I listened to a great episode of This American Life last week; it was an update of a broadcast from last year called “Habeas Schmabeas”, during which there are interviews with detainees that have been held in Guantanamo.
Unfortunately, so far most people I’ve talked about the episode with start right out by stating that they would never believe a word that any prisoner (or former prisoner) says about the conditions in the prisons, usually before even hearing what they have to say. This is unfortunate, since it automatically locks you into a one-sided view of the picture.
Let’s assume (hypothetically, if you’d like) that there was torture going on in these prisons. How would you find out about it? The only two groups of people who could possibly tell you would be the prisoners or the government (or representatives of the government) responsible for holding them. So, if you’ve (#1) ruled out the former by saying that you will never believe a word the prisoners say, then you are left with #2, which is trusting the government to tell you whether they’re torturing people.
Not only is it quite obvious that they would never officially admit to this, but they also have a track record of lying about this sort of thing, when it comes to something they consider “national security”. I’ll avoid all the hotly debated examples of this (like WMDs, even though I think that case is pretty clear) and point to a rock solid case that there is no denying: the administration’s continued and explicit denial of wiretapping US citizens without a warrant up until (and even after) it was revealed that they had in fact done this. They justified their lies by saying that it was in the interest of national security. Based on that, I think it’s quite illogical to say that you’re only going to believe the side that has proven that they will lie about such matters over any random person who has been thrown in prison without being charged much less convicted of any crime.
What I’m curious about is what it would take to convince such a person that torture is actually happening? The government obviously isn’t going to tell you, and they will hide it from any of the rare outsiders that are reluctantly allowed to come “inspect” things. If you’ve categorically dismissed anything that the prisoners might say, then all you have left is if some sort of video or photographic evidence were to leak out, but that is extremely unlikely to happen. Even if/when it does (as in the Abu Ghraib photos), it will of course be dismissed as an “isolated incident”. Add on top of all that the administration’s adamant opposition to bans on torture, which is somehow (beyond my reasoning) NOT supporting evidence of their intent to use it.
So basically I don’t see any way people that have already determined their position on this issue by making such choices would ever be convinced that there’s anything fishy going on in these prisons; they’ve basically gone through and preemptively dismissed all possible types of evidence. I’d honestly be curious to know how that line of thinking is justified, if anyone reading this feels that way. Or, perhaps more specifically, what would it take for you to even consider the possibility and/or likelihood that this kind of thing is happening (or has happened)?
39 Comments
Oh wait, I almost forgot about the testimony of guards and personnel who actually administered the torture, but they’re obviously just anti-Bush whackos who are making up a story that conveniently aligns with the other evidence, so it’s safe to completely ignore what they have to say as well.
Since I was one of the people your were talking to I can say with 100% confidence that you are exaggerating what I said. I expressed that I would be cautious in believing what the released prisoners said not that I “would never believe a word that any prisoner (or former prisoner) says.” I didn’t read the rest but you need to stop exaggerating if you want to have a normal conversation.
I said “most people”; I wasn’t directly quoting you, or even anyone else necessarily. I do, however, remember you saying that when you thought I was referring to torture by the US at a particular point that such a statement (or implication) meant that I had no credibility.
The exact “wouldn’t believe a word they said” quote was actually from your dad (although I wasn’t really “quoting” anyone specifically in the initial post), but I’ve heard lots of other people say basically the same thing. Sorry if it seemed like I was singling you out in some way, or trying to misrepresent something that you may have said; I wasn’t.
I can understand being cautious, but I am curious whether anyone could present any evidence that you would accept that torture was likely to have occurred. Please go back and read the post if you’re really interested.
PS - did you want your name to still be “Tim”?
so can you can honestly justify saying “most people”?
Oh, geez. It might shock you to know that I actually know and talk to other people outside of the one conversation we had last night, but rather than enumerating them or debating how many is “most”, just pretend I didn’t say that part - snip out the first three sentences if you’d like - since it’s totally immaterial to the content of the post. Please address the topic or move on.
Sorry if that was a bit harsh; I’m not trying to start an argument, I’m just honestly wondering what kind of evidence you might possibly consider valid, and maybe why (I’m assuming) you don’t consider the evidence I’ve mentioned so far to be at least cause for concern. Maybe you do, and we’re somewhat in agreement; I don’t know.
call the white house and comment frequently about your concern and outrage. 202-456-1111
I have about other issues. It might not change things but it does feel good.
abu grab ( sp error ) pictures convinced me of the wrong doings going on there.
prisoners lie - that is a known.
have hillary/gore visit and find out what is going on, I would believe her. I haven’t heard one candidate dem or pub say anything about closing the cuban prison, if they have great, I won’t be reading your references.
give the prisoners a trial. free the innocent, punish the guilty.
it all depends on what is the definition of torture is also,
if the ” torture ” was throwing a koran in the toilet, a koran we gave the prisoner then too bad. if it is loud music and sleep depravation that would be borderline for me, if it threatening to cut off their heads while the guards wear masks and then actually cutting off someone’s head - that I would consider torture … oh wait that is happening but that isn’t a post here.
I don’t doubt that you’ve had many conversations similar to ours with many different people. What I doubt is that most of them took an unreasonable position.
The reason I doubt it and doubt much of the analysis promoted on this blog is because I’ve found it, on political matters anyways, to be rather extreme. Please don’t be offended. I admit than I’m guiltier than you as I have too forcefully and without kindness argued outside of my knowledge and ability. For that I am sure I have very little credibility with many readers of this blog.
I do have an opinion on the general question of how someone might convince another to consider a given belief although I unfortunately can not speak from experience. As far as I can tell, it’s all about respect, tone, and quality. The case must be made in a gentle, careful manner. All hints of arrogance, disdain, combativeness, etc. must be removed and the case must be made with rigor and clarity as it must be comprehendable and stand up to vigorous questioning. This means that if whoever you’re trying to convice doesn’t get your argument or isn’t convinced it’s not their fault it’s because your argument isn’t good enough or your not presenting it quite right. That’s what I think right now. Like I said, I don’t really know. I think the U.S. judicial systems are a great example of how it should work although it’s obviously way to formal for normal guys like us. I love to listen to the Supreme Court justices wrangle over things and beat up on the lawyers making sure they know the arguments just right. Anyway, I’m starting to drone so I’ll clarify anything in another comment later.
OK, I guess that’s kind of fair, although I obviously wouldn’t consider my views extreme. But then again, many extremists probably don’t consider what they believe to be extreme, so I won’t attempt to argue that point.
Let’s try another approach. Assume for a moment that you were an outside observer to a different country that both of us feel no obligation or tendency to defend (Iran, N. Korea, etc. or better yet a hypothetical country that doesn’t exist). Try really, really hard to be in the mindset that we aren’t talking about the USA. If you were presented with the following information, what conclusion would you be likely to draw:
Given these points, what would your logical opinion of this situation / government be?
Personally, mine is strong suspicion, especially in light of the final point. I’d hope for at least serious concern (which maybe we both already share, I don’t know), but perhaps you can convince me of an alternative logical point of view.
Also correct if you feel I’ve mischaracterized any of the points as used for an analogy to our current situation.
My comment count is being attacked by Nate, so…
JB - With Pelosi, Ried et al large and in charge I think they would be doing something like investigating torture charges IF there was some real hint of evidence.
They want to bring down Bush, I don’t think they are part of the conspiracy too.
So I take it you don’t perceive the above points as evidence then? When someone vigorously defends their right to do something, and we have pictures of them doing it at least once, my bet is that they’re doing it. To be honest, just the fact that they are insisting on the right to torture is bad enough for me to be outraged, even if they weren’t doing it.
Either way, if such investigations are taking place, then they should publish the details in an open fashion, and if it’s a legit investigation it might help to clear their reputation somewhat. It would be a very difficult thing to investigate, though, because it would happen under very controlled circumstances.
Sorry for not playing along, but I don’t like that approach. If I transport my mind to a fictional land then all the context is lost. All the details about the inner-workings and history of the U.S. are lost. And I do have problems with the bullet points some of which I think we discussed before to no great effect.
I don’t think there’s anything fictional in any of the points I listed. I only suggested pretending it wasn’t the US to aid in submitting a more unbiased review. I was careful to try and point out in each bullet point where it applied that differing points of view exist on the subject. In the end, though, from everything I’ve seen and read, the list accurately applies to our situation.
I don’t know how much history really plays into it; for one thing there are definitely darker sides to our history as a country as well as great ones, and you have to take the good with the bad. But perhaps more relevant in this case is the fact that things change. I can’t imagine anyone credibly arguing that this country isn’t a much different place than it used to be, in many ways (not just political), and the rate of change from our beginnings to now has only accelerated.
I don’t want to go around and around on this, so perhaps it’s best to end it here. As I said in my last comment to Dave, the very fact that our government is/has been engaged in a well documented battle for the right to use torture in these secret detention facilities (or more specifically, opposing explicit bans on the use of torture) is enough to make me sick over this issue, whether anyone agrees that it’s likely to actually be happening or not. I have a feeling (or maybe just a hope) that at least some of the people in our history would feel the same way.
I agree with you that it is wrong to torture, whether by us or by proxy.
But why haven’t Pelosi & REid done anything if there was factual evidence? They can.
Do you think they want to continue this?
What motivation do they have to keep any of this secret?
Really, are they in on it too with Bush? A rhetorical question for sure, but it does have weight.
These questions make me wonder as to the credibility of the above.
No one was able to stop the abu grabe pictures and investigation from going public.
Where are these ?…” Detailed photographic evidence of cases of torture has been leaked from some of the prisons …” - from your bullet points.
That was a reference to the Abu Ghraib photos, which I’m pretty sure everyone can agree document multiple instances torture.
I’m not sure what I listed above lacks credibility. I’ve only mentioned things that I think everyone can agree on, and where there were disagreements (such as the different stories from prisoners and guards) I mentioned it.
There’s no denying that our administration has argued that they oppose any bans on torture in these offshore facilities. Hopefully you don’t dispute that; so, in light of that, I take a dim view of the current administration for making such an argument, even if they aren’t actually doing it (which seems unlikely to me, but it’s bad either way).
Bush ended up signing the bill that included the Detainee Treatment Act 2005 but used a signing statement to clarify the administrations interpretation much to the dismay of some.
In Hamdan v. Rumsfeld the Supreme Court gave Bush’s singing statement no weight and ruled that the Geneva Convention applies to captured terrorists.
Military Commissions Act of 2006 proposed by the Bush administration worked its way through Congress and is meant to comply with Supreme Court ruling. Cruel and inhuman treatment is said to be criminally prosecutable while degrading or humiliating treatment is not.
I’m sure this is not the end of the story but clearly there is arguing that the Bush administration opposes any bans on torture.
Well, I guess it’s good that the courts said “no” to some of the outrageous things that the administration wanted to defend as their right to do, but it’s still pretty sad that they claimed that right in the first place.
I have significant problems with the Military Commissions Act of 2006; there’s a good summary of the problems with it under the “Criticism” section of its Wikipedia entry.
I will have to dig up the quote, but I’m quite certain that Cheney was quoted (during the debate over the issue in 2005) that he would oppose any ban on “torture” and any attempt to place limits on what defined “torture” as it applied to these prisons.
Don’t get me wrong; the fact that the administration has lost some of these court battles is somewhat encouraging. It’s just the fact that the people currently running the country (at least on the executive side) were fighting on that side of those court battles in the first place that really disturbs me.
I don’t think this is specifically what I was thinking of, but it’s even more scary:
I think this one covers more of what I was referring to above: Cheney’s outright campaign against any anti-torture provisions or restrictions.
Can you give a decent source of Guantanamo guards admitting torture.
Is this what you are referring too?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6049620.stm
The first link is an editorial. The quote is someones opinion, not news. One of the second link’s main theme is the dissension within the Bush administration and from the way things went it looks like Cheney didn’t make the final call. So again, hard to say it show how the Bush administration is opposed to any ban on torture for the CIA prisons.
The link you mention does contain accounts of guards beating prisoners. The ones that stand out in my mind were from radio interviews where the guards were telling their stories, but I don’t remember their names at this point. I could do some searching, but I’m not sure it would be easy to find or that it matters much - are you suggesting that there are no such accounts, even though you posted a link that contains some? (Not sure I get that part)
I didn’t suggest it wasn’t an editorial; it was just the most convenient account that jumped up in Google that told the tale of something that did happen: Cheney specifically asking for language that would allow such actions. Whether my reference to what he did was described in an editorial or elsewhere is totally irrelevant, unless you are disputing that it happened at all.
As for dissension, I would agree that Cheney’s views are certainly on the far wrong end of the spectrum as it relates to the overall administration’s public position. However, he also is generally considered to be pretty influential in his role within the administration. If you disagree with that part, I’d rather not argue it since it doesn’t matter much to the overall point.
I will concede that Cheney is the only one I know of who explicitly opposed “any and all” bans on torture, but I think it’s safe to say that the administration as a whole generally opposes bans on torture is a conclusion that is clearly drawn based on their positions taken many times, specifically on the court cases and bills you list. The side that they took and the fact that they were defeated in some of those court decisions is a pretty clear indication for me that they opposed the bans / restrictions as a general rule; I don’t see what’s difficult to understand about that.
Maybe just to make the question crystal clear: are you really suggesting that the Bush administration did not oppose bans on torture in secret prisons?
Are you defining torture as degrading treatment?
Still, why haven’t Peolosi or Reid spoke up if this is credible evidence?
Sitting here reading wikipedia or reuters or even ap, I don’t have the access to see what is going on, Pelosi does.
this is some of the problems I have with your sources. Nate put it succintly.
Nate wrote: “The first link is an editorial. The quote is someones opinion, not news. One of the second link’s main theme is the dissension within the Bush administration and from the way things went it looks like Cheney didn’t make the final call. So again, hard to say it show how the Bush administration is opposed to any ban on torture for the CIA prisons.”
Depends on what you mean by “degrading treatment”.
As for Pelosi and Reid, I haven’t seen any real indication that many politicians in America are making a firm stand against some of the tactics we’re taking in the “war on terror”, but that might be because I just haven’t heard about it, I don’t know. Like I mentioned at the beginning of this post, though, I don’t see any way they could get verifiably truthful answers to any questions they might have anyway, so it’s a mute point in some sense.
I addressed Nate’s comment about the editorial quote in my last comment; maybe you didn’t read it. I’m very clearly aware of the difference between a news report and an editorial. There’s also a difference between a “source” and a reference made in a conversation. Just because I referred to an editorial piece does not mean I am giving it the “weight” of a proper news source, but (like I also said above) this point is merely a distraction.
The point of mentioning what I quoted was to mention Cheney’s request to congress. Are you disputing that that event actually happened, or are you merely sidetracking the conversation by nitpicking the nature (rather than the validity) of something I referred to?
I’m starting to remember why I decided to lay off posting about this stuff quite a while ago. I guess I just needed that refresher, but I think I’ll return to that policy.
What is the point of this anyway?
What can we do now to find out what is going
on and how can we stop the wrong?
You can’t just write off Pelosi & Reid.
I am sensing some anger so I will signing off here on this discussion.
The main point of the original post is that (if torture was happening) it would be difficult to prove conclusively, unless they slip up in a major way again, which I doubt is going to happen. Personally, I think there are several factors that indicate that it is or at least could be happening, but at the very least it is a reasonable conclusion based on the factors I list above.
The other point that evolved during the commenting is that all we can do is act on the stuff we do know (like their stated positions in the court cases mentioned above) and speak out against them if we believe those positions to be wrong, as I do.
Re: Pelosi & Reid - Why, are they superheroes or something?
I’m not angry, just realizing that this conversation is going nowhere.
Sorry for not explaining more when I blew off the editorial you posted but it wasn’t just a distraction. If you want to honestly help me understand your point you should reference the exact statements not someone else’s opinion of the statements. I find it slightly odd that somehow the story got “more scary” for you after reading a second hand account. Perhaps that is because of presentation and not substance?
Anyway, so far you have based your opinion that the Bush administration is opposed to any ban on torture on the position that Cheney took towards the McCain Amendment. Which has since been signed into law and then clarified in subsequent legislation. I’m sorry I don’t except that point so easily.
By the way, I didn’t stay in this conversation to prove anything. I thought you wanted a chance to convince me that illegal things are routinely happening with the permission of various levels of command. Saying things like, “I don’t see what’s difficult to understand about that”, or that finding good, fair references wouldn’t matter much are condescending and don’t help you cause. I really do want to have worthwhile conversations about these subjects so please call me on things when you think I’m being unfair. Also, I really am interested in any a good source where the guards detail the torture they participated in.
The “more scary” aspect had nothing to do with who was telling the story, it had to do with the nature of his request; asking specifically for language permitting torture (as opposed to preventing bans against it, as I was talking about before). I don’t see any direct quotes on that particular subject, but if that isn’t true, than I’ll take it back.
I think we both agree, however, that Cheney did seek exemptions, that much at least is clear. In an excerpt from this FOX News article (of all places), it details that.
Before going any farther, let me ask you whether you’re OK with the vice president of your country taking such a stance. Regardless of whether (or I should say to what degree) the other administration officials agree with him, let’s answer that question first.
Second, you’ve cited court cases above and there are others in which the administration (as a group / matter of policy) has opposed any constraints on their power in these matters. Do you dispute this? (This is the part that I don’t see where the disagreement could be, please clarify if the administration’s consistent position has not been to oppose such restrictions).
As for the chance to convince you that illegal things are happening, if you read my initial post, that’s slightly different than what my premise was. My initial question was what would it possibly take to do so (which I still haven’t really seen an answer to). I was just additionally stating that based on those six bullet points I outlined above, it would seem to be the rational conclusion to reach that such things were likely to be happening.
Perhaps the accounts of the guards involved would serve the purpose of convincing you, at least of the likelihood that such things are happening. Would it? Since you asked, I will try to seek those out, in good faith.
Sorry for the tone at times, or the expressions of frustration in terms of references not mattering, etc. I guess I feel that there are plenty of decent references already here (the court cases referenced, for example) that firmly establish the stance of the administration as opposing restrictions on their actions and only begrudgingly accepting limitations when forced to, and it seems like those points are being brushed off or dismissed.
Perhaps if you clarified your disagreement on this particular point, it might help; I do understand that laws were eventually passed that made matters better, but my outrage is at the fact that such decisions were being opposed by the administration in the first place, and their loss of the particular battle or argument is not a large consolation to me when it comes to being comfortable with them as leaders.
First, if you could tell me the exact argument that Cheney was making I’ll tell you if I’m outraged. I can see how the language of the McCain Amendment would be considered too ambiguous for law.
As for my opinion, which doesn’t really matter in this case unless you want to drag this into a silly debate about of opinon vs. yours, I can also imagine cases in which torture would be justified. For instance, if a known terrorist had been captured and it was clear he knew the location of a hidden car bomb poised to explode I think a case could be made allow the use of torturous methods to get that information. Is it possible to codify that idea? I don’t know. That’s what I believe partialy the Bush administration wanted clarified. Is it an idea that could too easily be abused? Of course. I think it is a very tricky, troublesome thing to think about.
However, the U.S. is a nation of laws with a rich history respect for those laws and a deep conviction that no one is above the law. The law must be clear and free from ambiguities. The Bush administration has moved into uncharted territories, however unwise you think it is, in prosecuting an asymmetrical war against an nationless enemy. There are going to be areas where the law is not clear. To say that they are on “begrudgingly accepting limitations when forced to” is unfair. In my opinon, they are trying to follow the letter of the law however unclear and modify their tactics as the final answers to difficult questions are decided.
I don’t understand what my opinon has to do with your argument though. If you give me convincing information that law was broken and that the Bush administration regularly did so knowingly I will indeed be outraged.
About your bullet points, I don’t think your conclusion in rational because there is a lot of hand waving going on. Just like I think the point we’ve discussed so far is not as great as you think it is. Right now it’s about the same for all your points. Your ignoring a lot of more recent developments and cherry picking certain disagreements without fully expounding the disagreement.
One more point. As far as I know, the Bush administration wasn’t arguing about anything to do with torture in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld. The case was about the military tribunals. That the court addressed Bush’s Detainee Treatment Act signing statement or rather gave it no consideration in their ruling about the military tribunals is very important, or so I’ve read.
Regarding accounts of the abuses:
The ACLU has a good collection of documents obtained via FOIA requests (from the governement themselves), many of which detail accounts of mistreatment, as observed by the agents and guards. Of specific interest is a recently released FBI report which includes 26 eyewitness accounts by agents of detainee abuse. As in many of these cases, the FOIA documents are not in a search-friendly format, but they’re there nonetheless.
Here’s an account of the death of an inmate after a severe interrogation, including statements from some of the guards (some involved, some witnesses) of the events leading up to the death.
Here’s an interview with a former guard, in which he gives pretty detailed accounts of some of the stuff he personally did, along with some even worse ones that he observed the results of but did not participate in. Here’s another account of a wounded detainee being subjected to ruthless treatement after his capture, and he eventually died as well.
Here’s some more general accounts regarding some of the methods that the CIA admits to using.
I still can’t find one of the specific ones I remember hearing in audio form, but I think that’s probably enough for now.
Ha ha, all the links are broken. I know it’s just a tag mistake, but a funny coincidence.
Oops, I didn’t see your comment there, as I was searching and typing up that last comment.
I think I’ve done enough Googling for tonight, but I’m pretty sure it’s common knowledge that Cheney was fighting for any restrictions to not be applied to CIA interrogators. I thought you even acknowledged that above, but maybe not. Anyway, I’m sure you can find the exact details of what he said if you want to.
As for torture being justified in certain circumstances, I guess we’d disagree on that count. I don’t think there is ever any circumstance where it would be justified. The ticking-time bomb scenario is a bit of a stretch and unlikely to occur in the real world, but even then I’d oppose torture.
As for the Bush administration’s respect for “the law”, I would say that the murkiness of that subject is at the heart of this particular issue, and others, as it relates to the war on terror. The administration (in this and other areas) has taken the position that executive powers in “times of war” (see my criticism of this later) are very far reaching - far reaching enough for me to consider them “outrageous”. To say that they’re trying to conservatively stick to the written law is a misrepresentation, in my opinion, because they are clearly adding on exemptions as they see fit.
The whole “war on terror” being a justification for acts or tactics that would otherwise not be justified rings hallow for me. For one thing, they use this to claim every possible allowance they can even when it is NOT the same (as you’ve stated) as other wars for which those allowances were originally put in place, but then turn around and say that the other rules governing “war” (Geneva Conv., etc) do NOT apply. They can’t have their cake and eat it too.
By the way, when will we know when the “war on terror” has been won (or lost for that matter)? What are the success criteria?
I don’t see the “hand waving” you mention, but this is where I get to the point of being frustrated. Anything you don’t feel like responding to specifically, you seem to dismiss without really discussing the details. If you really want to, please outline the errors in those bulleted points, and how they don’t apply to us. You can skip the last one, since I think we’ve covered that in detail. All I’m saying is that all those pieces of evidence considered together does paint a certain picture, and it’s one that I don’t see much evidence to convince me is not true or at least not a cause for concern.
If by “ignoring a lot of more recent developments” you’re saying that I’m not diving into the details of every single thing that’s happened in the last few years, I guess that’s true, but I’m not trying to give a thousand page historically complete account, just a historically accurate reflection on specific instances, which I think I’ve done so far.
The whole issue of the signing statements and their claim to power is relevant to the administration’s position, in that it is yet another instance that confirms their pattern of assuming power that is (or should be) beyond their scope. The fact that the court did not consider it is a good thing, but the fact that the administration tried it in the first place is still bad, in my opinion.
PS - the links should be fixed now.
I will read throught the documents. Since are the one convincing me, you should be able to make the detailed arguments. So far with your example with Cheney you’ve done a very poor job.
I give up then; I’m pretty sure I won’t be able to convince you, whether that’s my fault, yours, or both.
I’m done with this post, for the sake of my heart rate and not wanting to offend anymore. You can have the last word, if you wish.
Cheney’s opposition to the McCain Amendment — I guess the reason that there are so little details about this proposal that Cheney made is because it happened behind closed doors and never got very far. It appears the Washington Post broke the story but their the article really doesn’t say much. A USA Today is article on the subject elaborates a bit more on the proposal but the source of that information is unclear to me:
If you’ve seen the text of the proposal or more concrete details about it I’d be interested to read.
I think we can agree for sure that in this case Cheney was opposed to additional restrictions on CIA interrogation techniques. And that the amendment would have made them limited to what is prescribed in the Army Field Manual which DoD personnel are required to follow. Whether that view was supported by the Administration I think is debatable. An earlier article you cited showed there was disagreement between Cheney and Rice over the matter.
I read through all the links except the first one and this is what I’ve found.
recently released FBI report which includes 26 eyewitness accounts by agents of detainee abuse — this was a result of an email sent out to all FBI personnel who had worked at Guantanamo since 2001 asking whether they saw aggressive interrogation techniques inconsistent with the FBI guidelines. I think we can agree that the most aggressive technique reported was one in which the detainee was placed in a painful stress position in an empty room for up to 24 hours naked with the temperature varying wildly (55 F. was mentioned in one report, really hot in another) with loud music and strobe lights. I think it is worth noting that the FBI agents in most cases where not aware of what was legal as stated in the Army Field Manual since they follow more restrictive guidelines. Unfortunately, neither are we since ten pages of the interrogation techniques section of the Army Field Manual are classified.
Here’s an account of the death of an inmate after a severe interrogation — by all accounts a case of illegal abuse, Navy Seals were prosecuted and punished. The CIA agents testified in one of the court cases behind closes doors. He was not charged with wrongdoing.
Here’s an interview with a former guard — Acutally an Army interrogator. He describe using techniques similar to those reported by the FBI agents at Guantanamo. During his tour he tried to get clarification on the legality of the techniques but evidentially didn’t get much response. Talked about injuries inflicted by Navy Seals during combat in northern Baghdad, the detailed account involved captured Iraqi’s being forced to sit on an exhaust pipe.
Here’s another account of a wounded detainee being subjected to ruthless treatement after his capture, and he eventually died as well. — According to wikipedia he’s still alive and detained Guantanamo. Similar techniques as the FBI agents reported in Guantanamo.
Here’s some more general accounts — The controversial one being water boarding. The technique was removed from the Army Field Manual in 2006, I assume but not sure it was added by Rumsfeld. Still may be legal for the CIA under the Millitary Commission Act.
I’m not totally sure what you want to prove with these since you didn’t give any commentary so I can’t with certainty follow your line of thinking. I had asked for articles about guards that admitted to torturing like you claimed in the first comment but I’m not sure which article that is of it it’s supposed to be all of them.
Maybe our brains are wired to differently to talk about this stuff. You accuse me of ignoring things but I get frustrated because I feel like you just throw a bunch of things around (hand waving) without any real focus. What you call ignoring I see as focusing the conversation. Whatever. FWIW, I was never offended and I didn’t think the discussion was going all that bad until that last couple last night. I think it was worth a try again. Maybe we can try again in another year or two after Congressman Kucinich is elected president.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/24/AR2005102402051.html
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-11-06-torture-ban_x.htm