THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Rumsfeld 'told officers to take gloves off with Lindh'

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington and Anne Penketh

10 June 2004


John Walker Lindh, the so-called American Taliban, was stripped naked and tied to a stretcher during interrogation after the office of Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld ordered intelligence officers to "take the gloves off" when questioning him.

Mr Rumsfeld's legal counsel instructed the officers to push the limits when questioning Lindh, captured in Afghanistan with Taliban and al-Qa'ida forces in late 2001. The treatment of Lindh appears to foreshadow the abuse of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib.

The details of Lindh's interrogation confirm claims made by his lawyer, Tony West, that when he was captured by Northern Alliance forces and handed to CIA operatives near the northern Afghan city of Mazar-i-Sharif, he asked for a lawyer. Not only was he refused a lawyer and not advised of his rights, but his interrogators were told to get tough to obtain "actionable" intelligence in the pursuit of Osama bin Laden.

Documents seen by the Los Angeles Times, show that when an US Army intelligence officer started to question Lindh he was given instructions that the "Secretary of Defence's counsel has authorised him to 'take the gloves off' and asked whatever he wanted". The documents show that in the early stages, Lindh's responses were cabled to Washington every hour.

Though Lindh initially pleaded not guilty, he later admitted reduced charges and was sentenced to 20 years. He and his lawyers also agreed to drop claims that he had been tortured by US personnel.

A Defence Department spokesperson said the Pentagon "refused to speculate on the exact intent of the statement" from Mr Rumsfeld's office. "Department officials stress that all interrogation policies and procedures demand humane treatment of personnel in their custody," said the spokesperson.

The documents are the latest evidence to emerge revealing the efforts of the Bush administration to sidestep international laws and treaties when dealing with prisoners after the 11 September attacks. Critics say they show the abuses at Abu Ghraib were part of a deliberately pursued and systematic approach for dealing with prisoners without affording them their rights contained within the Geneva Conventions.

A memo this week revealed that in March 2003, administration lawyers concluded that President George Bush had the authority under executive privilege to order any sort of torture or interrogation of prisoners.

Yesterday, Congresswoman Jane Harman of California, the senior Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said the views the memo contained were "antithetical to American laws and values". She added: "This memo argues that the President is not bound by criminal laws in the context of his role as Commander-in-Chief during war; that the President may be above the law. This is a concept of executive authority that was discarded at Runnymede in the 13th century and has absolutely no place in our constitutional system."

The Attorney General, John Ashcroft, has refused to provide copies of the internal memos on the questioning of prisoners. "This administration rejects torture," Mr Ashcroft said. "I don't think it's productive, let alone justified."

And despite the international outcry over the prisoner abuse cases, US forces will continue to be responsible for running two Iraqi prisons where "security detainees" are held, after the handover to a "sovereign" Iraqi government.

A senior British official said in London that the US military would continue to be responsible for up to 2,000 "fairly hard-core" prisoners at Abu Ghraib and at another jail in southern Iraq. The exact number of such prisoners, deemed a threat to Iraqi safety and security, is not known because although the Americans let many inmates out of Abu Ghraib, many others have been arrested.

Britain is pressing for Iraqis to help run the top-security prisons, but details are still to be worked out. The US military is also holding Saddam Hussein, and other former regime members inside Iraq. They are to be tried by a special Iraqi tribunal starting in the autumn.

A Jordanian lawyer who claims that he is acting for Saddam says that the former Iraqi leader was also tortured during interrogation.

I appreciate how you make these events seem like events that happen daily to 3/4 of the Iraqi population. It almost like every Iraqi has been sodomized (Saddamized?), electrocuted and humiliated instead of the dozen or so...

I appreciate how you make these events seem like events that happen daily to 3/4 of the Iraqi population. It almost like every Iraqi has been sodomized (Saddamized?), electrocuted and humiliated instead of the dozen or so...

we point out that terrorist prisoners are not beneficiary of either U.S. laws speaking to ethical treatment of prisoners or the Geneva cnvention [..]

You are not bound by U.S. law or the Geneva Convention re treatment of prisoners who are known terrorists or supporters of terrorists. You are responsible for the safety and security of millions of your countrymen. The terrorist does or may have information about threats to that safety or security.

Foxfyre wrote:

Blatham I know the rules of the Geneva Convention and I know the rights of U.S. citizens who are detained by law enforcement personnel. The thing you don't seem to grasp is that neither of these apply to non-citizen terrorists. So a captive terrorist is pretty much at the mercy of his captors

So ... when are we talking about a "terrorist"? From what I understand, the Geneva Conventions formally do not apply to anyone not in army uniform. So in principle, you can say that there is no legal obligation to apply Geneva to any guerrilla fighter anywhere. Is every guerrilla fighter therefore a terrorist?

I would remind one here that most of the Abu G. prisoners had not been convicted for anything, and a majority turned out to have been held on the faintest of suspicions, sometimes even arbitrarily. And furthermore, what was the suspicion of? Overwhelmingly, of participation in the Iraq insurgency. In short, we are in a great majority of cases not talking about hardened Al Qaeda forces here.

So, to return to my question - before we discuss what treatment is legitimate for terrorists we are holding, do we consider every Iraqi insurgent a "terrorist"? If yes, would that have made, say, every erstwhile Nicaraguan contra a terrorist too? And every Afghan Mujahedeen? Or, rhetorical question: does a guerrilla fighter only becomes a "terrorist" if he starts shooting at Americans, rather than Soviets or Sandinistas? I mean, what's the rule you are applying here?

Well? If the Iranian government captured your brother, who was doing missionary work in Iran, and accused him of being a terrorist, how would you want him to be treated?

Understand that they have a responsiblity to their people to ferret out terrorism. Does that make it okay for them to torture him?

The issue comes down to this. Blatham seems to think that because we point out that terrorist prisoners are not beneficiary of either U.S. laws speaking to ethical treatment of prisoners or the Geneva cnvention that we are condoning torture.

Note first the use of "point out". How does one "point out" an interpretation? The pretence is that such a legal standing is sitting right there in front of everyone. It isn't. That is the administration's unprecedent intepretation of law. She avoids exactly the question which she proposes she answers...does such an interpretation have compelling basis in the relevant body of laws? Whether the administration is "condoning torture" rests precisely on this same point (excluding the attempts to redefine 'torture' to something absolutely meaningless, considering that deaths have been the result)

I haven't seen anybody, including anybody in the current administration, condone torture. The mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib and/or elsewhere was deplorable and it has been dealt with. It was NOT condoned. Here, note the ontological claim, which is again, precisely the issue in question. Aside from the avoidance of all the legal complexities, fox feels free to claim she knows ahead of time what any and all investigations might discover and conclude. How much credence ought such a claim to be given? Keep an eye out on how often such absolute claims fall from her typewriter.
The question remains and this is the one that seems to infuriate liberals the most:
And definitely keep an eye out for this uncareful generalization, and how often if is used as an ad hominem.

You are not bound by U.S. law or the Geneva Convention re treatment of prisoners who are known terrorists or supporters of terrorists. Again, making a claim about precisely what is at issue. Repetition of an unsettled point doesn't make it settled. You are responsible for the safety and security of millions of your countrymen. The terrorist does or may have information about threats to that safety or security. What is morally acceptable then in interrogating those terrorists? Solitary confinement? Sleep deprivation? Loud music? Embarassment? Scaring them? Is it immoral to make them uncomfortable in any way? Here we have the questions which are relevant. But without the very dubious legal certainty she cavalierly pretends in the preceding. She hasn't bothered to address Dworkin's piece on exactly these matters, but I do recommend that the rest of you who haven't, do so. Fruitful discussion might then proceded.

What would you decide?