May 03, 2004

The Shadow of the Torturer

Posted by Henry

Those who still maintain that the abuses at Abu Ghraib were an isolated and atypical incident should consider this paragraph from a Washington Post article of December 26, 2002.

According to Americans with direct knowledge and others who have witnessed the treatment, captives are often “softened up” by MPs and U.S. Army Special Forces troops who beat them up and confine them in tiny rooms. The alleged terrorists are commonly blindfolded and thrown into walls, bound in painful positions, subjected to loud noises and deprived of sleep. The tone of intimidation and fear is the beginning, they said, of a process of piercing a prisoner’s resistance. … Bush administration appointees and career national security officials acknowledged that, as one of them put it, “our guys may kick them around a little bit in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath.” Another said U.S. personnel are scrupulous in providing medical care to captives, adding in a deadpan voice, that “pain control [in wounded patients] is a very subjective thing.”

It sounds as though the kinds of ‘cooperation’ between soldiers and interrogators that were discovered at Abu Ghraib have been going on for a long time, and have received some sanction from either administration appointees or senior security officials, or both. It may - or may not - be that the soldiers in Abu Ghraib went further than they were supposed to in using specifically sexual forms of humiliation. But the pattern of using non-specialized army personnel to ‘soften up’ people for interrogation through physical abuse and terror seems to have been established a long, long time before Abu Ghraib.

Posted on May 3, 2004 02:19 PM UTC
Comments

“It may - or may not - be that the soldiers in Abu Ghraib went further than they were supposed to in using specifically sexual forms of humiliation.”

Oh, please. Their crime, in the eyes of the Army leadership and the Administration, was that they took pictures.

The Administration has demonstrated its disregard for its obligations under the Geneva Convention. The policy of preventing Red Cross visits was not the invention of non-coms in an MP brigade!

Wake up — in addition to everything else, President Moron is a war criminal!

Posted by Brian Wilder · May 3, 2004 03:18 PM

Wasn’t the Administration arguing in the Jose Padilla case that the point of the Gitmo detentions is to remove from detainees any sense of will or defiance? If that’s how US citizens are treated, then it’s not hard to see how Iraqi detainees — also safely not on US territory — will fare.

Posted by P O'Neill · May 3, 2004 03:47 PM

Compare also the story in today’s NY times about a suit being brought on the basis of treatment in NY detention centers by men rounded up (and treated) like animals just after sept. 11th.

Torture doesn’t just happen over-seas, it seems.

Posted by Matt · May 3, 2004 03:59 PM

Damned link didn’t go in for me- here’s another try:
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/03/nyregion/03brooklyn.html

Posted by Matt · May 3, 2004 04:01 PM

The U.S. military operates with the same internal power structures as any other military organization, dictatorships included - hence physical torture of individuals both inside and outside the organization to break down their resistance & sense of individuality is always part of the game. (See also, e.g., hazing scandals at West Point…) One could ask whether this is a good way to organize this entity that’s supposed to “defend democracy”… I don’t think it is. And yes, I would say Mr. B. is a war criminal. He’s been one since he started detaining people etc. after 9/11. Before that he was just your run-of-the-mill white-collar criminal. He’s really grown, hasn’t he?

Posted by LiL · May 3, 2004 05:12 PM

Anyone for a bracing chorus of “If you’ve got nothing to hide you’ve got nothing to fear” w.r.t. the FDRUSA’s stance on the International War Crimes Tribunal?

Posted by des · May 3, 2004 06:09 PM

Excellent job of slipping a Gene Wolfe reference in, BTW.

Posted by Doctor Memory · May 3, 2004 06:27 PM

Why does there seem to be less outrage on the Left when US POW’s are found bound with bullet holes through their heads or when Jessica Lynch is sodomized than when Iraqis POW’s are photographed naked and threatened with rape? (and the worst—credible—allegations do not include summary executions of prisoners.)

Again where was your outrage then? And I’m a Democrat, by the way.

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 06:36 PM

What about the interrogators? When will they get penalized?

And Sean, as far as I have heard and read, Jessica Lynch was not molested.

Posted by Don Sancho Panza · May 3, 2004 07:01 PM

Sean, because the “Right” is primarily in power and led us to war, so the “Left“‘s primary function now is to point out all the bad things that happen when the “Right” is in power and making decisions like going to war.

The “Left” has no less outrage regarding our own people being tortured or killed—we’re just more inclined to point out the tragic results of the “Right“‘s policy failures.

Politics.

Posted by Scott Sanders · May 3, 2004 07:01 PM

These abuses are terrible for the war! But let’s keep things in perspective…

There’s a certain hypocrisy going on

see here

Posted by Justin @ RSR · May 3, 2004 07:30 PM

Don, my understanding is that the results of a medical examination found evidence of sexual abuse but that Lynch herself had no recollection of it. I think the medical exam is more reliable, especially when we know for a fact that female POW’s were raped in GW I.

I can’t even come up with words strong enough to condemn what those soldiers did. The actions are morally repugnant—especially when you consider that some of these soldiers were probably conscripts—and politically catastrophic. I don’t know if there is recovery from the reverberations.

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 07:53 PM

Justin, the hypocrisy in the arab press goes without saying.

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 07:56 PM

Why does there seem to be less outrage on the Left when US POW’s are found bound with bullet holes through their heads or when Jessica Lynch is sodomized than when Iraqis POW’s are photographed naked and threatened with rape?

I also notice that there aren’t any marches on Washington when a kidnapper locks somebody in his basement without a trial, but let the government do it to a few hundred people and suddenly the Hate-America crowd comes out of the woodwork.

This, somehow, is hypocrisy.

There is more outrage when the US government perpetrates atrocities because the US government is supposed to be above perpetrating atrocities, and is supposed to observe, you know, laws.

Incidentally, it was Iraqi prisoners who were sodomized, not Jessica Lynch.

Posted by jdw · May 3, 2004 07:59 PM

Why does there seem to be less outrage on the Left when US POW’s are found bound with bullet holes through their heads or when Jessica Lynch is sodomized than when Iraqis POW’s are photographed naked and threatened with rape?

I also notice that there aren’t any marches on Washington when a kidnapper locks somebody in his basement without a trial, but let the government do it to a few hundred people and suddenly the Hate-America crowd comes out of the woodwork.

This, somehow, is hypocrisy.

There is more outrage when the US government perpetrates atrocities because the US government is supposed to be above perpetrating atrocities, and is supposed to observe, you know, laws.

Incidentally, it was Iraqi prisoners who were sodomized, not Jessica Lynch.

Posted by jdw · May 3, 2004 07:59 PM

I agree that the US govt. should be held to higher standards. But this isn’t the reason for the, you know, hypocrisy I and others have spoke of.

And how is it. jdw, you know for a fact that Jessica Lynch wasn’t raped?

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 08:31 PM

“I agree that the US govt. should be held to higher standards.” Well that’s a start! Still, I wouldn’t be satisfied if they were higher than the standards of the gutter. The U.S. government and U.S. citizens should be held to the standards of - well the standards of civilized and humane human beings.

Posted by Andrew Boucher · May 3, 2004 08:55 PM

That’s a start? You don’t know enough about me to make a statement like that.

“Still, I wouldn’t be satisfied if they were higher than the standards of the gutter. The U.S. government and U.S. citizens should be held to the standards of - well the standards of civilized and humane human beings.”

Duh! What did I write that contradicted that?

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 09:05 PM

Sean, he agrees with you.

Posted by Scott Sanders · May 3, 2004 09:34 PM

Sounded to me like a correction and reprimand: I think it was the exclamation point! Perhaps you’re right. If so, I feel like an ass, which wouldn’t be the first time.

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 09:38 PM

Lynch wasn’t molested, and as far as I know, Iraq never signed the Geneva Convention, which means they aren’t really bound by its laws. Nit that that’s an excuse for torture and killing. That they were a rogue state was one of the semi-credible motives for invasion.

But nice try, painting The Ominous Left with such a big Brush. You buy that sucker at Wal Mart?

Posted by Keith · May 3, 2004 09:38 PM

Lynch wasn’t molested? Is that your finding, keith? At any rate, I simply made an observation.
Is it true for you? Maybe not. But if what I’ve been reading is indicative of a larger phenomenon on the left, then the Left can kiss its political influence in the US mainstream goodbye because it sure as hell isn’t going to sell to the people who shop at Wal-Mart (you know, the kind of people who serve in our armed forces) and who you seem to hold in such contempt. And by the way, I only support local, ma-and-pop vendors.

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 10:16 PM

This is starting to sound like a playground argument - “They started it, they hurt our prisoners first!” Frelling grow up.

Civilized individuals don’t behave that way. Civilized nations don’t tolerate that kind of behavior. Honorable leadership would no more tolerate that kind of behavior from its soldiers than it would tolerate it toward its own soldiers who were taken prisoner.

We cannot control acts of barbarism on the part of other people. We can, however, demand that our own armed forces do not behave like animals. We can, but apparently we didn’t, and are not going to.

An America that permits (much less encourages) its armed forces to behave like animals is not the America I grew up loving. It’s not the America whose flag I proudly fly by my front door. It’s not the America I was raised to cherish as a gift from God. So, as a citizen, as a patriot, and as a human being, it is nothing less than my DUTY to express my outrage at this situation.

Posted by Mike · May 3, 2004 10:20 PM

Mike, who is arguing that?

Posted by Sean · May 3, 2004 11:48 PM

If we can’t stop cops and prison guards from occasionally beating up our own citizens, how can we expect the Iraqis will fare any better?

Cleaning up our own mess at home should be our priority instead of meddling in the affairs of other countries sovereignty.

Posted by IXLNXS · May 4, 2004 01:03 AM

Given that the Jessica Lynch story is so permeated with falsehood that even the Pentagon was forced to disavow some of it, it hardly seems the go-to point to try to build an analogy on. At least, not if your credibility matters to you.
None of my six immediate family members in the military have ever shopped at Wal-Mart. The stereotype store is down the road a spell, you can’t miss it. It’s a big ole building with a Bush/Cheney sign out front. They buy and sell.

Posted by John Isbell · May 4, 2004 04:48 AM

Well, it’s not even relevant whether or not Jessica Lynch was raped. I’m sure that the medical examination cited in her book was investigated by journalists looking into the question—especially after the various controversies arose. I don’t recall anyone announcing that the medical exam findings were fraudulent, or somehow flawed, ambiguous or whatever. Was it? If you are determined to disbelieve the story, I doubt there is much I can say to change your mind.

And I’m sorry, but I stand by my explicitly stated belief that 100 percent of all military personnel (and their families) shop at Wal-Mart.

Posted by Sean · May 4, 2004 07:27 AM

Well said ixlnxs, my thoughts exactly.

Bush claimed that the purpose of the war was to make Iraq a free and prosperous country. That’s funny cause it seems to be resembling a pile of rubble lately.

As for the not judging the army by the actions of a few, the U.S government should take a leaf out of their own book and not suspect every other Muslim state of having terrorist links.

Can I also take this opportunity to clear up this business about whether or not Arabs have the right to be angry about the abuse of Iraqi POWs. In Islam human life is sacred, no one has the right to hurt another human being. Muslims were angry over the way Saddam treated his people, they were angry when those innocent people lost their lives in 9/11, and they were also angry innocent civilians had to die in Afghanistan as a result. Make no mistake, killing, torturing and oppressing has no place in Islam and will be condemned by Muslims regardless of who the victims are.

Posted by The Empress · May 4, 2004 10:40 AM

Sean, as opposed to an abstract entity called “the troops” which you proclaim your allegiance to and have never set eyes on, you are holding six quite literal US military personnel in contempt. Their names are Henry, Frances, Robert, John, Joan, and Mark. One leaves for Iraq this summer. Enjoy your abstractions, they look great on your wall.

Posted by John Isbell · May 4, 2004 03:16 PM

I clearly remember statements made by U.S. officials during the Afghanistan war that disparaged the Geneva Conventions. Certainly the conservative media in the U.S. has incessently claimed that the great United States should not be held back by the same agreements that bind lesser countries . And the adminsitration has been openly contemptous of international treaties. In this context, it seems appropriate for me to place some of the blame for the disgusting behaviour of American soldiers on the political leadership. By constantly disparaging international norms of behavour, and by claiming that they actually hinder America’s holy fight against terrorism, they helped create the conditions in which the events at Abu Ghraib were able to take place.

Posted by amoeba · May 4, 2004 04:30 PM

John, you don’t know a thing about me. I’m a teacher on a US naval air base in Central California. Everyone I know is in the military or has some connection to it; and I know many people who are still in Iraq. Moreover, my family has a history of service, including my father and all of his four brothers who served in every war since WW II.

I got involved in this thread when I pointed out that there seemed to be a more gut-level reaction among people on the Left to the photos of US soldiers humiliating Iraqis than photos of US soldiers bound with bullets through their heads. By the way, when I say “Left” I don’t mean mainstream liberals like myself; I mean the ideological leftists who abound on the net like rats in a sewer.

And apparently you think there is no greater insult than to suggest that someone shops at Wal-Mart. Curious.

Posted by Sean · May 4, 2004 08:36 PM

“Why does there seem to be less outrage on the Left when US POW’s are found bound with bullet holes through their heads or when Jessica Lynch is sodomized than when Iraqis POW’s are photographed naked and threatened with rape?”

Because while being a crime victim is an honorable tragedy, being a criminal is a disgrace. And because our troops are our agents, and we are therefore responsble to control their actions, while the actions of our enemies are beyond our control.

Posted by rea · May 4, 2004 09:56 PM

Rea, yeah, got it. That’s been explained again and again. It’s the argument. But it is no more persuasive than saying that you are more distressed than, say, having a brother who’s a having a laugh at the expense of Iraqi POW’s than a brother who’s lying dead with a bullet in his skull. For some it’s all academic, I guess. It’s a question of degree.

And while I’m on the subject: Does anyone know what the hell’s happening in the Sudan right now? And for the peace-loving muslim above, where’s the outcry in the muslim world over that, because I’m not hearing it.

Posted by S.A. Smith · May 4, 2004 11:01 PM

“John, you don’t know a thing about me.”
I know you showed contempt for my six family members. I know you’ve never set eyes on “the troops”, because it can’t be done. I know that to deny my six family members, with their decades of service, the right to their own existence, in which they have never shopped at Wal-Mart, is contempt for them and for reality, a contempt you are welcome to. As for the merits of shopping at Wal-Mart, that is your concern. But your stereotype was patently false, and I point out falsehoods.
Beyond that (my subject), no indeed, I have little interest in who you are. But don’t let that stop you.

Posted by John Isbell · May 4, 2004 11:56 PM

John, you really had me going there. I thought you were serious.

Posted by Sean · May 5, 2004 12:09 AM

When reasoning escapes you, that’s a tough break. Lie again here and I’ll point it out, though. You can do it elsewhere no problem.

Posted by John Isbell · May 5, 2004 04:24 AM

S.A Smith, you cant hear the out cry fom muslims because all you hear is one side of the argument, i.e what the media put out in front of you, i.e open your f***ing eyes and ears, you wont be able to do any of that though without opening your heart and mind first.

Posted by The Empress · May 5, 2004 12:54 PM

Make no mistake, killing, torturing and oppressing has no place in Islam and will be condemned by Muslims regardless of who the victims are.

Yeah, right (sound of coughing as coffee gets inhaled instead of swallowed). Al Qaeda, Taliban, Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Jemaah Islamiyah, Ansar al Islam… ah, never mind!

P.S. In case you’re wondering, Empress, I was born Muslim. I know all the stock “justifications”.

Posted by Sami · May 5, 2004 03:54 PM

Interesting site. Kant would be proud.

Posted by sean · May 5, 2004 04:51 PM

It’s not surprising to me that some kid from the woods sees fit to persecute POWs. After all, he probably considers it pre-approved by the
Commander-in-chief, GW Bush. And I think an enormous number of US citizens agree with the kid. Why? Because this is the example that GWB sets. Right at this moment, Ted Sorensen, GWBs lawyer, is arguing before the Supreme Court
that GWB has the right to declare anyone, even a US citizen, an “enemy combatant” and thereby imprison him without warrant, without Habeus Corpus and for an indefinite time period. Oh yes, and without recourse to legal counsel or any form of appeal. And they are doing this with a straight face and no sense of irony. And the US citizenry seem content for things to be
so! This is what is amazing to me: that there is not a widespread national uprising against this de facto abolition of the Bill Of Rights, for such it is.

This president has arrogated to himself unlimited power to do as HE pleases. Instead of congressional law, as specified in the US COnstitution (an inconvenient document, I suppose, to the Tories who prefer to rule by Divine Right of Kings) we have Presidential Edict, based on a far-ranging notion of
Executive Privilege (first extended so by Nixon to attempt coverup of Watergate), which is enthusiastically endorsed by the 9 supremes, 7 of whom were appointed by the same political party.

What we have here is a palace coup. The US government has been taken over by a radical clique that governs without reference to any law other than their own whims. They don’t enforce the laws passed by congress, they do what they
want, then seek flimsy rationalization in executive orders.

And so, in the absence of Constitutional constraint, the worst instincts of men abroad are unleashed. Serving, I’m sure they believe, the wishes of The King. The ends, as GWB demonstrates daily, justify the means.

After all, it is the Bill Of Rights that protects individuals from the excesses of the government. Absent that, we are all serfs.

What astonishes me is the enthusiasm with which these abrogations are embraced by such a large part of the population. I suppose they’re anxious
to get back to the next episode of “Friends” and just wish that a Regal King can end all this distracting political noise so they can enjoy TV.

Wouldn’t it have been better if we conservatives had chosen John McCain instead? A man who knows war and deprivation of rights first hand. Instead
of an inexperienced learner president with a bad set of training wheels.

B

Posted by bliffle · May 5, 2004 10:52 PM

Sami your comment bears the signs of someone who has no knowledge of Islam, a quarter of the world’s population are Muslim, you named a bunch of wannabe terrorists who I’m pretty sure have more Muslim enemies than followers. I don’t care if you’re Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, the bottom line is you talk crap.

Posted by The Empress · May 7, 2004 12:19 PM

…wannabe terrorists

“Wannabe” terrorists, Empress? Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, Jemaah Islamiyah? I’m sure the relatives of the thousands of people who died at their blood-soaked hands (many of them Muslims themselves) will be comforted to know that the murderers of their loved ones are just “wannabe” terrorists. I wonder what you would consider “genuine” terrorists? Oh, let me guess, people like myself (btw, I spent 14 years in Muslim religious schools) who point out that the emperor has no clothes.

Posted by Sami · May 7, 2004 01:51 PM
Followups

→ Torture Roundup.
Excerpt: As I lamented in my comment to redstripe's post, I have nothing to add about the torture. It's despicable. I forced myself to look at the photographs despite my extreme difficulty with graphic real-world violence and I'm staggered. However, I...Read more at The Greater Nomadic Council

This discussion has been closed. Thanks to everyone who contributed.