Domination by detention

US declares itself arbiter of humanity


The military JAGs secretly had debated some of the allowable torture techniques, but told the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee on Thursday that ``juvenile'' pranks involving use of dogs and sexual humiliation constituted ``humane'' treatment of detainees.

Over the last several months, some former officials of the US military's Judge Advocate General (JAG) services -- the military lawyers -- and other retired high-ranking soldiers have expressed concerns about Terror War information-gathering techniques employed on detainees. Deep Blade Journal carried some references to these concerns here and here.

On Thursday, current JAG leaders appeared before the Senate Armed Services Personnel Subcommittee. The Washington Post on Friday had a Page A01 story on this hearing headlined ``Military Lawyers Fought Policy on Interrogations''. Okay, they fought some things -- often on the clearly valid basis that it is not a good idea to allow tortures be committed against enemies that we would not want used on our own troops. Note however, that the memos containing these discussions remain secret, including from members of Congress.

But I watched a good chunk of this thing on C-SPAN 2. I was very troubled by what I heard. For the most part, the JAGs have accepted the notion that the President of the United States has the ``Commander-in-Chief'' authority to declare a whole new classification of persons detained in territory under US invasion called ``enemy combatant'', to declare on this personal authority that international law does not apply to this class, to then deport these persons to a facility half-way around the world (this act itself a grave breach of the intent of international law), and to declare by unsubstantiated fiat -- indeed what a reasonable person easily could find to be precisely the opposite -- what constitutes ``humane'' treatment of such detainees. Terror War or not, it should be easy to see how a reasonable person could interpret such declarations as dictatorial, despotic policies.

The Post story alludes to this last point, but does not convey properly the consensus amongst the JAGs and the Senators that these are accepted as proper classifications of human beings, and in the case of detention at Guantánamo, proper suspension of international law. In fact, most in the room appeared to be quite anxious to get the military tribunals underway. These tribunals of course will be staffed and adjudicated by the US military's own house puppies -- in secret -- under conditions where the enemy combatants will not have the normal rights to confront the evidence against them -- rights afforded defendants in all decent societies.

I suppose Kennedy and McCain seemed a little grumpy about all this, McCain for obvious reasons. Carl Levin appeared to be offended that the memos discussing the ``techniques'' have been withheld from even the senators. But Lindsey Graham was mostly a disappointment, being apparently the most eager to get to the tribunals.

Meanwhile, on Friday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was busy paving the road to legal approval of the ``enemy combatant'' process. They overturned a ruling from last November that stopped the military trial of Salim Ahmed Hamdan of Yemen.

This capped an ominous flood of news this week on the Guantánamo torture front. Earlier, according to a posting on antiwar.com,

The U.S. Army general widely considered the architect of abusive prisoner interrogation techniques at Guantánamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and detention centers in Afghanistan used ``creative'' and ``aggressive'' tactics, but did not practice torture or violate law or Pentagon policy, the head of the U.S. Southern Command has determined.

Despite the recommendations of military investigators, Maj. Gen. Geoffrey C. Miller will not be reprimanded, thus bringing to a close what could be the last of 12 separate investigations into detainee abuse.

The Center for Constitutional Rights elucidated these ``tactics'':

• Canadian O.K., a juvenile who was approximately 15 years old when he was taken into custody by U.S. forces in 2001, was threatened by interrogators who, on several occasions, told O.K. he would be sent to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, or Syria—to be tortured. Interrogators also told the 15-year old O.K. that Egyptians would send ``Soldier No. 9'' to rape him. On one occasion, O.K. was short shackled in various painful positions over an extended period of time; he urinated on himself. Military Police (MP) poured pine oil on the floor and dragged O.K.—still shackled—on his stomach through the mixture.

• Before he was taken to Guantánamo, German resident Murat Kurnaz was tortured by U.S. forces in Afghanistan who applied electric shocks to his feet, hung him by his hands for days at a time, and repeatedly subjected him to waterboarding. Mr. Kurnaz witnessed the brutal beating by soldiers of another prisoner who was left bleeding severely from his head wounds. Mr. Kurnaz believes the prisoner died as a result of the beating.

• When Bosnian Lakhdar Boumediene went on a hunger strike to protest his brutal treatment, a nurse administering intravenous (IV) fluid to him threatened to have a soldier administer the IV the next day if Mr. Boumediene did not eat. The following day, she made good on her threat, and a soldier was directed to administer the IV. Mr. Boumediene’s arm was in extreme pain and bleeding as the soldier attempted to administer the IV. On another occasion, interrogators threatened to shave Mr. Boumediene and apply lipstick to him to make him look like a woman.

• Abd Al Malik Al Wahab of Yemen was told by interrogators that he would be taken ``underground'' and never again allowed to see the sun; that if taken to the U.S. he would be ``put . . . in a jail with all blacks'' who ``will do whatever they please to you'' and ``nobody will help you''; that he would be taken to ``Egypt and Jordan, and they will torture you''; and that he would be raped by a male at Guantánamo. Interrogators also threatened Mr. Al Wahab’s family, telling him the military could ``reach them if it wanted.''

• On approximately April 27 or 28, 2002, Juma Al Dossari was choked and beaten in his cell by MPs and lost consciousness. He was carried from his bloodied cell on a stretcher. The military videotaped the incident. When Mr. Al Dossari later asked the MP who had beaten him why he had done so, the MP replied, ``because I’m a Christian.''

• During an interrogation of Abdullah Al Noaimi, Mr. Al Noaimi was injected with an unknown substance that caused him to lose the ability to control his thoughts. Interrogators then asked if he wanted to hurt himself, and if he wanted to be shot.

• Guantánamo prisoners routinely have been subject to beatings, extreme sleep deprivation, humiliation, short shackling, intimidation by dogs, extended periods of solitary confinement, withholding of medical care, and temperature extremes in connection with interrogation.

• As confirmed in findings released yesterday in the Schmidt Report, military officials impersonated FBI agents and State Department officials. Prisoners also have reported that interrogators impersonated lawyers, in an effort to gain information.

And why not throw in that the US military itself confirmed this week that at least one male detainee at Guantánamo was while dressed in women's underwear ``forced to dance with a male interrogator, was subject to strip searches for control measures, not for security, and he was forced to perform dog tricks -- all this to lower his personal sense of worth''. All well and good, purposeful, they claimed.

And they better damn well make these claims that international law does not apply in these cases. The puzzle of the ``humane'' treatment language charged through the administration's justification for its torture practices was unravelled in an excellent article by former US Representative Elizabeth Holtzman appearing in The Nation for July 18, 2005. Holtzman cites the 1996 War Crimes Act, a Clinton-era domestic statute:

This relatively obscure statute makes it a federal crime to violate certain provisions of the Geneva Conventions. The Act punishes any US national, military or civilian, who commits a "grave breach" of the Geneva Conventions. A grave breach, as defined by the Geneva Conventions, includes the deliberate "killing, torture or inhuman treatment" of detainees. Violations of the War Crimes Act that result in death carry the death penalty.

In a memo to President Bush, dated January 25, 2002, Gonzales urged that the United States opt out of the Geneva Conventions for the Afghanistan war--despite Secretary of State Colin Powell's objections. One of the two reasons he gave the President was that opting out ``substantially reduces the likelihood of prosecution under the War Crimes Act''.

It seems likely that numerous high officials, up to and including the President, could be liable under this statute if their outlandish re-definition of the word ``humane'' and opt-out of international law does not stick. Unfortunately, the power relationships within the US government suggest that the Republican investigative apparatus will never allow such a formulation of charges to occur.

Jingoistic Americans may be impressed with the power the president appears to wield against perceived enemies. The humanity of persons finding themselves in US detention systematically has been attacked in both the personal and public spheres, breaking down 790 years of foundation of criminal law resting on the Magna Carta. This reflects the ultra-radical nature and drunkeness with power of the Bush regime. It is not a criminal regime only because it has usurped the power necessary for it to declare itself legal, but only through outrageous re-definition of the terms that define the crimes of which otherwise they would be guilty.

The baleful signs in this enterprise point to a future nobody would accept until the Bush regime's noose is tight around our necks, at which point we have no choice. The regime's purpose? Could it be domination of a sort a thousandfold more powerful than the threat posed by the terrorist enemy, 500 of whose members supposedly are incarcerated at Guantánamo?

I say supposedly because a high percentage of Guantánamo detainees are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, or if they are guilty, the deserve a fair, public trial. The verdict of a US tribunal, where the detainee has been tortured in any reasonable eyes, will hardly hold water or give anyone apart from emotionally immature Americans true satisfaction that justice for terror has been accomplished.

In these conditions, terror will breed like a wildfire. People around the world will begin to see themselves forced into desperate measures to avenge the injustice, settle the score, and protect their homelands from the invaders who deport their countrymen.

On the other hand, once the Bush regime establishes it's ability to define terms and overturn law by its own fiat, every person on this planet with contrary political views is at risk for detention and mistreatment under any theory the regime will choose to apply. That would be a world gulag by any definition.