I have been very careful to try not to label the allegations we have heard coming out of Guantanamo Bay as torture, or even abuse, because I don’t know where the lines are drawn. Sure, I have a gut sense of what is abuse and what is torture, and I know what is indefensible, but I don’t want to run around haphazardly calling our boys (whether they be military, civilian contractors, CIA, etc.) torturers.
Apparently, if this story is accurate (always a big if these days) our government has made a distinction:
Washington has for the first time acknowledged to the United Nations that prisoners have been tortured at US detention centres in Guantanamo Bay, as well as Afghanistan and Iraq, a UN source said.
The acknowledgement was made in a report submitted to the UN Committee against Torture, said a member of the ten-person panel, speaking on on condition of anonymity.
“They are no longer trying to duck this, and have respected their obligation to inform the UN,” the Committee member told AFP.
“They they will have to explain themselves (to the Committee). Nothing should be kept in the dark.”
UN sources said it was the first time the world body has received such a frank statement on torture from US authorities.
The Committee, which monitors respect for the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, is gathering information from the US ahead of hearings in May 2006.
The folks at Powerline might want to slow down their claims that this is nothing more than “worrying that a terrorist’s air conditioning might not be properly adjusted.”
p.lukasiak
well, at least this is a step in the right direction — before you can solve a problem, you have to acknowledge it.
Stormy 70
I want to see the report, not hear about it second hand from an anonymous source at the UN. Until then, I will remain skeptical. The UN does not have a credible record, so I will wait and see what the report says. I want specifics here as to what is being referred to as torture.
Aaron
We should have had the UN Commission on Human Rights running Gitmo from the start….their member states have lots of experience with torture.
Darrell
We should have had the UN Commission on Human Rights running Gitmo from the start….their member states have lots of experience with torture.
LOL. Excellent observation. UN commission on Human rights has been a rogue’s gallery of non-democratic, oppressive dictatorships.. Libya, Syria, etc
cburke
(snarkiness warning)
There is no torture.
If there is torture they deserved it, and was just a few undisciplined troops doing it anyway.
I’ve heard better excuses from four year olds.
Jon H
Aaron writes: “We should have had the UN Commission on Human Rights running Gitmo from the start….their member states have lots of experience with torture.”
Yeah, then we wouldn’t have to pay for the Gulfstream V to fly prisoners to those same countries, so they can be tortured for us.
They could just torture them for us, at Gitmo.
What, you wanted to take the moral high ground against those countries? Bush surrendered it already.
Jimmy Jazz
This is the work of just a few bad apples.
Bush, Gonzales, Rummy, and Uncle Dick.
kat-missouri
I have to agree with those that say “see the report” because one persons idea of torture is another’s idea of abuse.
Seriously, because I read about 1000 pages of the FBI documents. these are largely allegations of abuse. the most egregious would have been the hot and cold chained in uncomfortable positions and forced to stand for hours, sleep deprivation. those kinds of things.
frankly, it would behoove people to actually read the documents and then find out what the UN has listed as “torture” before you jump off the bridge.
secondly, you may want to review the time line of events before you conclude that the abuse noted was ordered from the top. you may recall that the guantanamo commander was replaced in march 2003. if you know the dates on the fbi documents, it was 2002 to march 2003 that the investigations occurred. long before the media knew or cared.
kat-missouri
I have to agree with those that say “see the report” because one persons idea of torture is another’s idea of abuse.
Seriously, because I read about 1000 pages of the FBI documents. these are largely allegations of abuse. the most egregious would have been the hot and cold chained in uncomfortable positions and forced to stand for hours, sleep deprivation. those kinds of things.
frankly, it would behoove people to actually read the documents and then find out what the UN has listed as “torture” before you jump off the bridge.
secondly, you may want to review the time line of events before you conclude that the abuse noted was ordered from the top. you may recall that the guantanamo commander was replaced in march 2003. if you know the dates on the fbi documents, it was 2002 to march 2003 that the investigations occurred. long before the media knew or cared.
Tim F
The Taguba report all over again. People who want to believe that torture never happened set the bar for proof at some astronomical level, but if they want to believe something an internet rumor is enough.
CalDevil
Sure looks like a lot of people around here hoping for torture.
It’s like kids waiting on Christmas. “Ooh torture. I hope it’s torture. I hope it’s torture! Now everyone will know that Bush, every Republican and everyone of our troops are just like Nazis. Nazis, I tell ya! Nazis!”
If there was indeed “torture” that was uncovered in the military’s own internal investigations, the reports of which we have disclosed to an independent world body, then perhaps we should wait to find out just what this torture consisted of, whether it was authorized, and whether anyone already has been held accountable.
Let’s put the boiler on simmer until then. Ok?
p.lukasiak
If there was indeed “torture” that was uncovered in the military’s own internal investigations,
IF!?!?!?!
We beat two prisoners to death, one of whom was completely innocent…. and you say “if there was indeed torture”?
Did you read the letter from the FBI agent? And you say “if there was indeed torture?”
Nobody is “hoping its torture”. We know its torture. We’re hoping that the US finally admits that torture has been taking place, because as long as we define the what we have been doing as anything other than torture, we’re doomed to continue to engage in torture.
art
JonH: “What, you wanted to take the moral high ground against those countries? Bush surrendered it already.”
You might want to check into who started up the rendition program big guy.
Kimmitt
Oh, well, if Clinton did it a handful of times, then Bush did it hundreds of times, that means that they are totally equivalent.
Hint: There’s a REASON no one heard of it under Clinton — because it was tremendously rare and used for purposes we all agree are sadly necessary.
The Apologist
““They haven’t avoided anything in their answers, whether concerning prisoners in Iraq, in Afghanistan or Guantanamo, and other accusations of mistreatment and of torture,” the Committee member said.
“They said it was a question of isolated cases, that there was nothing systematic and that the guilty were in the process of being punished.”
The US report said that those involved were low-ranking members of the military and that their acts were not approved by their superiors, the member added.”
I think you should probably read more than the first half of the article folks. This seems like old news to me. It’s probably a summary of cases from Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, Baghram, and a few other places. They’ve likely already been investigated and prosecuted. John, you’re gonna have to do better than that if you wanna indict the Homo-hating right-wing nutjobs in the White House and the Pentagon for war crimes.
Incidently, do you concur with the characterization of Gitmo as “a US toehold in Cuba” as it states in the article you sited? And what about the flatly false statement in the third paragraph from the bottom?
“The US has faced widespread criticism for keeping the Guantanamo detainees in a “legal black hole,” notably for its refusal to grant them prisoner of war status and allegedly sluggish moves to charge or try them.”
False because every detainee has recieved a military tribunal to establish that they are in fact illegal combatants, in accordance with a U.S. district court ruling. Do you agree with that? The caution with which you have approached this subject is, I think, warranted. I applaud your being so reasonable and restrained in leveling the kind of bombastic rhetoric your commenters have seen fit to level. Especially when you don’t seem to be all that informed on this subject. Or maybe you didn’t finish the article. Or maybe you simply saw the false charge as being beneath comment.
If you want to know where the U.S. military stands on this issue I suggest you read the testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee from June 15, 2005. You can access the statements by clicking on the names of the witnesses on the right. Educate yourself John, I don’t think you understand what this fight is really about. The label of torure is a wedge. From there you move to “systematic torture”, then to war crime, then to electoral defeats, then to a change in U.S. foriegn policy as regards the War on Terror.
That isn’t to say that torture isn’t torture. Nor that it should go unpunished if it occurs. Just that you’ve got allies in this fight you wouldn’t like and they’ve been running this sideshow from the beginning. The fact is the military has taken all the initiative in investigating charges and in prosecuting those allegations found credible. The military is the source for all these documents and leaks to the press. There is no cover-up or obfuscation. There never has been. You just didn’t here much about it before now because it hasn’t been politically advantageous up till now.
John Cole
I was more or less interested in the use of the ‘t’ word, as the first paragraph of this post should have made obvious.
Brian
The U.N. is a real credible source. I take everything they say as the gospel.
Steve Wood
The Apologist,
Don’t expect miracles. Yes, nowhere does the article indicate that any torture that did occur was more than non-systematic isolated cases, which is what many people–those of us who are emotionally crippled and morally inferior no doubt–have been saying the entire time. I expect the ‘isolated cases’ to be conveniently left out as this story gains traction. Perhaps pointing it out will earn me a party hack label, no doubt from those who badly need the torture to extend up the chain of command to get the president, no matter if it falsly implicates the military. I mean, the military taking care of internal crimes and abuse, properly prosectuting criminals who unfortunately wear the uniform, that is more of a mundane story, can’t bash the president for that now, can one. I don’t even like typing his name because the torture issue is not about him. Presidents come and go. Saying that the military easily slipped into torture mode due to one memo is much more serious to me, and demands some serious proof.
The Apologist
Not to mention that the memo dictating policy states:
“3. Of course, our values as a nation, values that we share with many nations in the world, call for us to treat detainees humanely, including those who are not legally entitled to such treatment. Our nation has been and will continue to be a strong supporter of Geneva and its principles. As a matter of policy, the United States Armed Forces shall continue to treat detainees humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
4. The United States will hold states, organizations, and individuals who gain control of United States personnel responsible for treating such personnel humanely and consistent with applicable law.
5. I hereby reaffirm the order previously issued by the secretary of defense to the United States Armed Forces requiring that the detainees be treated humanely and, to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity, in a manner consistent with the principles of Geneva.
The policy has never been and is not now that torture is policy in interrogations or that it will even be tolerated. It’s this bit:
“…to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity…”
that’s got everyone worked up. But I think this is more a reference to the kind of conditions detainees are to be held in and not interrogation techniques. Afghanistan was a very fast moving war and it was meant to be such. There wasn’t time for the kind of logistical measures we would need to detain enemy combatants for intelligence gathering and detention if we were expected to build facilities. “Military expediency” means “improvise”. That’s how I read it. But then I don’t think Bush is a Nazi so I can understand how someone consumed with rage and fear at the new Hitler could read something else into the memo. Their delusions don’t make their reading accurate, or even plausible. The U.S. military is the biggest supporter of the GCs and they understand both it’s neccesity and it’s applications better than anyone else, with the possible exception of a lawyer who specializes in the treaty.