Here's another reason to vote for Bush. So we can torture more prisoners.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/politics/17gitmo.html
Broad Use Cited of Harsh Tactics at Base in Cuba
By NEIL A. LEWIS
WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 - Many detainees at Guantánamo Bay were regularly subjected to harsh and coercive treatment, several people who worked in the prison said in recent interviews, despite longstanding assertions by military officials that such treatment had not occurred except in some isolated cases.
The people, military guards, intelligence agents and others, described in interviews with The New York Times a range of procedures that included treatment they said was highly abusive occurring over a long period of time, as well as rewards for prisoners who cooperated with interrogators.
One regular procedure that was described by people who worked at Camp Delta, the main prison facility at the naval base in Cuba, was making uncooperative prisoners strip to their underpants, having them sit in a chair while shackled hand and foot to a bolt in the floor, and forcing them to endure strobe lights and screamingly loud rock and rap music played through two close loudspeakers, while the air conditioning was turned up to maximum levels, said one military official who witnessed the procedure. The official said that was designed to make the detainees uncomfortable as they were accustomed to high temperatures both in their native countries and their cells.
Such sessions could last up to 14 hours with breaks, said the official, who described the treatment after being contacted by The Times.
"It fried them,'' the official said, explaining that anger over the treatment the prisoners endured was the reason for speaking with a reporter. Another person familiar with the procedure who was contacted by The Times said: "They were very wobbly. They came back to their cells and were just completely out of it.''
The new information comes from a number of people, some of whom witnessed or participated in the techniques and others who were in a position to know the details of the operation and corroborate their accounts.
Those who spoke of the interrogation practices at the naval base did so under the condition that their iden ies not be revealed. While some said it was because they remained on active duty, they all said that being publicly identified would endanger their futures. Although some former prisoners have said they saw and experienced mistreatment at Guantánamo, this is the first time that people who worked there have provided detailed accounts of some interrogation procedures.
One intelligence official said most of the intense interrogation was focused on detainees known as the "dirty thirty,'' believed to be the best potential sources of information.
In August, a report commissioned by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld found that tough techniques approved by the government were rarely used, but the sources described a broader pattern that went beyond even the aggressive techniques that were permissible.
The issue of what were permissible interrogation techniques has produced a vigorous debate within the government that burst into the open with reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad and is now the subject of several independent investigations.
Since the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan, the administration has wrestled with the issue of what techniques were permissible in interrogations, with many arguing that the campaign against terrorism should en le them to greater leeway.
David Sheffer, a former senior State Department human rights official in the Clinton administration who teaches law at George Washington University, said the procedure of shackling prisoners to the floor in a state of undress while enduring loud music and lights clearly cons uted torture. "I don't think there's any question that treatment of that character satisfies the severe pain and suffering requirement, be it physical or mental, that is provided for in the Convention Against Torture,'' Mr. Sheffer said.
Pentagon officials would not comment on the details of the allegations. Lt. Cmdr. Alvin Plexico issued a Defense Department statement in response to questions about the new accounts, saying that the military was providing a "safe, humane and professional detention operation at Guantánamo that is providing valuable information in the war on terrorism.''
The statement said: "Guantánamo guards provide an environment that is stable, secure, safe and humane. And it is that environment that sets the conditions for interrogators to work successfully and to gain valuable information from detainees because they have built a relationship of trust, not fear.''
The sources portrayed a system of punishment and reward, with prisoners who were favored for their cooperation with interrogators given the privilege of spending time in a large room nicknamed "the love shack'' by the guards. In that room, they were free to relax and had access to magazines, books, a television and a video player and some R-rated movies, along with the use of a water pipe to smoke aromatic tobaccos. Those prisoners were also occasionally given milkshakes and hamburgers from the McDonald's on the base.
The Pentagon said the information gathered from the detainees "has undoubtedly saved the lives of our soldiers in the field. And that information also saves the lives of innocent civilians at home and abroad. At Guantánamo we are holding and interrogating people that are a clear danger to the U.S. and our allies and they are providing valuable information in the war on terrorism.''
Although many critics of the detentions at Guantánamo have said that the majority of the roughly 590 inmates are low-level fighters who have little intelligence to impart, Pentagon and intelligence officials have insisted that the facility houses many dangerous veteran terrorists and officials of Al Qaeda.
The intelligence official said that many of those imprisoned at Guantánamo had valuable information but that it was not always clear what their standing in Al Qaeda was. The official said the first four detainees now facing war crimes charges before a military tribunal at the base were specifically chosen because they had not been harshly treated and therefore would be less likely to make any embarrassing allegations. The people who worked at the prison also described as common another procedure in which an inmate was awakened, subjected to an interrogation in a facility known as the Gold Building, then returned to a different cell. As soon as the guards determined the inmate had fallen into a deep sleep, he was awakened again for interrogation after which he would be returned to yet a different cell. This could happen five or six times during a night, they said. This procedure was described by those who participated as part of something called "Operation Sandman."
Much of the harsh treatment described by the sources was said to have occurred as recently as the early months of this year. After the scandal about mistreatment of prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq became public in April, all harsh techniques were abruptly suspended, they said.
The new accounts of mistreatment at Guantánamo provide fresh evidence about how practices there may have contributed to the abuses later uncovered at Abu Ghraib. One independent military panel said in a report that the approach that was being used at Guantánamo "migrated to Abu Ghraib,'' where abuses grew exponentially. The vigorous debate within the administration about what techniques were permissible in interrogations was set off when the Justice Department provided a serious of memorandums to the White House and Defense Department providing narrow definitions of torture. In February 2002, Mr. Bush ordered that the prisoners at Guantánamo were to be treated "humanely and, to the extent appropriate with military necessity, in a manner consistent with'' the Geneva Conventions.
In March 2002, a team of administration lawyers accepted the Justice Department's view, concluding in a memorandum that President Bush was not bound by either the Convention Against Torture or a federal anti-torture statute because he had the authority to protect the nation from terrorism. When some of the memorandums were disclosed, the administration tried to distance itself from the rationale for the harsher treatment.
At the request of military intelligence officials who complained of tenacious resistance by some subjects, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a list of 16 techniques for use at Guantánamo in addition to the 17 methods in the Army Field Manual in December 2002. But he suspended those approvals in January 2003 after some military lawyers complained they were excessive and possibly unlawful.
In April 2003, after a review, Mr. Rumsfeld issued a final policy approving of 24 techniques, some of which needed his permission to be used.
But the approved techniques did not explicitly cover some that were used, according to the new accounts. The only time that using loud music and lights seems to appear in the do ents, for example, was as a proposal that seems never to have been adopted. The April 16 memorandum allows interrogators to place a detainee "in a setting that may be less comfortable'' but should not "cons ute a substantial change in environmental quality.''
Another approved technique is "sleep adjustment,'' which is defined as distinct from "sleep deprivation.''
Officials said the guards' patience was often stretched, especially when inmates threw human waste at the military police officers, a frequent occurrence. The guards, for their part, had their own tricks, including replacing the prayer oil in little bottles given to the inmates with a caustic pine-smelling floor cleaner.
An August 2004 report by a panel headed by James R. Schlesinger, a former Defense Secretary, said the harsher approved techniques on Mr. Rumsfeld's list were only used on two occasions. In addition, the report said, there were about eight abuses by guards at Guantánamo that occurred and were investigated.
In guided tours of Guantánamo provided to the media and members of Congress, the military authorities contended that the system of rewards and punishments affected only issues like whether the inmates could be deprived of books, blankets and toilet articles. The interrogation sessions, the officials consistently said, did not employ any harsh treatment but were designed only to build a trusting relationship between the interrogator and the detainee.
Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company
Boo ing hoo. If we can glean ANY intel from these ers that can help prevent another 9/11, I'm for whatever means necessary to get it out of them.
Y'all realize that the Special Forces that Johnny boy loves so much interrogate by putting a gun to the guy's head and ing it, right?
Cold air and rock music? They're getting off easy.
Wow - what a crybaby. The worst thing they are doing is putting them in an air conditioned room in their tighty whities with the rock music blaring. I spent most of college doing that.
I would be in favor of much harsher treatment if these people had information on future 9/11 attacks or where Bin Laden is.
Yeah - strap them up in a cold room if it saves lives. No problem there.The Pentagon said the information gathered from the detainees "has undoubtedly saved the lives of our soldiers in the field. And that information also saves the lives of innocent civilians at home and abroad. At Guantánamo we are holding and interrogating people that are a clear danger to the U.S. and our allies and they are providing valuable information in the war on terrorism.''
Animals deserve to be treated like animals.Officials said the guards' patience was often stretched, especially when inmates threw human waste at the military police officers, a frequent occurrence.
See the problem here is it saved the lives of American troops, and the liberal left isn't happy with anything but a higher body count so they can ramble on about it being "another Vietnam."
These guys don't know the meaning of torture...
I honestly had worse things done to me when playing high school sports.
During a weekend baseball tournament in Waco, I was duct-taped from shoulder to ankle and thrown in a hotel pool, while the upperclassmen laughed.
When I was an upperclassmen, we coaxed a guy into drinking urine - "Apple Gatorade." We gave a guy a weggie with his jock so hard that his butt bled.
They are worried about cold air and loud rock? As long as it isnt new metallica, I dont think it counts as torture.
2pac,
I agree, there was more physicality in high school athletics than we're using on these guys.
Maybe if we just cut off a few heads, that would be okay (seeings I've seen some liberals who won't condone what's done to Americans by terrorists).
I think you need to start a group Torturers for Bush.
Only if you start one called Pussyfooters for Kerry.
I forgot, the liberal strategy for dealing with terrorism is to build a campfire, invite Osama over for S'mores, and sing Kumbaya, then it'd all be better (don't forget to invite Chirac!).
By that last post, I think Stupid Torturers for Bush would be more appropriate for your group, but I'll leave the naming up to you.
Because I know AHF personally, I can say this with a great deal of confidence - you isnt as smartt as we.
Maybe we should serve them t-bone steak and put a gameboy in every cell.
I have no sympathy for these detainees at Guantánamo Bay. I've heard of much worse things happening to better people.
Thats okay dc.......Dan only has sympathy for political purposes!
I'm surprised to see so many people think that the abuse of prisoners is ok. Is it ok if the other side does it to our soldiers?
Also, it still is an incredibly stupid argument to claim that our only choices are to torture them or to serve them steak.
Why must we accord those who feel it is perfectly acceptable to deliberately target innocent men, women, and children and blow them into nothing but a bloody mess of entrails and bone the rights accorded to common criminals in civilized society?
Oh, if only the "other side" thought that "our soldiers" were the only available targets on the battlefield.Is it ok if the other side does it to our soldiers?
Also, what precedent is there for granting a band of terrorists the standing accorded to members of a regular armed force?
Sitting them in a cold room while blasting ACDC isn't abuse.
And they do much worse to non-combatants than we do to these men who tried to give their life just to kill any and every American.
They are beheading people who are there to rebuild their country. We are putting those guys in a cold room with loud music. Who is doing the wrong thing?
Why is it that you don't understand that they are not being "abused"?
From the original article:What part of "highly abusive occurring over a long period of time" does anyone not understand? Your problems with this are much worse than Clinton's problems with "is".The people, military guards, intelligence agents and others, described in interviews with The New York Times a range of procedures that included treatment they said was highly abusive occurring over a long period of time, as well as rewards for prisoners who cooperated with interrogators.
And as far as the serving torture or steak choice, the obvious alternative would be the Geneva Conventions on POWs. But for all his faith in the Christian God, Bush and company seem to have missed the part about humane treatment of prisoners.
Assuming, of course, that said convention would apply to such members of an irregular force.the obvious alternative would be the Geneva Conventions on POWs.
OOPS!!!!!!
hmmm...sitting around in their underwear with the A/C on listening to rock & roll at high volume...
"It fried them''
ahhh...so THATS what happened to Mouse...
Last edited by CosmicCowboy; 10-18-2004 at 03:34 PM.
Nice quote. Now do me a favor and quote the specifics of the torture.
If you think Bush should go Biblically - we could follow God's instructions for defeating a nation, then killing all people in it - man woman and child - so that the evil of that nation would no longer exist. Or we could just put them in an air conditioned room with loud music until they talk.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
