battle to the enemy and to work - sometimes - "On the Dark Side".

The question is "Re-Write them into what?" - and using who or what as a guidepost?

U.S. Soldiers have openly admitted that once the Army Field Manual and Geneva Conventions were official thrown out (by Bush and Rumsfeld in 2002), those in the field began to make up their own rules. And one of the places they did turn to- were television actions stars like Jack Bauer.

From Thinkprogress in 2007.

The television show 24 has become a foreign policy guide for the right wing. Numerous conservative pundits have cited 24 as a sanction for harsh interrogation practices. In September, Laura Ingraham stated, "The average American out there loves the show 24. ... In my mind that’s close to a national referendum that it’s OK to use tough tactics against high-level Al Qaeda operatives as we’re going to get."

Brigadier General Patrick Finnegan recently told the 24 producers that he was concerned that the show’s promotion of illegal torture "was having a damaging effect on young troops."



In an interview with Newsweek, former U.S. Army specialist Tony Lagouranis, who left the military with an honorable discharge in 2005, confirms Finnegans fears — that U.S. soldiers did take cues from 24 to torture prisoners:

Interrogators didn’t have guidance from the military on what to do because we were told that the Geneva Conventions didn’t apply any more. So our training was obsolete, and we were encouraged to be creative. We turned to television and movies to look for ways of interrogating. I can say that I saw that with myself, also. I would adopt the posture of the television or movie interrogator, thinking that establishing that simple power arrangement, establishing absolute power over the detainee, would force him to break. ...

[We adopted mock] executions and mock electrocution, stress positions, isolation, hypothermia. Threatening to execute family members or rape detainees’ wives and things like that.



I'm not normally one to look at Art as an explanation for the actions of people in the Real World. Far From it. But this may be one case where Tough Guy Revenge Fantasy of the Right-Wing Baeur-ites may have run smack face-first into Hard Reality resulting in a trio of War Crimes.

The Official Story is that 32-year-old Salah Ahmed Al-Salami from Yemen, 30-year-old Mani Shaman Al-Utaybi from Saudi Arabia and 22-year-old Yasser Talal Al-Zahrani also from Saudi Arabia, all committed suicide. Simultaneously, in three different, non-adjacent cells, using the exact same method - three men tied their own hands (one of whom had their feet tied), stuffed rags down their own throats, tied nooses made of bed sheets and t-shirts around their own necks, perched themselves on the sink in the cells and lept to their deaths.

Faculty and Students from SETON HALL in New Jersey analysed the Official NCIS Report, which was released two years after the incident, and their findings were that the a story told by the Report is frankly not possible to believe. Supposedly the detainees weren't found until at least two hours later, long enough for Rigor-mortis to set in, yet their cells are supposed to be checked by Guards every ten-minutes. They somehow managed to use sheets to block the view into their cells, and also bunch them up to make it appear as if they were in bed sleeping - how exactly they acquired this many extra sheets is not explained - yet, no guards were disciplined for failing to check on them or failing to notice they have managed to completely barricade themselves.

The Commander of the Camp at the time, then Rear Admiral Harry Harris claimed that the suicides were actually an attack on the Camp.

“I believe this was not an act of desperation,” he said, “but an act of asymmetrical warfare waged against us.”


But the Official Story has begun to break down as four former Army Intelligence non-commissioned Officers who were present during the events of June 9th, 2006 - yet NCIS Investigator never talked to them, and their commanding Officers order to remain silent - have now come forward to e interviewed by Harpers.

They describe a completely difference scenario, where the three prisoners in question had been removed from the primary base and taken to a second secret location - which they nicknamed "Camp No" - out the outskirts of the base.



"Camp No" isn't supposed to exist. It's a small bunker without a guard tower, protected by concertina wire - which is serviced by a White Van (Called the "Paddy Wagon") which moves one prisoner at a time in and out. All visitors and movement on the base is supposed to be documented and logged - all movement that is except for movements made by the "Paddy Wagon". On the Night in question Sgt. Joe Hickman of the Army Reserves, who in civilian life has worked as a private investigator, observed the Paddy Wagon moving between Alpha Block and Camp No making at least three trips - then returning once more and backing up to the medical facility, just before all hell broke lose.

Another thirty minutes passed. Then, as Hickman and [Army Specialist Christopher] Penvose both recall, Camp Delta suddenly “lit up”—stadium-style flood lights were turned on, and the camp became the scene of frenzied activity, filling with personnel in and out of uniform. Hickman headed to the clinic, which appeared to be the center of activity, to learn the reason for the commotion. He asked a distraught medical corpsman what had happened. She said three dead prisoners had been delivered to the clinic. Hickman recalled her saying that they had died because they had rags stuffed down their throats, and that one of them was severely bruised. {Specialist Tony] Davila told me he spoke to Navy guards who said the men had died as the result of having rags stuffed down their throats.


The story of having rags stuff down their throats is one that is highly similar to the story told by another detainee who went through similar treatment that same night - a 42-year-old Saudi Arab name Shaker Aamer in Federal Court filings supplied by his attorney.

On June 9th, 2006, [Aamer] was beaten for two and a half hours straight. Seven naval military police participated in his beating. Mr. Aamer stated he had refused to provide a retina scan and fingerprints. He reported to me that he was strapped to a chair, fully restrained at the head, arms and legs. The MPs inflicted so much pain, Mr. Aamer said he thought he was going to die. The MPs pressed on pressure points all over his body: his temples, just under his jawline, in the hollow beneath his ears. They choked him. They bent his nose repeatedly so hard to the side he thought it would break. They pinched his thighs and feet constantly. They gouged his eyes. They held his eyes open and shined a mag-lite in them for minutes on end, generating intense heat. They bent his fingers until he screamed. When he screamed, they cut off his airway, then put a mask on him so he could not cry out.


A Mask to cover their face, and also prevent removal of the rag down their throat wss found on two of the deceased detainees - but went unremarked on by NCIS.

Despite the fact that those on the base were initially told that detainees died as a result of "rags being stuff in their mouths" - they were told the following day by Colonel Bumgardner (a Subordinate of Adm. Harris) that reporters were being told they "died by hanging" and that they should not note the contradiction if asked, and that also - their communications to their wives and family were being monitored.

In addition to keeping the soldiers on the base quiet, the NCIS investigators were kept on a short leash as well.

The investigators conducted interviews with guards, medics, prisoners, and officers. As the Seton Hall researchers note, however, nothing in the NCIS report suggests that the investigators secured or reviewed the duty roster, the prisoner-transfer book, the pass-on book, the records of phone and radio communications, or footage from the camera that continuously monitored activity in the hallways, all of which could have helped them authoritatively re-construct the events of that evening.


Footage of the hallways would have confirmed - or refuted - the suggestion put forth by Sgt Hickman that these men were most likely not even in their cells at the time of their supposed suicides.

On top of all this there is also the strong likeyhood that Yassar, the youngest of the three was completely innocent.

When I asked Talal Al-Zahrani what he thought had happened to his son, he was direct. “They snatched my seventeen-year-old son for a bounty payment,” he said. “They took him to Guantánamo and held him prisoner for five years. They tortured him. Then they killed him and returned him to me in a box, cut up.”

Al-Zahrani was a brigadier general in the Saudi police. He dismissed the Pentagon’s claims, as well as the investigation that supported them. Yasser, he said, was a young man who loved to play soccer and didn’t care for politics. The Pentagon claimed that Yasser’s frontline battle experience came from his having been a cook in a Taliban camp. Al-Zahrani said that this was preposterous: “A cook? Yasser couldn’t even make a sandwich!”


In fact, Yasser had already been determined to be no threat and was scheduled to be released.

If Sgt. Hickman's story is to be believed, these men were tortured to death. Exactly what information was supposed to be gained by this treatment of these men continues to remain shrouded in mystery, other than just to intimidate them or compel false confessions. The Obama Justice Department appears to be closing this investigation on the matter leaving the Official NCIS Report as it stands, even after recently interviewing Sgt. Hickman and Specialists Davila and Penvose.

“the gist of Sergeant Hickman’s information could not be confirmed.”


So Justice for these three men, or at least a better accounting of the record, remains denied behind a wall of secrecy, lies, threats and high security - all in the name of the "War On Terror".

Vyan

Tuesday, June 16

GITMO Docs show Torture = I Make Up Stories

Rachel Discusses Most recent Document Dump from the CIA/Gitmo Files.


Dick Cheney:

I think, for example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was the number three man in al Qaeda, the man who planned the attacks of 9/11, provided us with a wealth of information.


Truth according to the latest set of released documents:

I make up stories,” Mohammed said, describing in broken English an interrogation probably administered by the CIA that concerned the location of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

“Where is he? I don’t know. Then he torture me,” Mohammed said. “Then I said, ‘Yes, he is in this area.’”


How do we know KSM lied while under torture? Where's Bin Laden Now?

You know who also lied? Dick Cheney and George W Bush.



FBI Interrogator Ali Soufan has repeatedly stated, under oath before Congress and in his Op Ed that harsh tactics did NOT produce actionable intelligence from these suspects. Now we see that the suspects themselves back up Soufan, not Cheney.

It is inaccurate, however, to say that Abu Zubaydah had been uncooperative. Along with another F.B.I. agent, and with several C.I.A. officers present, I questioned him from March to June 2002, before the harsh techniques were introduced later in August. Under traditional interrogation methods, he provided us with important actionable intelligence.


Yet once the torture started, Zubaydah stopped talking to us.

Document released last week from the CSRT (Combat Status Review Tribunals) from GITMO also show that even on the number of persons tortured, Bush and Cheney have it wrong. It wasn't just KSM, Zubaydah and Al Nashiri, it was others as well.

Abu Zubaydah: "After months of suffering and torture, physically and mentally, they did not care about my injuries that they inflicted to my eye, to my stomach, to my bladder, and my left thigh and my reproductive organs. They didn't care that I almost died from these injuries. Doctors told me that I nearly died four times." "They say ‘this in your diary.' They say ‘see you want to make operation against America.' I say no, the idea is different. They say no, torturing, torturing. I say ‘okay, I do. I was decide to make operation.'"

• Al Nashiri: "[And, they used to] drown me in water."

• Muhammad: "This is what I understand he [CIA interrogator] told me: you are not American and you are not on American soil. So you cannot ask about the Constitution."

• Khan: "In the end, any classified information you have is through…agencies who physically and mentally tortured me."



They even admitted to Zubaydah that they knew he wasn't a high-ranking member of Al Qaeda, they knew he wasn't even a combatant yet they kept torturing him anyway.

"They told me sorry we discover that you are not number three, not a partner even not a fighter," Zubaydah said during is tribunal hearing.


Next Up, how will Liz Cheney spin this?

Vyan

Wednesday, June 10

O'Reilly Equates Illegal Torture with Legal Abortion



In this clip Bill O'Reilly seriously attempts to make the argument that the only torture that ever took place under George Bush was the Waterboarding of KSM, al Nishiri and Zubaidah. He chooses to ignore that report from the International Red Cross which shows that nearly everything they did to those men held in both the Black Sites, GITMO, Bagram AFB and Abu Ghraib was either cruelty or torture, not just what was done to those three. FBI Agent Soufan? and the CIA Inspector General's report have both debunked the claim that we found "valuable information" using these techniques, and that these actions were ILLEGAL (as Juan Williams eventually points out) to which O'Reilly says...

Billo: You can dance "the law" dance - all day long. Laws are passed by people and they can be changed.

Juan: Torture is Illegal

Billo: You're hiding behind semantics and meaning Juan rather than getting to the crux of the matter, the Attorney General ruled that Waterboarding was legal


Let just remind Bill that the Attorney General, is not A JUDGE and can't "RULE" on anything. Not to mention the fact that the memo which were issued to authorized various enhanced techniques were vigorously opposed by attornys in the State Dept and NSA, and were eventually all rescinded - while the authors of those memos are facing potentially disbarment.

Bill then goes on condemn George Tiller for his medical practice, which as Juan points out repeatedly, was completely within Kansas Law. There had been a trial of Dr. Tiller which ended in March, but unfortunately for O'Reilly rhetoric he was aquitted.

Kansas law prohibits aborting viable fetuses, which is generally midway through the second trimester, unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function."[28] Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly "independent" as required by Kansas state law.


O'Reilly claims that Tiller would perform abortions for "any reason", but that simply isn't true.

On the issue of the Recruitment Office Shooting and the Killing of Private Long, I agree that this issue has not been addressed or talked about nearly enough - but I don't think the reason is bias in the media against addressing Muslim Terrorism. I think the issue is simply that NO ONE IS ARGUING IN FAVOR OF THIS SHOOTING and making excuses for it the way that they are for the Killing of Dr. Tiller. Even in his own segment O'Reilly spend much more time arguing with Juan over Dr. Tiller and Gitmo than talking about Private Long, because there's no Controversy over that subject.

There's just a tragedy.

Vyan

Monday, June 8

Interview with Innocent Former Gitmo Detainee



Released by order of a Federal Judge last November, Lakhdar Boumediene, whose case went all the way to the Supreme Court and re-established Habeas Protection for Foreign Combatants was interviewed by ABC after seven years of unlawful and unjustified detainee at GITMO.

Vyan

Saturday, May 30

Petraeus Stands Tall against Torture - On FOX!

Via Thinkprogress.



In his support of Obama's order to close the Dentention Center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba

PETRAEUS: Gitmo has caused us problems, there’s no question about it. I oversee a region in which the existence of Gitmo has indeed been used by the enemy against us. We have not been without missteps or mistakes in our activities since 9/11. And again, Gitmo is a lingering reminder for the use of some in that regard.



Petraeus knocks down one by one all of the arguments by the Hair-On-Fire crowd that we'll have "Terrorist on our Streets" if not for Good Ole' Gitmo.

He also clearly acknowledges that the U.S. did violate Geneva, and hence did commit War Crimes.

PETRAEUS: What I would ask is, does that not take away from our enemies a tool, which again they have beaten us around the head and shoulders in the court of public opinion? When we have taken steps that have violated the Geneva Convention, we rightly have been criticized. And so as we move forward, I think it is important to again live our values to live the agreements that we have made in the international justice arena and to practice those.

Fox News-Model:What about the concern that because of some of the treatment of (some) detainees, if tried in U.S. courts, they could go free?

PETRAEUS: I don't think we should be afraid to Live our Values - it's what we're fighting for.


The importance of this perspective can't be understated, particularly with the corroborating arguments from General Taguba, who personally investigated Abu Ghraib.

Maj. Gen Taguba saw the horrors first hand during his Abu Ghraib investigation and he believes the Bush administration is guilty of war crimes.

In a preface to a report by Physicians for Human Rights on prisoner abuse and torture in U.S. military prisons Taguba wrote: "There is no longer any doubt that the current administration committed war crimes. The only question is whether those who ordered torture will be held to account."


With both of these Military commanders, the top commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Chief investigator into the biggest military Scandal in a generation both clearly stat Geneva was violated and War Crimes Committed the ability to avoid a full-on War Crimes inquiry becomes more difficult and the likelihood of a conviction considering witnesses of this calibre - grows exponentially.


Vyan

Tuesday, May 26

Gen David Petraeus : Close Gitmo, Torture is Wrong



Pretty simple, pretty straight forward - GITMO gives our enemies and easy way to recruit and so does Torture.

Vyan

Sunday, May 24

Obama's Right: A Preventive Detainee is simply a P.O.W.



Quite a bit of negative commentary, particular from attorney's such as Jesselyn Raddack and Glenn Greenwald has come down in stomp-footed opposition to Obama's plan to implement "Preventative Detention", meanwhile those on the Right continue to pull their hair out over the idea of "Terrorists released on American streets".

Both positions may in fact be an extreme over-reaction, while Obama's own Solomon-like path of splitting the difference may actually be our nation's only real choice under Geneva, the Constitution and the Law.

First we have to recall where have previously been to better understand where Obama is going. Under President Bush, the protections of Geneva were blatantly rejected by executive fiat. This meant that the tenets of the Army Field Manual, which were based on Geneva were undermined and our troops left without a coherent detention strategy leading to widespread abuses at Bagram A.F.B. and throughout Iraq. Eventually The U.S. established a set of secret detention centers specifically intended to avoid the Geneva mandate of oversight by the International Red Cross, where a program of coercion and torture was implemented to get the answers the Administration wanted, particularly concerning links between Saddam Hussein and 9-11.

In 2006 the Supreme Court overruled Bush's claim that Geneva did not apply with the Hamdan v Rumsfeld decision which meant that all of the previous actions of the Administration at the CIA Black Sites and elsewhere could now fall under 18 USC 2441 for War Crimes prosecution. Bush responded by closing the illegal Black Sites and moving their detainees to GITMO, then quickly pushing through the Military Commissions Act which revoked the protections of habeas corpus for "Alien Enemy Combatants", allowed the use of coerced and self-incriminating testimony (gained via torture), and via "hearsay" in a new Military Commission Trial System.

In 2008 the Supreme Court just as they has previously restored Geneva protections, restored Habeas Corpus to detainees and invalidated Section 7 of the Military Commissions Act with the Boumedian v Bush decision. It held in restoring habeas that...

“to hold that the political branches may switch the constitution on or off at will would lead to a regime in which they, not this court, 'say what the law is'.


So unlike what was claimed by Bush, Obama finds himself in a landscape that must abide not only by the Constitution and Geneva but also Habeas for all detainees.
least of all indefinitely without the option of Habeas Review by a court.

In light of these realities Obama outlined five possible options for the disposition of current GITMO detainees.

1. Transfer to U.S. Civilian Courts for Trial.

This option in the past has led to the successful prosecution and incarceration of Ramzi Yusef (The Original WTC Bomber), the "Blink Sheik", Zacarias Moussaoui (The "20th" Hijaker"), Timothy McVeigh, Eric Rudolph (The Olympic Park Bomber), and Ted Kasczinki (the Unibomber) all of whom are being currently held at the Florence Supermax Correctional Facility in Colorado.

No One Has Ever Escaped from a Supermax.

On April 30, 2009 Ali Saleh Kahlah al-Marri, who had been held for the previous six years at the Naval Brig in Charleston without charge, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy and terrorism after being transferred by the Obama Administration into the civilian courts and is now being held at the Federal Facility at Pekin, Illinois awaiting sentencing.

The Obama administration plans to follow this trend by bringing charges against another al Qaeda suspect for the 1998 East Africa bombings which killer over 200 Americans.

Despite all the frenzied chest beating, this option has worked fine. America has the best prison system in the world, and is already holding al Qeada inmates - adding another hundred or so is not going to end civilization as we know it.

2. Try Suspects as War Criminals in Military Court

Unlike those who may have committed crimes against Civilians and Non-Combatants, it seems perfectly appropriate to try those who have perpetrated crimes against our troops on the battle field, or civilians in a war zone. Some may say that "there are no Rules in War" however the fact is there have been very clear and definite rules since the Ratification of Geneva in 1949. Under Geneva these would include...

"violations of the laws or customs of war"; including but not limited to "murder, the ill-treatment or deportation of civilian residents of an occupied territory to slave labor camps", "the murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war", the killing of hostages, "the wanton destruction of cities, towns and villages, and any devastation not justified by military, or civilian necessity".


A Courts Martial of Military Criminals is entirely appropriate if the circumstances warrant, and as Obama has noted the previous flaws from the Bush Military Commission System will not - and frankly CAN NOT vis SCOTUS - be included.

The second category of cases involves detainees who violate the laws of war and are therefore best tried through military commissions. Military commissions have a history in the United States dating back to George Washington and the Revolutionary War. They are an appropriate venue for trying detainees for violations of the laws of war. They allow for the protection of sensitive sources and methods of intelligence-gathering; they allow for the safety and security of participants; and for the presentation of evidence gathered from the battlefield that cannot always be effectively presented in federal courts.

Now, some have suggested that this represents a reversal on my part. They should look at the record. In 2006, I did strongly oppose legislation proposed by the Bush administration and passed by the Congress because it failed to establish a legitimate legal framework, with the kind of meaningful due process rights for the accused that could stand up on appeal.

I said at that time, however, that I supported the use of military commissions to try detainees, provided there were several reforms, and in fact there were some bipartisan efforts to achieve those reforms. Those are the reforms that we are now making. Instead of using the flawed commissions of the last seven years, my administration is bringing our commissions in line with the rule of law. We will no longer permit the use of evidence -- as evidence statements that have been obtained using cruel, inhuman, or degrading interrogation methods. We will no longer place the burden to prove that hearsay is unreliable on the opponent of the hearsay. And we will give detainees greater latitude in selecting their own counsel, and more protections if they refuse to testify.

3. Detainees who have been ordered to be released by the Courts

Amazingly some on the right would argue that the Adminstration ignore a Court Order to release a detainee against whom the evidence is insufficient. Obama has rejected that view.

Now, let me repeat what I said earlier: This has nothing to do with my decision to close Guantanamo. It has to do with the rule of law. The courts have spoken. They have found that there's no legitimate reason to hold 21 of the people currently held at Guantanamo. Nineteen of these findings took place before I was sworn into office. I cannot ignore these rulings because as President, I too am bound by the law. The United States is a nation of laws and so we must abide by these rulings.


Whether GITMO stays open or not, these 21 people must legally be released - the problem for some of them however is "to where"? A problem which still plagues the Uighurs, Chinese Muslims who would most likely face persecution if released to that nation but like Boumedienne - a Serbian who was ultimately released to France - an alternative arrangement may eventually be made available. Which leads to the next category.

4. Transferral of Detainees to other Jursidictions.

The fourth category of cases involves detainees who we have determined can be transferred safely to another country. So far, our review team has approved 50 detainees for transfer. And my administration is in ongoing discussions with a number of other countries about the transfer of detainees to their soil for detention and rehabilitation.

This isn't setting them free, Bush did this with numerous detainees such as Ibn Shayhk al-Libi who was transferred to Egypt and eventually to Libya. He also rendered innocent persons such as Abu Omar and Maher Arar who was transferred to Syria. The difficulty here is that both Omar and Arar were completely innocent and actually apprehended by mistake - and all three individuals were tortured in those countries. Like the case of the Uighurs simply shipping people off to other countries without careful thought or planning could prove disastrous, but extradition is an option that should clearly be pursued and could be successful with careful planning.

And then there is the most controversial category.

5. Detainees who can not be prosecuted, but remain AT WAR with the United States


Now, finally, there remains the question of detainees at Guantanamo who cannot be prosecuted yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here -- this is the toughest single issue that we will face. We're going to exhaust every avenue that we have to prosecute those at Guantanamo who pose a danger to our country. But even when this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who've received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States.


In the most simple terms, these people are Prisoners of War and can potentially be held "until hostilities cease". The controversy here is that this is war the in some ways can not be either one or lost, ever. As Glenn Greenwald argues...

When Bush supporters used to justify Bush/Cheney detention policies by arguing that it's normal for "Prisoners of War" to be held without trials, that argument was deeply misleading. And it's no less misleading when made now by Obama supporters. That comparison is patently inappropriate for two reasons: (a) the circumstances of the apprehension, and (b) the fact that, by all accounts, this "war" will not be over for decades, if ever, which means -- unlike for traditional POWs, who are released once the war is over -- these prisoners are going to be in a cage not for a few years, but for decades, if not life.

Traditional "POWs" are ones picked up during an actual military battle, on a real battlefield, wearing a uniform, while engaged in fighting. The potential for error and abuse in deciding who was a "combatant" was thus minimal. By contrast, many of the people we accuse in the "war on terror" of being "combatants" aren't anywhere near a "battlefield," aren't part of any army, aren't wearing any uniforms, etc. Instead, many of them are picked up from their homes, at work, off the streets.

I think that Greenwald, and I am frankly loathe to disagree with Glenn as I respect him greatly and consider his work an inspiration for my own, is just simply wrong here. At the beginning of any armed conflict, it is never really known exactly when hostilities will end. Israel has essentially remained in a constant state of war for decades. The "Troubles" in Northern Ireland were of a similar extended nature.

It should also noted that nearly two years ago in 2007 the newly minted commander in Afghanistan, Gen McChrystal officially announced that al Qaeda in Iraq has been Defeated. Iraq still has lots of problems but that conflict has ended. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of AQI, is dead.

There may indeed be a point in time where this may also be true of Senior Leadership of Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan, where they are either captured or killed and their ability to function as an effective international terrorist enterprise is diminished to point of irrelevance. In fact - This Should be Our Goal. The difficulty in attaining that goal should be lost on no-one, but neither should it lead us to making choices that defy common sense and allowing enemy assets to return to the battlefield during an active conflict.

The second part of his assumption I think ignores both Obama's specific comments and the reality of the situation is that these would not be people "picked up from their homes, at work, or off the streets" since these locations can not honestly be called the "battlefield." Those people would be, and should be handled as criminal suspects and processed through the civilian courts as Obama describes under option 1.

What we're really talking in this scenario would be Taliban, Al Qeada and Insurgent fighters who have been caught on the battlefield, planting IEDs or otherwise in the act of attacking our troops. Again the case of Insurgents is also instructive here. as at one point we would have never considered the idea of a cease fire let alone open cooperation with those who had previously been fighting with in the Sunni Triangle. Today things are different, and consequently the Military need to hold these prisoners would similarly change over time.

Also the greatest protection against possible abuse of this policy, would be to ensure that the decision does not rest in just one set of hands just as Obama has described.

Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture -- like other prisoners of war -- must be prevented from attacking us again. Having said that, we must recognize that these detention policies cannot be unbounded. They can't be based simply on what I or the executive branch decide alone. That's why my administration has begun to reshape the standards that apply to ensure that they are in line with the rule of law. We must have clear, defensible, and lawful standards for those who fall into this category.


President Bush reserved the sole right to pluck someone off the street, even an American Citizen such as Jose Padilla, and hold them without charge or without judicial review.

Those days are over.

Any potential Prisoner of War or detainee under Boumedienne must now be afforded Habeas review, even if the Administration thinks they may remain an "ongoing threat" they're going to have to provide some evidence of this assertion before a court although evidence of a specific civilian or war crime on their part may be either lacking or tainted.

Further as a result of the precedent set by Hamdan (although the SCOTUS offered no opinion on this point), it could be argued that Geneva protections should also apply and before the administration could even relegate someone to P.O.W. status they would need to have this confirmed by a Competent Tribunal under Article 5.


Under U.S. military regulations, a Tribunal would be composed of:

Three commissioned officers; a written record of proceedings; proceedings shall be open with certain exceptions; persons whose status is to be determined shall be advised of their rights at the beginning of their hearings, allowed to attend all open sessions, allowed to call witnesses if reasonably available, and to question those witnesses called by the Tribunal, and to have a right to testify; and a tribunal shall determine status by a preponderance of evidence.[2]

Possible determinations are:

1. Enemy Prisoner of War.
2. Recommended Retained Personnel (RP), entitled to EPW protections, who should be considered for certification as a medical, religious, or volunteer aid society RP.
3. Innocent civilian who should be immediately returned to his home or released.
4. Civilian Internee who for reasons of operational security, or probable cause incident to criminal investigation, should be detained

Bush had previously established "Combat Status Review Tribunals" to fill this requirement, but studies by the Seton Hall found the 92% of GITMO detainees were not in fact "Enemy Combatants" and that the Bush CSRT were essentially Kangaroo Courts biased to find guilt in nearly all cases. Ultimately Boumedienne invalidated the Bush CSRT process, so a new, and fair process in line with Geneva and the Code of Military Justice needs to be constituted. One which mandates periodic status review updates for all persons ultimately declared as having P.O.W. status for the ongoing War as circumstances within that conflict continue to shift and change overtime. Think of it as a "parole hearing" to determine if the person remains a threat and either repatriate or retain them as appropriate. This would not be the Obama Administration's decision, but one based on the available facts and circumstances at the time by an independent judge or judicial panel on a case by case basis.

In short "Preventative Detention" of a P.O.W. might not ultimately be Permanent Detention nor should be it something that any President or Administration should be able to legally implement without oversight from the courts or Congress. Doing this may require a new POW or Military Tribunal Act, but it can be done. Russ Feingold is already demanding hearings and testimony based on Obama's Speech.

While I recognize that your administration inherited detainees who, because of torture, other forms of coercive interrogations, or other problems related to their detention or the evidence against them, pose considerable challenges to prosecution, holding them indefinitely without trial is inconsistent with the respect for the rule of law that the rest of your speech so eloquently invoked. Indeed, such detention is a hallmark of abusive systems that we have historically criticized around the world. It is hard to imagine that our country would regard as acceptable a system in another country where an individual other than a prisoner of war is held indefinitely without charge or trial.

Once a system of indefinite detention without trial is established, the temptation to use it in the future would be powerful. And, while your administration may resist such a temptation, future administrations may not. There is a real risk, then, of establishing policies and legal precedents that rather than ridding our country of the burden of the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, merely set the stage for future Guantanamos, whether on our shores or elsewhere, with disastrous consequences for our national security.
Feingold's concerns aer well founded considering the history of Bush Administrations handling of detainees, but the U.S. has held prisoners of war without charge and without trial in every war that we've engaged in since the formation of the Union. It doesn't mean they'll be held forever, it does not violate the law, the constitution or Geneva, but it will need to be done with the consultation and understanding of Congress.

With rational and legal protections in place, we can ensure a framework which both protects the rights of the accused from unwarranted and unreasonable detention and protects the American people from those who would continue to wage violence and war against them through the weapons of terror.

It's not a Hobson's Choice of protecting Americans vs protecting Terrorist Suspects, we have to do both - protect the innocent (all of them) as well as punish the guilty using the best legally obtained evidence and facts.

Vyan

Wednesday, May 13

FBI Agent Soufan Testifies: Bush Told "Half Truth" on Torture



In this sequence from today's torture testimony Sen. Whitehouse asked FBI Agent Ali Soufan to confirm various public statements justifying the use of "Enhanced Interrogation" techniques on Abu Zubaydah.

Soufan: In my opinion, the President was told "half truth"..


Soufan confirms the Bush claim that Zubaydah was initially reluctant to cooperate when he was first captured, but it wasn't harsh tactics that changed his mind - it was Soufan who had worked hard to gain Zubaydah's trust.

Despite the claims of Bush, Cheney and their army of syncophants - the truth is that Abu Zubaydah did cooperate and provide valuable information before harsh techniques were employed. He gave up several members of the Saudi Royal family with connections to Al Qaeda, he even confirmed the ID of KSM.

When they used harsh tactics behind his back, Zubaydah completely shutdown, until Soufan was able to win his trust again - (that's when he gave up Padilla). Then Soufan was pulled from the investigation and the CiA consultants took over and waterboarded him. They got nothing worthwhile after that.

From Jesselyn Radack Live Blog.

11:31 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS: Whitehouse asks about interrogation of Abu Zubaydah and learning actionable information, including identification of Kalid S Mohammed as 911 mastermind. Then torture produced nothing. Then another approach of legal intelligent methods produced identity of Jose Padilla. Then again torture produced nothing. And once again Soufan's team was brought back in, but "contractor" insisted on torture and Soufan protested "borderline torture." At that point FBI Director Mueller asked team to cease participating. (This is an exchange between Whitehouse and Soufan, with Soufan affirming and adding to Whitehouse's points.) Soufan also confirms that Bush's public account of the interrogation was not in line with the facts.


Soufan completely blows CHENEY'S claims away, and disproved all this noise from Liz Cheney and Karl Rove.






I'm now watching MSNBC and the GOP shills are calling Soufan a "disgrunted ex-employee" and that even if harsh interrogation didn't work on Zubaydah, it must of have on "someone". They continue to claim "waterboarding saved hundreds of thousands of lives" - just like Lindsey Graham during the hearing. Oy!!

11:37 Senator Lindsay Graham is the lone Republican here, and in fact Whitehouse is the only Democrat still here. But the room is still packed with standing in the back and people STILL waiting in the hallway to get in. Graham claims, based on nothing, that OTHER interrogations using torture DID produce some good information. (Prove it, buddy. And then explain how you know legal methods couldn't have done the same. And then explain how you're justified in violating the law and how you deal with the recruting tool you've produced for terrorists and the ways you've weakend the State Department in now discouraging crimes by other nations.)

11:40 Graham asks Addicott to confirm that intelligence is central to this war, and he agrees and says that a police force could do the non-intelligence part of it. Graham then goes on to point out (admit) that other nations view terrorist acts as crimes rather than war. Graham intends this to avoid the Geneva Conventions, but he's also just delegitimized the invasion of Afghanistan without realizing it.

11:43 Whitehouse recounting contrast of results in Abu Zubaydah interrogations some more, comparing trained experienced FBI agents with amateurish contractors -- Whitehouse says FBI v CIA is not the right comparison, that in fact CIA professionals were with Souffan and agreed with him at the field level as opposed to the private contractors. Souffan agrees and says the chief forensic psychologist for the CIA and their top interrogator agreed with him and opposed the torture, that the psychologist left even before Souffan did.


On the issue of whether Cheney is correct about information coming from other detainees such as KSM - this has already been debunked. The Library Tower plot was foiled a year before KSM was even captured, so waterboarding him saved people who apparently had already been saved

Here's a good nugget: Sen Feingold has seen the "Holy Grail" memos and says there just Pyrite!



Feingold: let me be clear this so-called "enhanced interrogation" program was illegal. Nothing that I have seen, including the two memos referenced this weekend by Vice President Cheney, indicates taht the torture technique authorized by the last administration were neccessary. The former Vice President is misleading the American people when he says otherwise.


As Cenk Uyger likes to say -- Elbow from the SKYYYYYYYY!!! BOOMM!!

Vyan

Sunday, April 26

Turley v Buchannan on Torture

This may be the beginning of a debate we're going to hear quite a bit of in the near future.

Jonathon Turley vs. Pat Buchanan on Hardball:Part 1



Part 2



Notable Comments:

Turley: It doesn't matter if a crime is popular.

Buchanan: Jonathan you may be right on the law, but if I had been Bush, I wouldn't have done the same thing. And Obama prosecuting this will tear this country apart.

Turley: I'm sorry to hear you say that Pat, but I think this country is made of sterner stuff.

Vyan

CIA Agent Bob Baer: Torture Doesn't Work

Former CIA Operative Bob Baer, whose story formed the basis for George Clooney's Syriana appearing Real Time with Bill Maher to discuss the fact that Torture Doesn't Work - and he should know, he was tortured.



In this interview he points out yet again the FBI director Mueller has stated that Torture has Not Saved American Lives, and that even the Israelis have refrained from using it for years - even when they had Hamas Rocket's raining down on them - because it simply doesn't generate good information.

He even points out, as I have many times that real life isn't like "24" - and the decision to employ tactics such as these always have consequences.

From Baer's Time Magazine Article:

When the CIA was asked to resume hostile interrogations after Sept. 11, some agency leaders were dead set against it, arguing that the military was better equipped for the task. But Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld insisted the job belonged to the CIA. We now know that Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in one month. His interrogator, a former CIA colleague of mine, admits he had almost no training in the technique and knew nothing about how the cumulative effect of waterboarding might affect the quality of the information he was trying to extract.

...


The use of torture has come at huge costs to American credibility and the morale and psychology of our intelligence agencies. If we're going to pay those costs, we ought to know what we're getting. A thorough clearing of the air will help discredit the idea that we either torture terrorists or become victims. This false choice is played out on shows like 24, leaving people with the notion that had the FBI somehow caught one of the hijackers in the hours leading up to Sept. 11, torture would have led to the arrests of the 18 others before those planes took off. The truth is less sensational and more unsettling--but ultimately one that Americans should learn to accept. There are ticking time bombs out there. But torture won't get us any closer to discovering when they're going to go off.


Vyan

Thursday, April 23

Calling Dick's Big Bluff: Torture Fails

So the CIA has received Fmr. Vice President Dick Cheny's request to release documents that "prove" once and for all the effectiveness of his torture (Yes, Torture) program.

There's just one problem with that argument, the CIA doesn't do the job of enforcing the law or catching terrorist, the armed forces and the FBI do that. So what, besides today's revelation that Abu Zubaydah gave up KSM without Torture does the FBI have to say?

FBI Director Mueller to Vanity Fair when asked if "Enhanced Interrogation" had foiled any plots?

I don’t believe that has been the case

Ruh Roh!

On the other hand regularly gumshoe police work by local law enforcement and the FBI DID succeed at protecting American citizens.

In an interview in London in April 2008, I remind F.B.I. director Robert Mueller of the attacks planned against targets on American soil since 9/11 that his agents have disrupted: for example, a plot to kill soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and another to wreak mayhem at army recruiting centers and synagogues in and around Torrance, California. These and other homegrown conspiracies were foiled by regular police work. The F.B.I. learned of the Fort Dix plot from a Circuit City store where a technician raised the alarm when asked to copy firearms-training videos, while the Torrance cell was rounded up when cops probed the backgrounds of two of its members after they allegedly robbed a local gas station.


No waterborading, no wide-net of electronic surveillance, just a reasonable TIP and good follow up.

Like the tip by one Pheonix FBI Agent in 2001 that I've got some guys where who want to fly planes, but don't much care about landing them.

Time and time again we hear "The Tactics were Necessary" or "There was no other way", but clearly there IS another way. A way that works.

Furthermore, what seems more and more apparent from the various sources which are now coming forward in conjuction with the Levin Senate Armed Services Report is that torture under the Bush Administration wasn't used to provide information to save Amercians, it was used to proved information to save Bush's Foreign Policy, and justify the Iraq War

Several of those I interviewed point out the dearth of specific claims the administration has proffered. “The proponents of torture say, ‘Look at the body of information that has been obtained by these methods.’ But if K.S.M. and Abu Zubaydah did give up stuff, we would have heard the details,” says Cloonan. “What we got was pabulum.” A former C.I.A. officer adds: “Why can’t they say what the good stuff from Abu Zubaydah or K.S.M. is? It’s not as if this is sensitive material from a secret, vulnerable source. You’re not blowing your source but validating your program. They say they can’t do this, even though five or six years have passed, because it’s a ‘continuing operation.’ But has it really taken so long to check it all out?”

Officials who analyzed Abu Zubaydah’s interrogation reports say that the reports were afforded the highest value within the Bush administration not because of the many American lives they were going to save but because they could be cited repeatedly against those who doubted the wisdom of ousting Saddam by force.

“We didn’t know he’d been waterboarded and tortured when we did that analysis, and the reports were marked as credible as they could be,” the former Pentagon analyst tells me. “The White House knew he’d been tortured. I didn’t, though I was supposed to be evaluating that intelligence.” To draw conclusions about the importance of what Abu Zubaydah said without knowing this crucial piece of the background nullified the value of his work. “It seems to me they were using torture to achieve a political objective. I cannot believe that the president and vice president did not know who was being waterboarded, and what was being given up.”


Oh, I think the did know. Particularly since Zubaydah and KSM weren't the only ones this technique was used against.

Ibn Shayk Al-Libi, an associate of Zubaydah who was captured and tortured in Egypt, was the primary source of information that Iraq had provided chemical weapons training to Al Qeada. Guess what, this information was false

Just like the information that Iraq possessed "Mobile Weapons Labs" come from a former Iraqi who had relocated to Germany named Rafid Alwan, aka Curveball. (See this Report from BBC Newsnight) who was also, like, al-Libi, Lying.











The information provided by Curveball and al-Libi together led us into unneccesary and tragic War with an Unarmed Nation. And many others were coercively mistreated and suffered in The Black Sites, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib and Bagram AFB in order to help bolster their false claims.

Tortured to provide Lies to justify other lies. We have to come to grips with the fact that the U.S. deliberately waged a Campaign of Terror across the middle-east all based on LIES!

What needs to be asked now is not just what information we received through "enhanced interrogation" but also - how much of that information was BULLSHIT and led us down rat-holes and on wild-goose chases like the "Liberty City Six".

It really doesn't matter if any of these claims were ever true, because if so it probably wasn't neccessary to go these lengths, most likely the reason they were "resistant" is because the questions being asked were bogus, and by using these methods all we've done is get more bad information. Bad information that cost far more lives than any of the "good" information (assuming there somehow is any that the FBI director doesn't know about) may have saved.

Garbage In, garbage out.


Vyan

Thursday, April 16

Spainish Prosecutor Recommends Against Torture Probe

Color me shocked , but this just came out from MSNBC.

MADRID - Spanish prosecutors will recommend against opening an investigation into whether six Bush administration officials sanctioned torture against terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, the country's attorney-general said Thursday.

Candido Conde-Pumpido said the case against the high-ranking U.S. officials — including former U.S. Attorney-General Alberto Gonzales — was without merit because the men were not present when the alleged torture took place.


Are you kidding me?

Apparently not.

"If one is dealing with a crime of mistreatment of prisoners of war, the complaint should go against those who physically carried it out," Conde-Pumpido said in a breakfast meeting with journalists. He said a trial of the men would have turned Spain's National Court "into a plaything" to be used for political ends.


If this is true then the only persons eligible to be prosecuted for torture are the CIA assests who - under the direction, orders and bogus legal justifications provided by the the Bush Six.

In this vein there happens to already be a wrongful death lawsuit against the Pentagon on behalf of two detainees who died at Gitmo.

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — Families of two Saudi detainees who committed suicide in June 2006 while being held at Guantanamo Bay have sued the Pentagon, alleging Jan. 29 that torture and brutal conditions at the offshore prison led the men to their deaths.

The New-York based Center for Constitutional Rights said the parents of Yassar Talal al-Zahrani and Salah Ali Abdullah Ahmed al-Salami are seeking unspecified damages for the “illegal detention, torture, inhumane conditions, and ultimate deaths” of their sons.

The final brief in the civil suit was filed Jan. 29 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C.


Also some victims of Abu Ghraib are also sueing...

In a ruling that could have widespread implications for government contractors overseas, a federal court has concluded that four former Abu Ghraib detainees, who were tortured and later released without charge, can sue the U.S. military contractor who was involved in conducting prisoner interrogations for the Pentagon in Iraq.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1998, denied a motion to dismiss the detainees’ claims by the contractor, CACI International. The Arlington, Virginia-based company is a major contractor to the Defense Department.

The former detainees allege multiple violations of U.S. law, including torture, war crimes and civil conspiracy


Whether our own Justice Dept will invoke a Special Prosecutor to investigation violations of 18 USC 2340 (Torture) and 18 USC 2441 (War Crimes) committed at Gitmo, Bagram, Abu Ghraib and the now closing "Black Sites" still remains unknown, as the last set of Bybee/Yoo Torture memos tiptoe toward release (Jeremy Scahill:They May be Redacted, First) and the internal OLC Inspector Generals report remains pending.

Vyan

Monday, March 23

Obama Stomps a Mud-hole in Cheney's Ass

Obama on 60 Minutes



Obama: How many terrorist have actually been brought to justice under (The Bush System)? It hasn't made us safer.


The answer to that question is one - Jose Padilla. 6 years, one conviction.

As was previewed yesterday by muzikal233 President Obama slapped down hard on the notion that he's made us "less safe".

Transcript via Huffpo

PRESIDENT OBAMA:

I fundamentally disagree with Dick Cheney. Not surprisingly. You know, I think that-- Vice President Cheney has been-- at the head of a-- movement whose notion is somehow that we can't reconcile our core values, our Constitution, our belief that we don't torture, with our national security interests. I think he's drawing the l-- wrong lesson from history.

The facts don't bear him out. I think he is-- that attitude, that philosophy has done incredible damage-- to our image and position in the world. I mean, the fact of the matter is after all these years how many convictions actually came out of Guantanamo? How many-- how many terrorists have actually been brought to justice under the philosophy that is being promoted by Vice President Cheney? It hasn't made us safer. What it has been is a great advertisement for anti-American sentiment. Which means that there is constant effective recruitment of-- Arab fighters and Muslim fighters against U.S. interests all around the world.



Obama's comments have to be looked at in the context not only of self-serving ramblings of John Yoo, but also Col Larry Wilkerson - Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff at the State Department who states that Cheney and Rumsfeld knoew that only 24 detainees at Gitmo were actual terrorists and that over 700 innocent people held for years without reason or justice.



Wilkerson's response to Cheney via the Washington Note.

Simply stated, even for those two dozen or so of the detainees who might well be hardcore terrorists, there was virtually no chain of custody, no disciplined handling of evidence, and no attention to the details that almost any court system would demand. Falling back on "sources and methods" and "intelligence secrets" became the Bush administration's modus operandi to camouflage this grievous failing.

...

In addition, it has never come to my attention in any persuasive way--from classified information or otherwise--that any intelligence of significance was gained from any of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay other than from the handful of undisputed ring leaders and their companions, clearly no more than a dozen or two of the detainees, and even their alleged contribution of hard, actionable intelligence is intensely disputed in the relevant communities such as intelligence and law enforcement.


So not only were the vast majority of the people held in Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, and Bagram AFB completely innocent - even the little information we received from the "real" terrorist was bogus.

What a waste.

Particularly since this system, this treatment, has been the number one thing Al Qaeda has been using to recruit more fighters according to the interrogator who took out Abu Zarqawi.



I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. ... It’s no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse. The number of U.S. soldiers who have died because of our torture policy will never be definitively known, but it is fair to say that it is close to the number of lives lost on Sept. 11, 2001. How anyone can say that torture keeps Americans safe is beyond me — unless you don’t count American soldiers as Americans.


Former Gitmo Prosecutor Col Vandeveldt's experience completely supports Wilkersen and Obama - not Cheney.




What Cheney doesn't understand - or apparently care about - is that THIS IS NOT JUSTICE. This system can't be allowed to stand and doesn't make us "safer" - it does the exact opposite.

Obama is dead right, Cheney is dead wrong.

Vyan

Friday, March 13

Primetime Torture to Gitmo: The Deadly Connection

Human Rights First has produced a 14-minute movie featuring interrogation experts and trainers who all support the argument that Hollywood via shows such as "24", "Alias" and "Lost" have been bombarding the American public with a vicious, poisonous lie.

The idea the Torture is EVER "Heroic" or effective.



Psst It's NOT!

There's a debate and an argument going on in this country concerning the issue of Torture and War Crimes. On the one had you have those who believe the U.S. has an absolute obligation to honor it's own laws and treaties and abide by the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. Convention against Torture.

Geneva states "There Will be NO AFFRONTS TO PERSONAL DIGNITY" against detainees.

The UN Torture Conventions says:


No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political in stability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture. An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.


Neither of these documents leave any wiggle room - there are no "Special Circumstances" - No Exceptions. No MEANS NO! Period.

On the other hand you have people who posted these comments to another HRF video on "24" which call it nothing more than an "Ad for Torture"



-torture and interrogation is ok for terrorists and bad people, to do whatever it takes to make them talk, we dont see you human rights assholes when innocent people die, you only come forward to protect the rights of the worst kinda murderers

-What a bunch of fucking pussies. You're safe because of torture. Never forget that.

-right so.. terrorists are allowed to kill innocent people but we're not allowed to try and stop these attacks from even taking place?



These people sound a lot like George W. Bush.



Bush: I just can't imagine being President without having these techniques when we capture a known killer who has information about the next attack on America


Don't worry - you won't be. Thank God.

Or maybe they sound more like Jack Bauer.

Season 7 Episode 1
BAUER: When I am activated, when I am brought into a situation, there is a reason and that reason is to complete the objectives of my mission at all costs. [...]

For a combat soldier the difference between success and failure is your ability to adapt to your enemy. The people that I deal with, they don’t care about your rules. ... In answer to your question, am I above the law? No, sir. I am more than willing to be judged by the people you claim to represent. I will let them decide what price I should pay. Now please do not sit there with that smug look on your face and expect me to regret the decisions that I have made because, sir, the truth is I don’t.


Yeah, that's a great argument for Jury Nullification there O.J.


Episode 6 (When Jack argues for the kidnapping and threatening of an innocent woman and child to get her suspected traitor Secret Secret Agent husband to cooperate)



Bauer: When are you people going stop thinking everyone else is following your rules- They're NOT!


Because committing acts of terrorism against innocent people is a wonderful way protect innocent people from terrorists - dont'cha know?

Episode 9
Mayer: Madame President I don't care if his source is the blessed virgin Mary nothing justifies what went on in this room.

Taylor: But what if he's right? What if it means we could save lives?

Mayer: Look at that (points to the bloody and battered Burnett) and tell me it's not barbarism? Is that something you can live with?

Bauer: Earlier today two airplanes were brought down - is THAT something you can live with?

Mayer: You're reprehensible Bauer.

Bauer: AND YOU SIR ARE WEAK - Unwilling and Unable to Look Evil in the Eye and DEAL WITH IT!


Right, all the people stand for Human Rights and against torture - are the "Weak People". The Pussies! It takes a REAL MAN to be a sadistic Dickhead who repeatedly inspires vicious terrorists to hunt and attack him and his country. Thanks for the Tip Jack.

And then there are those who feel "It's Just TV", so don't worry about it.


why are people making a big deal outta this? So 24 shows torture. Deal with the guys who abuse kids and kill innocent people first, then we can talk about a TV show.

-Oh, and another thing assholes, what happened to freedom of speech? Just turn if off if you don't like it, yes? I'm quite sure that's what you'd say if a program happened to be in alignment with something you advocated, but others were criticizing. Fucking hypocrites.


Well, the big deal is that it's not just one show. It's many many shows over a great many years including "Alias" and "Lost" that have perpetuated this MYTH that all you have to do is inflict enough pain and the bad guys will "Crack". All of us have seen that movie, from Dirty Harry to Death Wish to SAW VII, that moment when the bad guys finally says - "ENOUGH, I'll Tell you...I'll TALK!"

We've all seen it, and hardly any of us have stood up and walked out thinking "That's Bullshit". We consider it credible, we think it's plausible - we BUY INTO IT - but it's just a myth, no more valid or real than the idea that a young girl in a short skirt is asking to be raped and murdered by a pedophile - or that the dirty Juden Deserved the Ovens!

Yeah, I went went there, because Nazi Germany is a large part of why Geneva exists. If Bauer was real, by now he'd be a sadistic neo-fascist sociopath - and that's exactly the point. He's a War Criminal.

If we saw a suggestion like those two in a film almost no one (except maybe Bill O'Rielly or Pat Buchanan) would buy it as believable. Yet hardly anyone objects to the idea that "everybody breaks" - and that right there is the challenge that stands before anyone who supports Human Rights and the rule of law. Even people on our side of the argument, are often willing to make excuses and compromises for "Special Circumstance", but just as the UN Torture Convention state - there are no excuses. None. Zero. Even seriously entertaining the suggestion should be completely abhorrent to all of us - yet it's not.

The argument that real people don't take this seriously and don't believe what their seeing on the TV or movie screen is belied by the Real Experience of Interrogators in Iraq.

U.S. Army Interrogator Tony Lagouranis: We were told that the old rules (Geneva) didn't apply anymore and were encouraged by the Pentagon to "Be creative" - so we watched Movies and TV for ideas.


Thanks to Bush, Cheney and the Yoo Memo's all their training and all the rules We're Out the Window!" Here is an Iraq Veteran Interrogator TELLING YOU they took tips directly from shows like "24" (and still I'm sure people will argue that these shows had nothing to do with it even though Lagouranis is clearly saying that IT DID!).

Add this to the words of the interrogator who helped take out the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq - Abu Zarqawi - that Torture Is NEVER Neccessary



No one is suggesting Censorship, nor is simply ignoring a show you don't like or agree with a solution. Sticking our head in the sand does nothing to address the fact that Millions of Americans are being LIED TO and almost no one - NO ONE - in Hollywood is making a rational and responsible effort to get the truth out, even while they repeatedly perpetuate a lie that is costing American lives.

When all anyone hears is one side of the argument - that side wins by default. Ignoring it is tacitly endorsing it.

Contrast how many times you've seen in your own life someone screaming "No - Enough" on TV or a film with how many times you've seen what Alexander is talking about? How many times have you seen Hollywood show someone give a False Confession or bogus information just to make the pain stop the way we received false intelligence information from Ibn Sheilk al Libi and Abu Zubaydah, information which helped send us into pointless war with Iraq?

I've only seen it once that I can recall - on Showtime's Sleeper Cell which IMO was the most honest and accurate program on terrorism ever, but that's hardly enough to counter the cultural juggernaut that Bauer has become. He's practically a national Icon. No one is saying "24" shouldn't be made, or that the creators don't have a First Amendment Right to present their story the way they'd like to - but if that story is based on a LIE - it should be questioned and vigorously challenged. We should always recall that the best of our art is literature isn't simply done in a flashy or stylistic way - it also represent and illuminates some basic human truths, not lies.

Ironically in part 2 of the Human Rights First film some of our real life interrogators do happen to use a piece of Hollywood film making to help them make their point on young soldiers who've already seen years of successful torture - and that piece of film comes from way back in the pre 9-11 days of 1998's The Seige.



What we don't really see is someone like Agent Hubbard on "24" who doesn't wind up looking like and treated like a Coward and a Pussy. Last year the producers of "24" promised to "Tone done the Torture" after a visit from the Commandant of West Point Gen Finnegan, but they haven't, they've simply come up with louder excuses for it. Waiting for Bauer to lose the argument to Agent Moss or Senator Mayer is like expecting Colmes to have ever gotten the better of Hannity. The Shit is RIGGED - "Jack the Superhero" is always right and always wins the fight. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

But then again even on TV sometimes the Hero does lose, like on Season 2 of Sleeper Cell: American Terror when torture fails and the bad guy uses it to play them for a suckers. It's not that you can't do accurate TV addressing terrorism - you can - but only if people refuse to accept and idly stand for BAD MISLEADING TV about terrorism. People need to demand better, but they'll only do that when they realize like Mathew Alexander - THERE IS A BETTER WAY!

Yet Again, (because people really don't seem to get this point) no one is suggesting censorship or a boycott, but even a show like Mythbusters includes a clear disclaimer :"Don't try this at home - Ever."

Maybe at the very least "24" should have a similar disclaimer
; Don't Try this on the Battlefield - EVER!

Vyan

Saturday, January 31

Former Gitmo Prosecutor Quits in Disgust



For all the Bushies who think that Gitmo should remain open - this former Military Prosecutor explains that the case files are a shambles and that there IS NO EVIDENCE against many who've been held there and mistreated for years - including some who are children.

Vyan

Thursday, January 29

John Yoo Blasts Obama on Torture Ban - Incriminates Bush on War Crimes

In an WSJ Op-ed former OLC Attorney John Yoo blasts President Barack Obama for removing the One and Only Effective Tool for protecting America from the horrors of Terrorism which is - well - using Terrorism.

While these actions will certainly please his base -- gone are the cries of an "imperial presidency" -- they will also seriously handicap our intelligence agencies from preventing future terrorist attacks. In issuing these executive orders, Mr. Obama is returning America to the failed law enforcement approach to fighting terrorism that prevailed before Sept. 11, 2001.


You mean the policy that captured, tried and successfully imprisoned Terry Nichols, Ramzi Yousef, the "Blind Sheikh" and executed Timothy McVeigh under Clinton or the "Ok, Now you've covered you ass" policy of Bush?


He's also drying up the most valuable sources of intelligence on al Qaeda, which, according to CIA Director Michael Hayden, has come largely out of the tough interrogation of high-level operatives during the early years of the war.


Michael Hayden would be the former head of the NSA who illegally spied on Everyone? Yeah, we should take his advice.

Not only does Yoo have a rather distorted view of the past, he can see the future too.

The question Mr. Obama should have asked right after the inaugural parade was: What will happen after we capture the next Khalid Sheikh Mohammed or Abu Zubaydah? Instead, he took action without a meeting of his full national security staff, and without a legal review of all the policy options available to meet the threats facing our country.

What such a review would have made clear is that the civilian law-enforcement system cannot prevent terrorist attacks.


It can't? You mean that it wasn't civilian law enforcement that prevented the Millenium Attacks on the L.A.X., the bombing of Lincoln and Holland tunnels and Project Bojinka (A plot to blow up 12 planes over the Pacific simultaneously, led by WTC bomber Ramzi Yousef)?

It's not like regular cops, the border patrol and the FBI foiled all these plans using fully legal and humane methods.... except that they did!

What is needed are the tools to gain vital intelligence, which is why, under President George W. Bush, the CIA could hold and interrogate high-value al Qaeda leaders. On the advice of his intelligence advisers, the president could have authorized coercive interrogation methods like those used by Israel and Great Britain in their antiterrorism campaigns. (He could even authorize waterboarding, which he did three times in the years after 9/11.)


So Bush and Rice spent 9 months blowing off Richard Clarke who urged we need to take urgent action on al Qeada, and they blew off George Tenet and the August 6th PDB which said that al Qeada was likely to "Hijack Planes and attack New York and Washington" - and their only recourse after 9-11 - is to use Torture - and Yoo Verifies that Bush did exactly that at least three times!. Interesting that he wouldn't say any of that when he was under oath before congress.

Coincidence? I think not.

Then Yoo really starts talking some straight up nonsense.

The CIA must now conduct interrogations according to the rules of the Army Field Manual, which prohibits coercive techniques, threats and promises, and the good-cop bad-cop routines used in police stations throughout America.


No, it doesn't Mr. Boalt Hall Professor. From Media Matters via Thinkprogres.

In fact, the Army Field Manual explicitly permits good cop-bad cop interrogations under the name of “Mutt and Jeff” interrogations, which involve two interrogators “display[ing] opposing personalities and attitudes toward the source.” The Field Manual says the “goal of this technique is to make the source identify with one of the interrogators and thereby establish[ing] rapport and cooperation.”


Wanna go 0 for 6 Professor Yoo? I thought you did.

Mr. Obama has also ordered that al Qaeda leaders are to be protected from "outrages on personal dignity" and "humiliating and degrading treatment" in accord with the Geneva Conventions.


No, actually that Order came from the Supreme Court in Hamdan V Rumsfeld. It's also in the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 and the Military Commissions Act of 2006. Obama is simply following and implementing the law - unlike yourself.

His new order amounts to requiring -- on penalty of prosecution -- that CIA interrogators be polite. Coercive measures are unwisely banned with no exceptions, regardless of the danger confronting the country.


Y'know what - according to the people who actually perform interrogations, including former Special Forces Operative Matthew Alexander, the man who'se techniques led to the neutralization of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi head of Al Qeada In Iraq - Being Polite Works! - while getting all Jack Bauer with it actually puts us and our troops at far greater risk.

I learned in Iraq that the No. 1 reason foreign fighters flocked there to fight were the abuses carried out at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Our policy of torture was directly and swiftly recruiting fighters for al-Qaeda in Iraq. The large majority of suicide bombings in Iraq are still carried out by these foreigners. They are also involved in most of the attacks on U.S. and coalition forces in Iraq. It's no exaggeration to say that at least half of our losses and casualties in that country have come at the hands of foreigners who joined the fray because of our program of detainee abuse.

...

I refused to participate in such practices, and a month later, I extended that prohibition to the team of interrogators I was assigned to lead. I taught the members of my unit a new methodology -- one based on building rapport with suspects, showing cultural understanding and using good old-fashioned brainpower to tease out information. I personally conducted more than 300 interrogations, and I supervised more than 1,000. The methods my team used are not classified (they're listed in the unclassified Field Manual), but the way we used them was, I like to think, unique. We got to know our enemies, we learned to negotiate with them, and we adapted criminal investigative techniques to our work (something that the Field Manual permits, under the concept of "ruses and trickery"). It worked. Our efforts started a chain of successes that ultimately led to Zarqawi.


More from Alexander on Countdown.


More Yoo.

Eliminating the Bush system will mean that we will get no more information from captured al Qaeda terrorists. Every prisoner will have the right to a lawyer (which they will surely demand), the right to remain silent, and the right to a speedy trial.


All of which are parts of - um - Our Constitution, y'now that thing you swore and oath to protect and defend as a member of the U.S. Government?

Here's the thing, Yoo notes that the Israelis and the British have used these techniques (against the PLO and IRA) respectively - but he leaves out the fact that both of them found that they generally created a ton of Blowback. Just as Alexander points out - it energizes the forces against you when you use inhumane techniques, Israel is having the problem right now after hitting Gaza with White-Phosphorus and destroying the UN headquarters.

He forgets that in WWII many Italian and even some German soldiers were more than eager to surrender because they knew they would be treated well by American Troops, and this was even true during the first Gulf War when many Iraqi soldiers gave up immediately upon encountering our forces with fighting. Contrast those facts to the rise of the insurgency following Abu Ghraib - and you have the answer to his hypothetical question of "risk vs reward" on the banning of torture in other coercive interrogation techniques. Following the law saves lives - Our Lives and Their Lives Too!

Yoo would seem to believe that techniques such as water-boarding are NOT torture simply because he wrote a memo saying so which re-defined "Torture" as treatment leading to imminent organ failure or death.

Here's the thing, if you stuff a pillow or a rag over someone's nose and mouth - how long will it take for their lungs to fail from lack of oxygen? And if you add water to that - how much quicker will they fail as the person DROWNS? The reason people respond so quickly to waterboarding is because - It's Attempted Murder. They're Killing YOU!

Oh sure, it doesn't leave any bruises - which allows for deniability, something that the Khmer Rouge certainly loved - but it's still attempted murder. The only thing that prevents from being full-on murder is whether they stop soon enough. And it's not that hard to cross that line.

According to Human Rights Watch - this type of "Murder" is not a hypothetical question from their 2006 Report

Since August 2002, nearly 100 detainees have died while in the hands of U.S. officials in the global “war on terror.” According to the U.S. military’s own classifications, 34 of these cases are suspected or confirmed homicides; Human Rights First has identified another 11 in which the facts suggest death as a result of physical abuse or harsh conditions of detention. In close to half the deaths Human Rights First surveyed, the cause of death remains officially undetermined or unannounced. Overall, eight people in U.S. custody were tortured to death.


Ya hear that Billo? Get it Johnny? Tortured TO DEATH. NOT "Near Organ Failure" - Not "Simulated" or "Feels Like" - Dead!!

Estimates from the ACLU's review of various autopsy reports are far higher, more than 44 detainees tortured to death. If true, that's 44 War Crimes all punishable by Execution under U.S. Law.

Those deaths - all of them in addition to thousands of needlessly injured, wounded and dead U.S. soldiers - lay directly at the feet on John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales and George W. Bush.

Eat it up Johnny.

Vyan


P.S. Jack Bauer is a Fracking Tool - not a "Hero".

Update from Comments:
FYI - John Yoo's Homepage at UC Berkeley