From Gitmo to Abu Ghraib
Jesse Walker | July 15, 2005, 6:47pm
The Schmidt-Furlow report on Guantanamo is classified, but the government has released an executive summary of it. Andrew Sullivan extracts the most important information:
What we saw [in the Abu Ghraib photos] was indeed shocking. But we were emphatically told by the administration that none of this was policy, that all of it was dreamed up by some nutjobs on the night shift who got their ideas from bad television or their own demented psyches. When some of us pointed out that there was clear evidence that some of these techniques were authorized, that, indeed, the commander of Guantanamo Bay had been sent to Abu Ghraib to "Gitmoize" it, we were told we were slandering the troops and the administration.
One great merit of the Schmidt report - which is otherwise riddled with worrying euphemisms, dismissal of troubling facts, exoneration of almost all commanders - is that we now know that almost every one of the Abu Ghraib techniques was practised and innovated at Guantanamo. These were not improvised out of nowhere. They were what the report calls "the creative application of authorized interrogation techniques," and the interrogators "believed they were acting within existing guidance."
Marty Lederman has more analysis here.
Tom Crick | July 16, 2005, 12:23am | #
"I remember, during the Cold War, hearing conservatives denounced the abuse that took place in Soviet prisons, in all apparent sincerity, and thinking that the revulsion we shared, and the determination to define America as the opposite of all that, was something all of us could share, across party lines."
Of course, there were conservatives who, in all sincerity, denounced the abuse of the Soviets and thought to define America as the opposite of all that. I was one of them.
...As I recall, there were leftists who, during the Cold War, were quite reluctant to accept that what was happening in the Soviet Union was really happening, just as there are Americans among us today who are reluctant to accept what we did to prisoners at Guantanamo and Abu Gharib. There were Serbians who were reluctant to accept that the Milosevic regime massacred civilians as it did. There are Japanese people who are reluctant to face the way the Japanese Army treated both civilians and prisoners during the war. ...I don't think anyone
wants to think their own would treat people that way.
...There are those among all the groups mentioned above who justify their own actions by dehumanizing their victims too, it's an ugly side to human nature I fear.
I'm usually not the type given to quoting Shakespeare, but I couldn't help but think of this:
QUEEN ELIZABETH:
O thou well skill'd in curses, stay awhile,
And teach me how to curse mine enemies!
QUEEN MARGARET:
Forbear to sleep the nights, and fast the days;
Compare dead happiness with living woe;
Think that thy babes were fairer than they were,
And he that slew them fouler than he is:
Bettering thy loss makes the bad causer worse:
Revolving this will teach thee how to curse.
----Richard III - Act 4. Scene IVrob | July 16, 2005, 1:18pm | #
I know I've been lurking more than posting lately, but when did Ken Schultz change his name to Tom Crick? (At least he took my advice about changing his screen-name in hopes of avoiding the association of being totally discredit repeatedly...)
I wanted to pass this thread over completely, and I should have. But I read it, and I regret reading it because I started to entertain the thought of copy and pasting my old counter-arguments to systematically dismantle (yet again) the arguments being repeated on this thread.
How many times is Tom Crick/Ken Schultz going to post the same tired quotes and links to Schlesinger? What are we on now, the 5th or 6th reiteration of the same points?
How many times is joe going to make this same comment? "I remember, during the Cold War, hearing conservatives denounced the abuse that took place in Soviet prisons, in all apparent sincerity, and thinking that the revulsion we shared, and the determination to define America as the opposite of all that, was something all of us could share, across party lines. I don't think that any more." (Most recent Comment by: joe at July 16, 2005 12:00 AM)
I'm starting to think that some of you guys have actually programmed macros to spit out the same comment everytime someone mentions the abuses at Abu Ghraib or refers to Gitmo. If it's not an actual macro, it's ingrained so powerfully into their points of view as to make them indistinguishable from an actual computer operation.
Instead of clobbering those same arguments - why bother when they're still available in past comment threads? - I'm going to do something new. I'm actually going to add some new information to the discussion. (As novel as that might seem to some, I think it's valid...)
So here is a quote from the first part of the Executive Summary (that spawned this thread) that requires me to do more than invoke a macro. A dicey maneuver, I know, because its harder to address reality than to just hit the same grooves as before, but I'm going to give it a shot:
"Detention and interrogation operations at Joint Task Force Guantanamo (JTF-GTMO) cover a three-year period and over 24,000 interrogations. This
AR 15-6 investigation found only three interrogation acts in violation of interrogation techniques authorized by Army Field Manual 34-52 and DoD guidance. The AR 15-6 also found that the Commander of JTF-GTMO failed to monitor the interrogation of one high value detainee in late 2002. The AR 15-6 found that the interrogation of this same high value detainee resulted in degrading and abusive treatment but did not rise to the level of being inhumane treatment. Finally, the AR 15-6 found that the communication of a threat to another high value detainee was in violation of SECDEF guidance and the UCMJ. The AR 15-6 found no evidence of torture or inhumane treatment at JTF-GTMO."
- http://www.dod.mil/news/Jul2005/d20050714report.pdf
That last sentence is a real kick in the head to some people's comments, I know. I almost wish I could say I was sorry about that without actually laughing out loud.
Tom Crick | July 16, 2005, 6:52pm | #
"Let's say, for the sake of argument, that however high this goes it falls short of Rumsfeld and Bush, so that nobody's ox will be gored. Just for the sake of argument."
Personally, I can't do that. I disagree with the morally pathetic opinions in the Gonzales Torture Memo, and I disagree with the implementation of those opinions as written in the interrogation guidelines Mr. Rumsfeld made policy. I contend that Mr. Rumsfeld's administrative incompetence is to blame both for the mis-implementation of those policies and the resulting disgrace.
...I regret that we invaded Iraq, and I believe the Bush Administration misled the American people into supporting the invasion. Now that we're there, I don't whether we should stay or go, for sure. ...but I know this, the President's acceptance of Rumsfeld's apparent incompetence, Rumsfeld's apparent refusal to publicly answer for his interrogation policies and the elevation of Mr. Gonzales in spite of his bad advice demonstrates that President Bush's leadership should not be trusted.
...That is to say, I don't know if we should stay in Iraq or not, but either way, we can't trust the President to lead us out of this mess. I'm tellin' my friends, my family... I'm cryin' it from the mountain! Regardless of what you think we need to do in Iraq, we need competent leadership to handle Iraq. ...and the President is incompetent. ...and nothin' demonstrates that better than this. ...except maybe the bogus WMD thing.
"Can anybody tell me if any good has come of using the techniques in question?"
The Schlesinger Report--and I keep harpin' on the report 'cause it seems to me that many of us are yet to digest its contents--mentions that there was some good intelligence obtained by way of Rumsfeld's interrogation methods at Guantanamo. However, it seems that much of it was of the after the fact, how'd they finance 9/11 variety. ...Rather than the preemptive, ticking time-bomb, before the fact sort, that is.
...Not that the report detailed the intelligence collected. I look forward to the day we can all look at the intelligence and argue about whether or not the intelligence was worth it. Of course, even if Rumsfeld's interrogation policies prevented something big, I'm going to argue that I'd prefer to take my chances of being caught in a terrorist attack rather than having someone tortured to protect me.
Stevo Darkly | July 16, 2005, 11:56pm | #
Oh, I'm sure the tortures (or if that's too harsh a word for some cases, the activities designed to frighten and discomfort the prisoners) are intended specifically to upset, discomfort, freak out, harass, agonize, humiliate, scare the freakin' jeebies out of, etc., Muslims.
However, I don't find it all that unlikely that reservists would have some information, possibly half-assed, about the things that Muslims find detestable.
First of all, as they are being shipped to Iraq, they are probably given some kind of sensitivity briefing on what
not to do to unduly upset, offend or antagonize the civilian Muslim process. ("Don't hand them things with your left hand; that's considered your 'unclean bathroom hygiene hand' and will upset them. Don't sit with your legs crossed so that the sole of your feet are facing somebody; that's considered rude or offenive. They are very uptight about sex; the conservative ones will be offended by immodest dress by women -- no porn or Victoria's Secret catalogs." Etc., etc.) Maybe kwais can tell us if soldier get any such briefing. But anyway, I know this stuff just out of curiosity, and I knew it long before the current war. (I learned some of it because of the previous US war in the Gulf in the early 1990s.)
In addition, I'm sure some scuttlebutt will be passed through the ranks about what Muslims find offensive, because they make a good story. ("Know what freaks a Muslim guy out? Chick's menstrual blood. They think it's unclean -- could keep 'em out of heaven." "No shit?" "They think dogs are unclean animals, too. If you pet a dog and then touch a Muslin, you'll piss 'em off." "Damn. So they hate Lassie and Snoopy?" Etc. etc.)
I can easily see poorly trained guards and interrogators using this knowledge in unintended ways, thinking they are cleverly exploiting the prisoner's cultural weaknesses. ("Even if we were allowed to punch the shit out of Achmed, he won't talk. But here's what we can do: Get a topless chick to smear red ink on Achmed, and tell him it's menstrual blood. He'll shit his britches! And we'll threaten him with doing it some more unless he spills. And we don't even have to actually hurt him! Who can complain about that?")
What these soldiers apparently failed to consider is that this treatment will not just cause the prisoners to freak, but also the rest of the Muslim populace when they hear about it.
This seems a reasonable scenario to me.
I, the evil conquerer | July 17, 2005, 4:59am | #
Personally, I can't do that. I disagree with...
I know this guy who still hasn't gotten over the loss of the Spanish Armada, too.
Either way, it makes the idea that this came from higher up much easier to believe.
What if it did? Would that give you Excuse # 2,057 [personal and immediate justification to bitch about Bush, Rumsfield, the war in Iraq, et al]? Or is my excuse count too low?
What we're bitching about is the fact that Rumsfield et al. didn't personally send a letter to everyone in the armed forces saying "if you catch the enemy, you must immediately administer to them chicken soup for the soul, because after all we are a civilized, moral, upright nation".
Not that I have any particular love for Rumsfield et al. But war is hell. Or at least it used to be.
From listening to some of you, if I was fighting the US and wanted to minimize my suffering, the best thing I could do is let the US catch me. Because if anybody even
looks at me cross-eyed from that moment on, the lawyers and the MSM are going to get rich off it sooner or later.
This is "war". You cannot have a war without having an "enemy". The "enemy" is, by definition, the enemy.
Maybe we'd all like it better if we weren't at war. Darn, if only Admiral Bush hadn't lost the Armada.
The only rational voices I hear around here are asking the question "what should we do now?" Except, I don't hear anybody asking that question.....
Exactly how do any of you expect that we should treat POW's? "Not the way we treated them in Abu-blah blah" is not an answer.
Remember the Armada! It sank. Gurgle gurgle. We're talking about a real war now, with a real enemy and all that kind of stuff. What do you expect the US to do with POW's? Give them Care Bear cards?
It blows my mind that the whole US can get this wrapped up about what should have been a perhaps embarassing, but not particularly large, bump in the carpeting.
Meanwhile, we still haven't figured out whether to give the Iraqis Care Bears or thongs.
thoreau | July 17, 2005, 8:00am | #
What bothers me the most when I hear about the treatment of prisoners is not the way that they are treated.
No, it's the fact that:
1) Some of it seems to involve indulging sadism
2) Some of it seems to involve being tough because, well, dammit,
this is war!, rather than a calculated effort to obtain useful information.
3) There seems to be little in the way of processes for separating wheat from chaff, guilty from innocent, terrorist from guy in wrong place at wrong time, etc.
In other words, it seems rather uncontrolled and ill-planned. I've heard that the Israelis are supposedly very deliberate, methodical, and intelligent in their use of torture...um, sorry, frat pranks (don't want to offend any faint-hearted posters who can't stand the T word). Supposedly they know what they're doing and do it very carefully to get the results that they want.
I don't know if the reality of the Israelis lives up to the reputation, but I would be more willing to indulge our government if I saw more evidence of intelligent and selective application of proven techniques to people who definitely knew something and in cases where the info was time-sensitive. Yes, we could still debate it, there would still be objections, but at least we'd know that there was some method to the madness, some achievable ends that might hypothetically justify the means.
But I don't hear that. Mostly what I hear is "Don't you know we're at war here?"
Tom Crick | July 17, 2005, 12:49pm | #
"What if it did? Would that give you Excuse # 2,057 [personal and immediate justification to bitch about Bush, Rumsfield, the war in Iraq, et al]? Or is my excuse count too low?"
Actually, Abu Gharib would be excuse number one.
I supported the Bush the Younger Administration for a long time. Indeed, I voted for Dubya the first go 'round, just like I voted for Dole and Bush the Elder. I was too young to vote for Reagan, but I did go door to door for him. Though I registered libertarian to protest Bush the Elder breaking his tax pledge, I still consider myself a conservative Republican--by conservative Republican, I mean I want deep cuts in taxes, matching deep cuts in federal spending, free trade and a pragmatic foreign policy. I still lean pro-life.
...I guess I'm not the type who thinks that being a conservative Republican means supporting the President and/or Party just because its Republican. Reagan once said something to the effect that he didn't leave the Democratic Party, it was the Democratic Party that left him. ...I can understand that. Only God, some of my friends, my family and my dog get my unconditional support.
I supported President Bush right up until Abu Gharib. I admit to being marginally against the war on humanitarian grounds and pragmatic concerns regarding the Powell doctrine, but I also thought we should give the President the benefit of the doubt in regards to WMD, etc. I was as surprised as anyone that we didn't find any WMD there, still that didn't make me change my mind about support. Other libertarians here have marveled that it took so long for me to change my mind, but it really was Abu Gharib that did it for me. ...maybe I'm slow.
"Maybe we'd all like it better if we weren't at war. Darn, if only Admiral Bush hadn't lost the Armada. ...The only rational voices I hear around here are asking the question "what should we do now?" Except, I don't hear anybody asking that question....."
Actually, I've been tryin' to answer that question. The answer should have something to do with the nature of the problem.
I suppose there are instances in history where armies and corporations have gotten themselves out of trouble despite incompetent leadership. ...but my money's against it in this case. Have you seen any indication that George W. Bush--or anyone else in his administration--is likely to change tacks based on lessons learned from prior mistakes? ...I've watched the Administration prettty closely, and I'm convinced that unless and until we get competent leadership--be it Democrat or Republican--we aren't going to do whatever it is that needs to be done to bring Iraq to a successful conclusion. ...A successful conclusion for the United States, that is. No, we can't vote the Administration out of power, but we can do and say whatever it takes to undermine the Administration's support among the American people.
...Indeed, if failures on the ground or failures in Abu Gharib, etc. won't prompt the President to change policies, philosophies or personnel, perhaps losing the personal support of the American people will. Hence, I think the most practical thing we can do is encourage our friends, family and co-workers to withdraw their support from the Presdient--and I don't care what side of the debate they fall on. If they think that Reverse Domino Theory is the answer, they should realize that the Bush Administration doesn't posess the administrative competence required to get that job done. If they think we should withdraw, they should take note that the Bush Administration doesn't have the requisite competence to pull that job off either.
This lack of administrative competence is well documented in places like the Schlesinger Report. The Administration left Rumsfeld in charge in spite of his strategic and policy blunders. Alberto Gonzales' legal opinions, when put into practice, ultimately disgraced the American people; despite this, the Administration elevated Gonzales to Attorney General and appears poised to elevate him to the Supreme Court! We must withdraw whatever latent support we have for the Bush Administration, and we must encourage our friends and family to do likewise.
...It's the most practical thing we can do.
I, the evil conquerer | July 17, 2005, 2:20pm | #
In other words, it seems rather uncontrolled and ill-planned.
Valid criticism, thoreau. I agree, acting on anger alone is the road to madness. And I also wonder if that's what has been going on.
I've heard that the Israelis are supposedly very deliberate, methodical, and intelligent in their use of torture...
Maybe, but there are two things to keep in mind about this. First, what the Isrealis can do is different from what we could do, practically speaking. We're a lot bigger, which institutionally makes it exponentially more difficult to impose good QC.
I'm sure some purist will try and slam me for this. To those who would, my counter is that you should not gripe about this until you have tried yourself to impose a uniform system of conduct on an institution that consists, not of tens but rather hundreds of thousands, if not millions.
Second, the "dammit this is war" thing cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. Becoming a POW of the US military should not be like getting sent to a country club prison, relative to being in the war zone.
I think we've gotten over-squeemish about this. "I wouldn't hurt a flea, because that's what I am and this is a moral, civilized country". I hear that view point being the driver in way too much discussion.
If you're at war, then anyone taken as prisoner is someone you would have been shooting at to kill just before they became a POW. And now we're going to moan about our own "moral short comings" because somebody stuck a pair of panties on somebody's head?
Give me a break. No, give me two, they're small.
I wouldn't have the military condone what happened. But this shouldn't be blown into more than a definite discipline problem. Instead I hear people talk like we've degenerated to the moral equivalent of barbarians.
The reality of war is that it
is war. War is hell.
Don't act on pure anger. But don't expect that nobody's going to get their sensibilities offended, either.
The question of how POW's should be treated is not easily answered. I think good answers have to come from people whose professions are in this arena.
Which isn't me. I don't take prisoners.
mediageek | July 17, 2005, 2:33pm | #
Setting aside for a moment the dubious effectiveness of torture...
Touching a detainee's shoulder or back?
lap dances?
Verbal humiliation about sexual prowess or endowment?
Putting a bra/panties on the head of a detainee?
Restraining/leading him around with leashes?
I have a friend who works for a magazine that, if the ads in the back are any indication, there are a
lot of people that pay good money to be treated like this in their leisure time.
I mean, I've pretty much ignored the stories about torture up until now, dismissing them as "Great, now we're torturing people, I'm agin' it."
But you know what? None of that shit is torture. Being threatened with an angry German Shepard while being forced to listen to Christina Aguilera's "Dirrrty" isn't fucking torture, no matter how much that album sucks.
Torture is handcuffing someone's hands behind their back and hanging them from the ceiling by their wrists.
Torture is using pliers to pull fingernails and teeth out.
Torture is having a group of men beat a detainee with batons to the point that he is no longer recognizable as a human being.
Torture is rape and forced sodomy.
Torture is running electrical current through a human.
Torture is forcing a person to eat ground-up glass and drink boiling water.
Torture leaves people crippled, disfigured, or dead.
Exploitation of cultural taboos may be ugly and unpleasant, but it hardly constitutes torture.
If there have been legitimate instances of real torture at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, or anywhere else, I'll happily oppose it. Heck, I'll even happily oppose practices that aren't necessarily permanently injurious, such as
Water Boarding. But to condemn the government for noninjurious violations of cultural taboos and practices cheapens and ultimately damages protestation of instances of real torture.
