Torture Rules? Anything Goes

It is clear, despite protestations to the contrary, that in Bush's "war on terrorism" anything goes. The issue of the abuse and torture of those held in US captivity comes round, and round again. Most recently it has reared its head with an extensive report by the NY Times - "In U.S. Report, Brutal Details of 2 Afghan Inmates' Deaths (Also available here)." Golden's article is based upon a 2,000 page investigation into the deaths of a 22 year old taxi driver named Dilwar, and the brother of a former Taliban commander named Habibullah - both of whom had been detained at Bagram, Afghanistan.

The descriptions of the treatment of these prisoners is both graphic and brutal. The autopsy report in the case of Dilwar stated that:

"... he had died of heart failure caused by "blunt force injuries to the lower extremities". The coroner, Lieutenant-Colonel Elizabeth Rouse, told a pre-trial hearing that his legs "had basically been pulpified ... I've seen similar injuries in an individual run over by a bus." (Huggler, Guardian, 5/21/05)

The tale that emerges from the investigation is essentially repetitious of other reports. Namely that you have poorly trained troops operating under the command of interrogators in an environment where it is clearly stated that the Geneva Convention does not apply.

"There was the Geneva Conventions for enemy prisoners of war, but nothing for terrorists," Sergeant Leahy told Army investigators. And the detainees, senior intelligence officers said, were to be considered terrorists until proved otherwise. (NY Times, 5/20/05)

In the U.S., there seems to be an ongoing normalization of torture. This comes from many sources. On the official level, the Pentagon (and its various service branches) continue to do report after report that essentially assigns no responsibility. Instead, the effort continues to be a "problem" of a "few bad apples." Or that the "critical" pressures of getting "timely" information, stretched the rules of interrogation. The memos regarding "interrogation" between the White House, Rumsfeld, and military command (many of which are accessible here), all point to a "liberalization" of the treatment of detainees, and clear statements that the Geneva Conventions do not apply. Having spent over 100 hours reading these documents, the tone is perfectly clear to me. That tone, from the White House down, has been "anything goes."

Increasingly, on entertainment programs such as "24," "Alias," and others, the message is reiterated. If you need information fast, then use torture. It is "unpleasant" for the interrogator, but it takes a special type of "patriot" to set aside her or his human feelings and "do what needs to be done." These "interrogators" are "hero's" saving the United States from evil people and evil plots. The message takes place with the ongoing torture and abuse in which the U.S. is engaging. When you put the two together, then abuse, torture and death, are simply necessary. It is not surprising that there is so little outcry on the part of the U.S. public.

What emerges from Golden's article, however goes far beyond torture, and into sadism. The following statement is damning in this regard (emphases mine):

The communication between Mr. Habibullah and his jailers appears to have been almost exclusively physical. Despite repeated requests, the M.P.'s were assigned no interpreters of their own. Instead, they borrowed from the interrogators when they could and relied on prisoners who spoke even a little English to translate for them.

When the detainees were beaten or kicked for "noncompliance," one of the interpreters, Ali M. Baryalai said, it was often "because they have no idea what the M.P. is saying."

What this says to me, is that Habibullah -and other prisoners- were not being interrogated. They were being violently abused for no reason other than it was acceptable to do so. I guess that some would argue that beating, kicking, hanging for hours by one's wrists, depriving food and water, retrieving items from buckets of feces, etc. is simply part of the "softening up" process. The fact that those doing this could not communicate what they wanted from the prisoners is beside the point. Just use brutality to "wear them down." I would say that turning someone's legs into "pulp" and denying medical treatment, would certainly "wear someone down." The awful irony of the torture and death of "Dilwar" is (according to the report) they did not think that he was a terrorist, nor that he had any pertinent information.

As report after report comes out, and the same non-response happens again and again, it presents an attitude that people are less that bugs. It portrays, that there is no concern or consideration for those swept up in "terrorist" sweeps. And there is no human value for Arabs and Muslims.

"The cages, the orange suits, the shackles - it's as if they're dealing with something that's like a germ they don't want to touch," said Daoud Kuttab, director of the Institute of Modern Media at Al Quds University in Ramallah, in the West Bank. "That's the nastiness of it." (Guantanamo Comes to Define U.S. to Muslims)

U.S. credibility is also undermined as one investigation after another is launched, and each one comes back with the same findings - no culpability, and "accident," or poorly trained troops. Meanwhile, the U.S. tries to take itself out of the torture spotlight by using "extraordinary rendition" - transferring detainees to nations where they know they will be tortured (New Swedish Documents Illuminate CIA Action. Probe Finds 'Rendition' Of Terror Suspects Illegal.)

This approach to the "war on terrorism" will not, and does not, makes "us" safe. The lying that accompanies it undermines the credibility, and therefore the ability, of the United Statesto be anything other than a thug. The lies and "spin" are reflected in other areas of this "campaign." For example "Operation Matador" where there was a massive crackdown on (purportedly) "foreign insurgents" near the Syrian border. The story that is emerging does not match the claims of the success of the operation, nor of its focus.

The U.S. military claims a "successful" end to the weeklong operation earlier this month around Al-Qa'im, a town about 320km west of Baghdad close to the Syrian border. The operation was launched against what the U.S. military saw as the presence of Al-Qaeda fighters in the town.

Iraqi civilians and doctors in the area say no foreign fighters were present in the town. Al Qa'im and surrounding areas have suffered great destruction, and many in the town population of 110,000 were killed, they say. ('Operation Matador' - US Claims Over Siege Challenged

The message, whether intended or not, is clear - "The enemy is worthless." That "enemy" is whoever it is convenient to say is an enemy. Anyone can be an "insurgent" or a "terrorist." It seems to me, that this is one clear way to make everyone an "insurgent."

I think it is important to remember that there are some potentially significant implications on the "home front" in the "war." Those people engaging in torture, the killing of civilians, the depersonalization of all "Iraqi's" as "the enemy," are going to come home some day. They will come home having been encouraged to set aside their humanity. This setting aside goes far beyond the "normal things that happen in war." These men and women will come home, and they will deal or not with their experiences. But it seems likely that for some, slipping the bonds of humanity may be easier. We may be asking ourselves what we have created.

Posted by rowan at May 21, 2005 6:39 AM | TrackBack | [eMail this article!] |