What more can be added to the debate over U.S. interrogation methods, and whether waterboarding is torture? Try firsthand experience. The author undergoes the controversial drowning technique, at the hands of men who once trained American soldiers to resist—not inflict—it.
by Christopher Hitchens August 2008
Here is the most chilling way I can find of stating the matter. Until recently, “waterboarding” was something that Americans did to other Americans. It was inflicted, and endured, by those members of the Special Forces who underwent the advanced form of training known as sere (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape). In these harsh exercises, brave men and women were introduced to the sorts of barbarism that they might expect to meet at the hands of a lawless foe who disregarded the Geneva Conventions. But it was something that Americans were being trained to resist, not to inflict.
[snip]
Which returns us to my starting point, about the distinction between training for something and training to resist it. One used to be told—and surely with truth—that the lethal fanatics of al-Qaeda were schooled to lie, and instructed to claim that they had been tortured and maltreated whether they had been tortured and maltreated or not. Did we notice what a frontier we had crossed when we admitted and even proclaimed that their stories might in fact be true? I had only a very slight encounter on that frontier, but I still wish that my experience were the only way in which the words “waterboard” and “American” could be mentioned in the same (gasping and sobbing) breath.
[More]
Comment:
Were it any president other than Bush, this would result in instantaneous impeachment.
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Showing posts with label torture. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
US court deals blow to Bush
The US Supreme Court has said foreigners held at the Guantanamo Bay military prison have the right under the US constitution to challenge their detention in US civilian courts. The court ruled on Thursday that detainees in the US jail in southern Cuba "have the constitutional privilege of habeas corpus".
The ruling, passed by a vote of five to four, is a setback to the administration of George Bush, the US president.
"It's a very significant milestone in this very long running battle," Rob Reynolds, Al Jazeera's senior Washington correspondent, said.
"Really its a victory for the proper system of justice. The reason that Guantanamo was chosen was because it was not on American soil ... the White House believed that because they would be on foreign soil they would be beyond the reach of American justice," he said. "It's been a very long process but through a series of lawsuits ... the justices have chipped away at the unusual means under which these individuals are being detained."
Constitutional rights
The court ruled that even if the base was officially on Cuban territory, it was in fact operating as if it were on American soil and therefore detainees had the same constitutional rights as all Americans. The ruling is the third on Guantanamo that has gone against the Bush administration. Detainees and their legal teams could now demand that the government reveal the evidence against them to justify their continued detention. The government has refused to do this arguing it would be against the interests of national security. Detainees have long protested that they had been mistreated, and rights groups have questioned the legality of the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals.
Via Al Jazeera.
Comment:
Hallelujah. Justice returns to America.
The ruling, passed by a vote of five to four, is a setback to the administration of George Bush, the US president.
"It's a very significant milestone in this very long running battle," Rob Reynolds, Al Jazeera's senior Washington correspondent, said.
"Really its a victory for the proper system of justice. The reason that Guantanamo was chosen was because it was not on American soil ... the White House believed that because they would be on foreign soil they would be beyond the reach of American justice," he said. "It's been a very long process but through a series of lawsuits ... the justices have chipped away at the unusual means under which these individuals are being detained."
Constitutional rights
The court ruled that even if the base was officially on Cuban territory, it was in fact operating as if it were on American soil and therefore detainees had the same constitutional rights as all Americans. The ruling is the third on Guantanamo that has gone against the Bush administration. Detainees and their legal teams could now demand that the government reveal the evidence against them to justify their continued detention. The government has refused to do this arguing it would be against the interests of national security. Detainees have long protested that they had been mistreated, and rights groups have questioned the legality of the Guantanamo Bay military tribunals.
Via Al Jazeera.
Comment:
Hallelujah. Justice returns to America.
Monday, May 12, 2008
US drops 9/11 'hijacker' charges
The Pentagon has dropped charges against a man alleged to have been the "20th hijacker" in the September 11 attacks, his US military defence lawyer has said.
Mohammed al-Qahtani, who is being held at a US military jail at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was one of six men facing murder and war crimes charges for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks.
Bryan Broyles, al-Qahtani's military lawyer, said on Monday that Susan Crawford, the convening authority for military commissions, dismissed the charges against al-Qahtani on Friday.
The charges were dismissed "without prejudice," meaning they could be filed again at some point in the future.
Crawford is proceeding with charges against five other people accused of having a role in the attacks, Broyles said.
Prosecutors are to seek the death penalty for the men if they are found to be guilty.
Military tribunal
Authorities allege al-Qahtani was only prevented from taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the US by an immigration official.
The US military said that he had no return ticket and Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker, was waiting for him.
Officials previously said al-Qahtani had been subject to harsh interrogation authorised by Donald Rumsfeld, the former US defence secretary.
The five defendants who are still facing charges include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who is alleged to have masterminded the attacks in 2001 that killed nearly 3,000 people.
The five charged men are set to be arraigned before a military tribunal at Guantanamo, where the US holds about 270 men on "suspicion of terrorism" or links to al-Qaeda and the Taliban.
Human rights organisations have criticised the rule that allows US judges to decide whether to allow evidence that may have been obtained under "coercion".
US authorities have acknowledged that Mohammed was "waterboarded" - an interrogation method designed to simulate the sensation of drowning - by CIA interrogators.
Al-Qahtani last year retracted a confession he said he made after he was tortured at Guantanamo.
In a written statement he said was beaten, restrained for long periods in uncomfortable positions, threatened with dogs, exposed to loud music and freezing temperatures and stripped nude in front of female military staff.
Via Al Jazeera.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Profile: Key 9/11 suspects
Six prisoners being held by the US in Guantanamo Bay are to face charges over their alleged involvement in the 11 September 2001 attacks in the US.
The following profiles and what is known of the allegations against the suspects are compiled from BBC and news agency reports and information released by the Pentagon and US intelligence officials.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Ramzi Binalshibh
Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali
Walid Bin Attash
Mohammed al-Qahtani
Via BBC.
Comment:
It will be interesting to see how they'll plan their respective defenses (and they will defend themselves; to waste our time if for no other reason). KSM and Ramzi bin al-Shibh are both dead men; all the prosecution needs to do is play the jury the Al Jazeera documentary they appeared in.
As for al-Hawsawi, the his defense thus far seems to be, yes, he did know virtually everyone involved, and yes, Ramzi bin al-Shibh did tell him on September 10 to flee to Pakistan because a huge attack was about to occur, and yes he did receive large sums of money from the hijackers right before the attack, but that doesn't mean that he was involved in any way. I mean, who hasn't received $17,860 from a group of known terrorists? I'm not sure what he has to say about all the al-Qaeda expense accounts and payroll lists he was captured with. He was probably "holding" them for a "friend."
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, on the other hand, may well be innocent. Going by the evidence raised at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, it appears that he may have just been used by his uncle, KSM, and had no knowledge of the plot itself. This is strongly supported by the fact that when he left the country right before 9/11 due to his work visa being revoked, he was caught off-guard and didn't even have time to pack. Also, much of the government's evidence is either classified or ridiculous (e.g. he was in frequent contact with his uncle). It also seems kind of peculiar that the plot would have two head financiers. This will be an interesting trial to follow.
Walid bin Attash appears to have been a mid-level administrator involved in the Embassy Bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attack. He has already confessed, so his trial should be fairly short.
Muhammad al-Qahtani's case is also tricky. He was tortured pretty extensively once his identity became known, causing the DoD to call him "unprosecutable." On the other hand, he was definitely a member of al-Qaeda, and tried to enter the States shortly before 9/11 with a one-way ticket, and he probably wasn't sight-seeing. Also, if I recall, he is named as the 20th hijacker in KSM's confession.
We will have to see.
The following profiles and what is known of the allegations against the suspects are compiled from BBC and news agency reports and information released by the Pentagon and US intelligence officials.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
Ramzi Binalshibh
Mustafa Ahmad al-Hawsawi
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali
Walid Bin Attash
Mohammed al-Qahtani
Via BBC.
Comment:
It will be interesting to see how they'll plan their respective defenses (and they will defend themselves; to waste our time if for no other reason). KSM and Ramzi bin al-Shibh are both dead men; all the prosecution needs to do is play the jury the Al Jazeera documentary they appeared in.
As for al-Hawsawi, the his defense thus far seems to be, yes, he did know virtually everyone involved, and yes, Ramzi bin al-Shibh did tell him on September 10 to flee to Pakistan because a huge attack was about to occur, and yes he did receive large sums of money from the hijackers right before the attack, but that doesn't mean that he was involved in any way. I mean, who hasn't received $17,860 from a group of known terrorists? I'm not sure what he has to say about all the al-Qaeda expense accounts and payroll lists he was captured with. He was probably "holding" them for a "friend."
Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, on the other hand, may well be innocent. Going by the evidence raised at his Combatant Status Review Tribunal, it appears that he may have just been used by his uncle, KSM, and had no knowledge of the plot itself. This is strongly supported by the fact that when he left the country right before 9/11 due to his work visa being revoked, he was caught off-guard and didn't even have time to pack. Also, much of the government's evidence is either classified or ridiculous (e.g. he was in frequent contact with his uncle). It also seems kind of peculiar that the plot would have two head financiers. This will be an interesting trial to follow.
Walid bin Attash appears to have been a mid-level administrator involved in the Embassy Bombings and the U.S.S. Cole attack. He has already confessed, so his trial should be fairly short.
Muhammad al-Qahtani's case is also tricky. He was tortured pretty extensively once his identity became known, causing the DoD to call him "unprosecutable." On the other hand, he was definitely a member of al-Qaeda, and tried to enter the States shortly before 9/11 with a one-way ticket, and he probably wasn't sight-seeing. Also, if I recall, he is named as the 20th hijacker in KSM's confession.
We will have to see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
