Bushites Set Tone That Led To Torture & Abuse

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

May 9, 2004. 01:00 AM
The Star

by LINDA MCQUAIG

There was no shortage of outrage last week over the torture of Iraqi prisoners. Welcome as the outrage is, it does seem a little odd.

Some of the loudest condemnations have come from the U.S. Congress.

Yet, in September, 2002, a joint session of the House and Senate intelligence committees heard Cofer Black, the CIA's counterterrorism chief, describe how America's handling of captives had changed in the wake of 9/11. As Black put it: "There was a before 9/11, and there was an after 9/11. After 9/11 the gloves come off."

It's hard to imagine anything much clearer than this statement. What did the senators and congressmen think the senior CIA official meant by the gloves coming off ?- that detainees would no longer be addressed as "sir" during interrogations?

The tone for this new gloves-off era was set by the White House itself, which has openly scorned the notion that prisoners in its "war on terror" have any rights. The whole purpose of building a special prison camp at Guantanamo Bay was clearly to put detainees beyond the reach of U.S. law.

Of course, the Geneva Conventions should have applied there; but the Bush administration simply announced that the detainees were "unlawful combatants" ?- a newly defined category of human being arbitrarily stripped of all legal rights by a country that, paradoxically, continued to bill itself as the world's leading democracy.

What possible reason would there be to hold prisoners in a law-free, offshore enclave except to do things to them that the law doesn't permit ?- including perhaps to "soften them up" before interrogations, to apply the very gloves-off treatment that Black set out to members of Congress as the new normal.

There was plenty of international outrage over this stance but, to a large extent, the U.S. media and intellectual community accepted it.

Indeed, there were media debates about the pros and cons of torture, just like debates over free trade or social security reform. So, for instance, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, right after the arrest of senior Al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, had on two guests to debate: "Should he be tortured to make him tell what he knows?"

Torture had gone mainstream. It was no longer one of those universally condemned activities, like bestiality, slavery or incest. It was now possible to argue that, in the case of torture, there were shades of gray, situations where it might be okay ?- not ideal, but defensible. Reputable people, who presumably wouldn't give bestiality the time of day, were apparently willing to give torture a second look.

One such person was Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, ironically known as a civil libertarian. Dershowitz acknowledged torture was very bad, but suggested that perhaps it was time for governments to start issuing "torture warrants" so the practice could at least be properly regulated.

It was in this new climate ?- with open declarations that the gloves were off, with the Geneva rulebook tossed aside and with torture a hot topic on prime time TV ?- that the now-famous grinning crew of American soldiers took up their posts inside Iraq's Abu Ghraib prison.

This was clearly a sadistic bunch. But it's hard to avoid noticing the green light flashing at them from the White House, which had communicated in its words and deeds that all was fair in the "war on terror."

Once that signal had been given, it's no surprise that individuals came up with their own creative gloves-off variations, in addition to standard infliction of pain and rape. As the world learned last week, there was no end of creativity ?- a prisoner forced to stand on a small box with an electric wire attached to his penis, a naked prisoner being pulled along on a dog leash; there was even an elderly Iraqi woman placed in a harness, made to crawl on all fours and ridden like a donkey.

Washington's attitude toward the Iraqi people has been another signal to the troops that Iraqis are fair game. By not even keeping track of the number of Iraqis killed by U.S. forces, Washington has treated Iraqis as dispensable, as little more than a backdrop to its triumphant mission in Iraq.

Of course, torture is nothing new. But while we know all the details of Saddam's torture chambers, we know little about what's gone on for decades in the torture chambers of U.S. allies, with Washington's complicity.

Don't expect to hear much about that. Instead, expect to hear a deafening chorus of how America doesn't do things like that ?- from the same people who brought us Guantanamo Bay and the new gloves-off era.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1083927057770&call_pageid=970599109774&col=Columnist1022182710415

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 685 • Replies: 7

No top replies

From the article: "Of course, the Geneva Conventions should have applied there; but the Bush administration simply announced that the detainees were "unlawful combatants" ?- a newly defined category of human being arbitrarily stripped of all legal rights by a country that, paradoxically, continued to bill itself as the world's leading democracy."

The problem is, Bush has lied so many times about so many things, no one save the radical right-wingers believe him.

According to the US Army and reported by the Red Cross, 70% to 90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were wrongly arrested and don't belong there.

Just because Bush branded them "unlawful combatants" to cover their rear end, doesn't make it true.

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

According to the US Army and reported by the Red Cross, 70% to 90% of the Abu Ghraib prisoners were wrongly arrested and don't belong there.

If you are going to quote something, please try to get it right. Here is the quote.

Coalition military intelligence officers believed 70-90 per cent of Iraqi detainees were "arrested by mistake", according to a leaked Red Cross report on prisoner abuse, further details of which were disclosed on Monday.

Not to nitpick, but the key here is they believed 70-90% were wrongly arrested. When they provide factual numbers to back up their belief, then I will believe it too. Leaving out that one word from the quote does make a difference. I am not saying they are wrong in their belief cause for all I know they could be right. Just for accuracy's sake, let's quote it properly and let people draw their own conclusions instead of leading people along a path you would have them go by misquoting.

0 Replies

coastalrat:

Yes, I know. I posted the article from the Financial Times on an original thread.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1083180400050&p=1012571727172

You can parse words until hell freezes over, but it doesn't change the substance of my reply or the import of the article.

0 Replies

infowarrior wrote:

coastalrat:

Yes, I know. I posted the article from the Financial Times on an original thread.

http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1083180400050&p=1012571727172

You can parse words until hell freezes over, but it doesn't change the substance of my reply or the import of the article.

Sorry to be so picky Info, but I tend to put some importance in the way things are worded. They are worded a certain way for a particular reason. I can twist words to make things seem to say just about anything. So I get kinda caught up sometimes when others quote something to make a point, but the quote is not quite exact. In truth, I would not be surprised if 70%-90% were arrested in error. But I would also not be surprised if most of those were released. The article and those quoting it are doing so as if all these people are languishing in a military prison, when in fact I doubt most are still there. (Notice I said most, not all. I am not that naive to believe all mistakes are quickly rectified.) Did not mean anything personal in trying to correct your quote.

0 Replies

coastalrat:

No harm done and no personal feelings on my part either. Thanks.

I'll go one better just for reasons of debate and exchange: with all this warranted attention on the Iraqi prisoner abuse scandal engulfing the Bush administration, I wonder now if prisoners who actually belong in Abu Ghraib will be released in order to wipe the slate clean?

Either way, we're screwed.

0 Replies

That is a fear I also have Info. Which is why this mess is something that has to be dealt with quickly and all those responsible brought to account (including officers who had responsibility for those who were directly involved).

0 Replies

Either way, it's so sad that this hooliganism was allowed and possibily encouraged at Abu Ghraib.

0 Replies

Bushites Set Tone That Led To Torture & Abuse

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know