Hundreds of known innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo

As reported by the UK Times Online Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Colin Powell's Chief of Staff has confirmed that most of the men imprisoned at Guantánamo were innocent, and that the Bush Administration knew this. Most of them were taken into custody without ever having had their cases reviewed by a member of the U.S. military, and most of them were turned over to the U.S. by others in return for reward money ranging from $3,000 to $25,000:

Referring to Mr Cheney, Colonel Wilkerson, who served 31 years in the US Army, asserted: “He had absolutely no concern that the vast majority of Guantánamo detainees were innocent ... If hundreds of innocent individuals had to suffer in order to detain a handful of hardcore terrorists, so be it.” He alleged that for Mr Cheney and Mr Rumsfeld “innocent people languishing in Guantánamo for years was justified by the broader War on Terror and the small number of terrorists who were responsible for the September 11 attacks”.

Though many of the prisoners were immediately known to be innocent, the Bush Administration kept them imprisoned so as not to hurt its image as being tough on the "War on Terror." The innocence of almost all of these prisoners compounds the evidence that many of them were tortured and at least several of them were murdered while in U.S. custody. 759 men were imprisoned at Guantanamo. Only about 35 of them will be prosecuted in federal or military courts. Fifty others will be "held indefinitely without trial under the laws of war."

Continue ReadingHundreds of known innocent men imprisoned at Guantanamo

The consequences of de-sensitizing ourselves to torture

I wonder about those who argue that waterboarding is not torture-- can they really believe it? I suppose so. Otherwise, how could this happen? Joshua Tabor, a U.S. soldier based in Tacoma, Washington, allegedly waterboarded his 4 year-old daughter because she refused to recite the alphabet. He chose the CIA-approved technique because he knew that his daughter was afraid of water, a phobia that will surely be an ongoing issue for the poor girl. If Christopher Hitchens is to be believed, she'll wake up with nightmares for quite some time. Hitchens was a supporter of the torture technique, at least until he underwent it. His column at Vanity Fair following the experience is titled, "Believe me, it's torture." See for yourself, if you've got a sadistic streak: There seems to be little doubt that Mr. Tabor has some other issues, as neighbors reported seeing him wandering the neighborhood wearing a kevlar helmet and threatening to break windows. But I can't help but think that our collectively cavalier attitude towards the use of torture, even on innocent women and children, has had a de-sensitizing effect on us. Note this paragraph from Fox News:

"Joshua did not act as though he felt there was anything wrong with this form of punishment," the police report said.
And why would he? We, as a people, have not felt that there's anything wrong with it. If it's good enough for innocent Muslim women and children, why not use it on our own children? My heart hurts to think about the shock, the pain, and the terror that was inflicted on this poor girl at the hands of her own father. It's painful to me to think about all of the people that we have tortured, and I can only hope that this incident brings us closer to the point where we can unequivocally say, "Torture is wrong".

Continue ReadingThe consequences of de-sensitizing ourselves to torture

The Politics of War Crimes

I sometimes can't shake the feeling that everything is wrong. Down is up, wrong is right, war is peace, and lies are truth. Take, for example, the issue of torture. We as a society have regressed to the point where we find it acceptable to use torture. We use it explicitly, openly, without any concern for the consequences. Of course, some of the consequences (like increasing terrorism) are inevitable, whether we choose to be concerned with them or not. But that's really beside the point-- the simple point that I am amazed by right now is that we torture people. That, and the fact that it's not a major controversy. The Land of the Free, the Home of the Brave, with tyranny and torture for all. Since the usual arguments against our torture policy have proven ineffective, I want to elaborate a bit. The usual arguments involve questions of efficacy-- that is, whether torture is effective or not. (It's not). In fact, the CIA officer who argued that waterboarding was so effective that it cracked hardcore terrorists the first time (and within 30 seconds!) has now recanted his story. When he came out with the story of how waterboarding worked so well, he was called the "Man of the Hour", but now hardly anyone is mentioning that it was all lies. Go figure that a CIA guy would lie to his own countrymen, right? In any case, the issue of waterboarding, or any of the various "enhanced interrogation techniques", is a red herring. The truth is that we are engaged in far worse abuses.

Continue ReadingThe Politics of War Crimes

Andrew Sullivan pycho-analyses Liz Cheney’s approval of torture

Andrew Sullivan has taken some time to consider why Liz Cheney would approve of the use of torture. For one thing, torture is (amazingly) not shameful to the far right; rather, it's red meat to them. Sullivan quotes Adam Serwer on this point:

For the GOP, torture is no longer a "necessary evil." It is a rally cry, a "values" issue like same-sex marriage or abortion. They don't "grudgingly" support torture, they applaud it. They celebrate it. Liz Cheney's unequivocal support for torture methods gleaned from communist China has people begging her to run for office.
And thus, Liz, is given a second reason to defend her father, who should be treated as the war criminal he is. Her first reason, of course, is family loyalty:
Family members are always, and understandably, the last defenders of the criminal. The Cheneys' natural inability to see Cheney in any reality-based perspective renders them psychologically able, even eager, to defend evil as a force for good in ways more forthright than others. Why this should be a plus for Cheney among the GOP rather than an obvious conflict of interest is part of the right's current derangement. They too cannot hold the concept of their own moral fallibility in their fearful, clenched minds.
Sullivan's entire post is well worth a read.

Continue ReadingAndrew Sullivan pycho-analyses Liz Cheney’s approval of torture