![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
katsarisThe issue of the day(s) is ofcourse the civil war brewing in Iraq at the combined instigation of the Islamofascist Sadr and SCIRI and with the excuse of the recent Shi'a holy site bombing, all coincidentally as the secular Sunni and Kurdish parties were moving jointly to decrease the power of the philo-Iranian Islamofascist parties...
... but I must discuss another issue first.
We get enough anti-American propaganda in Greece that I rarely find the need to add to it. Even when the arguments are perfectly good and the facts perfectly accurate, it still happens that the selective reporting thereof ends up tilting the balance of public opinion askew -- the things we'd need to hear in Greece far more are the ones we rarely do: the stories of Eastern and Balkan fascisms...
But this time I've been recently challenged in my description of the current US administration as a bunch of moral cretins (and murderers and torturers besides), so I've spent a little bit of time collecting a brief list of links, supporting this characterization. It made my job a little harder that I tend to absorb information but not really collect links. It made my job a little easier that the issue was again current in the blogosphere and the news just a few days ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4738008.stm:
[...]Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First. [...] Of the 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides, the programme said [...] "caused by intentional or reckless behaviour". [...] between eight and 12 prisoners were tortured to death.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/mowhoush.asp
[...]In the meantime, captured detainees were to be considered “unprivileged combatants” – a status that the Bush Administration had separately suggested meant detainees were not to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
[...] The military’s “SERE” courses [..] were based on studies of North Korean and Vietnamese efforts to break American prisoners; the courses aimed to subject trainees to the brutal detention conditions they would have faced at the hands of the United States’ former enemies.
[...] Internal FBI memos and press reports have pointed to SERE training as the basis for some of the harshest techniques authorized for use on detainees by the Pentagon in 2002 and 2003. When Welshofer was asked during his court martial whether anyone told him that SERE techniques were not to be used in Iraq, Welshofer was unequivocal: “No sir.”
[after the description of a detainee death after prolonged torture] The day after his death, the U.S. military issued a press release stating that Mowhoush had died of natural causes.
[...] civilian leaders in the Administration had instructed that Geneva Convention protections against cruel and inhuman treatment would not apply in this conflict;
[...] Welshofer received [...] a written reprimand, a $6,000 fine, and 60 days with movement restricted to his home, base, and church. The others implicated in Mowhoush’s death have faced less.
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/us_law/etn/dic/index.asp
[...] One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy.
[...] It is very clear that cruel treatment of detainees became a common Army practice because generals and colonels and majors allowed it to occur, even encouraged it.
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060227fa_fact
[...]"On December 2nd, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gave formal approval for the use of “hooding,” “exploitation of phobias,” “stress positions,” “deprivation of light and auditory stimuli,” and other coercive tactics ordinarily forbidden by the Army Field Manual."
[Sidenote: It's perhaps noteworthy that "exploitation of phobias" is the ultimate torture described in Orwell's 1984. The protagonist there is afraid of rats, and it's the use of that phobia by his torturers that finally - irreparably - "breaks" him. Given the above, it's perhaps no wonder that there's atleast one documented case of a person tortured to the point of insanity by his American gaolers -- instead of the more usual "tortured to death". ]
[...]"Beaver’s brief, his memo says, “was a wholly inadequate analysis of the law.” It held that “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment could be inflicted on the Guantánamo detainees with near impunity”" [...] "Rumsfeld’s December 2nd memo approving these “counter-resistance” techniques, Mora wrote, “was fatally grounded on these serious failures of legal analysis.” Neither Beaver nor Rumsfeld drew any “bright line” prohibiting the combination of these techniques, or defining any limits for their use.
[...]"Rumsfeld’s scrawled aside. “It said, ‘Carte blanche, guys,’ ” Wilkerson told me. “That’s what started them down the slope. You’ll have My Lais then. Once you pull this thread, the whole fabric unravels.”"
[...]"the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which acts as an in-house law firm for the executive branch, issued a memo secretly authorizing the C.I.A. to inflict pain and suffering on detainees during interrogations, up to the level caused by “organ failure" This document, now widely known as the Torture Memo, which Addington helped to draft, also advised that, under the doctrine of “necessity,” the President could supersede national and international laws prohibiting torture.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302380.html
[...] Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee. [...] The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.
[...]Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in Abu Ghraib's startup, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo Bay interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.
[...]"There are some striking similarities between the actions at Guantanamo and what occurred at Abu Ghraib," said Capt. Jonathan Crisp, England's military defense attorney. "I feel that warrants further investigation."
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/heroes-of-pentagons-interrogation.html
[...]In February 2002, however, the President determined that the "principles" of the Geneva Conventions would apply to detainees at GTMO only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," thereby deviating from more than a half-century of U.S. policy and practice of adhering to at least the minimum protections afforded under Common Article 3 of the Conventions (which forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment").
Are these enough? I could probably dig up some more. In truth the Bush administration's fierce reaction against the McCain amendment would have *alone* been enough to convince me of their guilt and responsibility where torture is concerned.
But on the whole I think the above collection of links quite suffices to justify my characterization of the US administration as a bunch of torturers and murderers and all-around moral cretins. Abu Ghraib was not incidental -- it was official policy, first established in Guantanamo and authorized at the highest levels. Humiliation, abuse, savagery -- all check. The only thing exceptional about Abu Ghraib was the extensive photographic archive that *showed* to the world the moral degradation taking place.
The "defense of cleverness" that my brother used (aka "they couldn't have been so stupid as to authorize this") becomes irrelevant when it is shown that, yes, they could. Yes, they did. I'm not really interested in psychoanalyzing their reasons for being so "stupid". Truly nothing could surprise me concerning how far the current administration's stupidity can take them.
(I have my theories about such stupidity, ofcourse, as I have my theories about everything. One such theory is that machismo, which seems to be the current American conservativism's defining theme (certainly more so that financial attitudes or religious beliefs are) is after all almost by definition the glorification of mindless bullying. Other theories of mine range from the classical hubris, to plain racism, to plain psychopathy, but they are all just guesswork and largely irrelevant in determining the facts. )
... but I must discuss another issue first.
We get enough anti-American propaganda in Greece that I rarely find the need to add to it. Even when the arguments are perfectly good and the facts perfectly accurate, it still happens that the selective reporting thereof ends up tilting the balance of public opinion askew -- the things we'd need to hear in Greece far more are the ones we rarely do: the stories of Eastern and Balkan fascisms...
But this time I've been recently challenged in my description of the current US administration as a bunch of moral cretins (and murderers and torturers besides), so I've spent a little bit of time collecting a brief list of links, supporting this characterization. It made my job a little harder that I tend to absorb information but not really collect links. It made my job a little easier that the issue was again current in the blogosphere and the news just a few days ago.
[...]Almost 100 prisoners have died in US custody in Iraq and Afghanistan since August 2002, according to US group Human Rights First. [...] Of the 98 deaths, at least 34 were suspected or confirmed homicides, the programme said [...] "caused by intentional or reckless behaviour". [...] between eight and 12 prisoners were tortured to death.
[...]In the meantime, captured detainees were to be considered “unprivileged combatants” – a status that the Bush Administration had separately suggested meant detainees were not to be afforded the protections of the Geneva Conventions.
[...] The military’s “SERE” courses [..] were based on studies of North Korean and Vietnamese efforts to break American prisoners; the courses aimed to subject trainees to the brutal detention conditions they would have faced at the hands of the United States’ former enemies.
[...] Internal FBI memos and press reports have pointed to SERE training as the basis for some of the harshest techniques authorized for use on detainees by the Pentagon in 2002 and 2003. When Welshofer was asked during his court martial whether anyone told him that SERE techniques were not to be used in Iraq, Welshofer was unequivocal: “No sir.”
[after the description of a detainee death after prolonged torture] The day after his death, the U.S. military issued a press release stating that Mowhoush had died of natural causes.
[...] civilian leaders in the Administration had instructed that Geneva Convention protections against cruel and inhuman treatment would not apply in this conflict;
[...] Welshofer received [...] a written reprimand, a $6,000 fine, and 60 days with movement restricted to his home, base, and church. The others implicated in Mowhoush’s death have faced less.
[...] One such incident would be an isolated transgression; two would be a serious problem; a dozen of them is policy.
[...] It is very clear that cruel treatment of detainees became a common Army practice because generals and colonels and majors allowed it to occur, even encouraged it.
[...]"On December 2nd, Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld gave formal approval for the use of “hooding,” “exploitation of phobias,” “stress positions,” “deprivation of light and auditory stimuli,” and other coercive tactics ordinarily forbidden by the Army Field Manual."
[Sidenote: It's perhaps noteworthy that "exploitation of phobias" is the ultimate torture described in Orwell's 1984. The protagonist there is afraid of rats, and it's the use of that phobia by his torturers that finally - irreparably - "breaks" him. Given the above, it's perhaps no wonder that there's atleast one documented case of a person tortured to the point of insanity by his American gaolers -- instead of the more usual "tortured to death". ]
[...]"Beaver’s brief, his memo says, “was a wholly inadequate analysis of the law.” It held that “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment could be inflicted on the Guantánamo detainees with near impunity”" [...] "Rumsfeld’s December 2nd memo approving these “counter-resistance” techniques, Mora wrote, “was fatally grounded on these serious failures of legal analysis.” Neither Beaver nor Rumsfeld drew any “bright line” prohibiting the combination of these techniques, or defining any limits for their use.
[...]"Rumsfeld’s scrawled aside. “It said, ‘Carte blanche, guys,’ ” Wilkerson told me. “That’s what started them down the slope. You’ll have My Lais then. Once you pull this thread, the whole fabric unravels.”"
[...]"the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, which acts as an in-house law firm for the executive branch, issued a memo secretly authorizing the C.I.A. to inflict pain and suffering on detainees during interrogations, up to the level caused by “organ failure" This document, now widely known as the Torture Memo, which Addington helped to draft, also advised that, under the doctrine of “necessity,” the President could supersede national and international laws prohibiting torture.
[...] Interrogators at the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, forced a stubborn detainee to wear women's underwear on his head, confronted him with snarling military working dogs and attached a leash to his chains, according to a newly released military investigation that shows the tactics were employed there months before military police used them on detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The techniques, approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld for use in interrogating Mohamed Qahtani -- the alleged "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks -- were used at Guantanamo Bay in late 2002 as part of a special interrogation plan aimed at breaking down the silent detainee. [...] The report's findings are the strongest indication yet that the abusive practices seen in photographs at Abu Ghraib were not the invention of a small group of thrill-seeking military police officers. The report shows that they were used on Qahtani several months before the United States invaded Iraq.
[...]Miller traveled to Iraq in September 2003 to assist in Abu Ghraib's startup, and he later sent in "Tiger Teams" of Guantanamo Bay interrogators and analysts as advisers and trainers. Within weeks of his departure from Abu Ghraib, military working dogs were being used in interrogations, and naked detainees were humiliated and abused by military police soldiers working the night shift.
[...]"There are some striking similarities between the actions at Guantanamo and what occurred at Abu Ghraib," said Capt. Jonathan Crisp, England's military defense attorney. "I feel that warrants further investigation."
[...]In February 2002, however, the President determined that the "principles" of the Geneva Conventions would apply to detainees at GTMO only "to the extent appropriate and consistent with military necessity," thereby deviating from more than a half-century of U.S. policy and practice of adhering to at least the minimum protections afforded under Common Article 3 of the Conventions (which forbids "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment").
Are these enough? I could probably dig up some more. In truth the Bush administration's fierce reaction against the McCain amendment would have *alone* been enough to convince me of their guilt and responsibility where torture is concerned.
But on the whole I think the above collection of links quite suffices to justify my characterization of the US administration as a bunch of torturers and murderers and all-around moral cretins. Abu Ghraib was not incidental -- it was official policy, first established in Guantanamo and authorized at the highest levels. Humiliation, abuse, savagery -- all check. The only thing exceptional about Abu Ghraib was the extensive photographic archive that *showed* to the world the moral degradation taking place.
The "defense of cleverness" that my brother used (aka "they couldn't have been so stupid as to authorize this") becomes irrelevant when it is shown that, yes, they could. Yes, they did. I'm not really interested in psychoanalyzing their reasons for being so "stupid". Truly nothing could surprise me concerning how far the current administration's stupidity can take them.
(I have my theories about such stupidity, ofcourse, as I have my theories about everything. One such theory is that machismo, which seems to be the current American conservativism's defining theme (certainly more so that financial attitudes or religious beliefs are) is after all almost by definition the glorification of mindless bullying. Other theories of mine range from the classical hubris, to plain racism, to plain psychopathy, but they are all just guesswork and largely irrelevant in determining the facts. )
