America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations

Independent (UK) ^ | 3-7-2003 | Andrew Gumbel

[blam]

America admits suspects died in interrogations

By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
07 March 2003

American military officials acknowledged yesterday that two prisoners captured in Afghanistan in December had been killed while under interrogation at Bagram air base north of Kabul – reviving concerns that the US is resorting to torture in its treatment of Taliban fighters and suspected al-Qa'ida operatives.

A spokesman for the air base confirmed that the official cause of death of the two men was "homicide", contradicting earlier accounts that one had died of a heart attack and the other from a pulmonary embolism.

The men's death certificates, made public earlier this week, showed that one captive, known only as Dilawar, 22, from the Khost region, died from "blunt force injuries to lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease" while another captive, Mullah Habibullah, 30, suffered from blood clot in the lung that was exacerbated by a "blunt force injury".

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

While the US claims this still constitutes "humane" treatment, human rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have denounced it as torture as defined by international treaty. The US has also come under heavy criticism for its reported policy of handing suspects over to countries such as Jordan, Egypt or Morocco, where torture techniques are an established part of the security apparatus. Legally, Human Rights Watch says, there is no distinction between using torture directly and subcontracting it out.

Some American politicians have argued that torture could be justified in this case if it helped prevent terror attacks on US citizens. Jonathan Turley, a prominent law professor at George Washington University, countered that embracing torture would be "suicide for a nation once viewed as the very embodiment of human rights".

Torture is part of a long list of concerns about the Bush administration's respect for international law, after the extrajudicial killing of al-Qa'ida suspects by an unmanned drone in Yemen and the the indefinite detention of "enemy combatants" at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a number of whom have committed or attempted to commit suicide.

President Bush appeared to encourage extra-judicial solutions in his State of the Union address in January when he talked of al-Qa'ida members being arrested or meeting "a different fate". "Let's put it this way," he said in a tone that appalled many, "they are no longer a problem to the United States and our friends and allies."

[ko_kyi]

Well said. If we hang some Iraqi intelligence officer for torturing a POW we had better have our own ducks in a row, otherwise the result is indistinguishable from "might makes right."

It is certainly a tough question. I would not want to endager a single American in order to protect all of Al Qaeda from mistreatment.

That said, I can't think of any nation that would avoid using torture in EVERY circumstance. Also, where is the line between putting pressure on a guy and torture? I guess I should look at the Geneva convention myself.

[Just another Joe]

IF this is true, that American military has tortured prisoners, then I'm not sure that this is the same country that I've known for the last 45 yrs.
This stuff sounds more like the old Russian KGB than the U.S. Army.
One thing that I have learned in my short time here is that very, very seldom do you find a case where a noble end justifies a barbarian means to that end.

[Just another Joe]

It will take a lot more than this to convince me that we killed two prisoners by use of torture.

Hear, hear!

[DoughtyOne]

My own personal view is that anything that causes physical injury severe enough to last more than a day or so would be precluded. Water, light, some deprivations and possibly other forms of motivation would be accepted.

You take a guy and put him on rice and water for a month in isolation. Then you take him out and place him five feet from a table with steak, turkey, strawberries, vegetables, mashed potatoes, or some other quisine more in tune to his national norms. If he won't open up, but him back in isolation.

I think there are ways to motivate without physically or mentally imparing a person long term.

[hobbes1]

One thing that I have learned in my short time here is that very, very seldom do you find a case where a noble end justifies a barbarian means to that end.

Sadly, one of those cases, is when dealing with barbarians that target innocent civilians, and the loss of innocent life is (in an intelligent estimation) imminent.

Is it barbarian to injure, or kill an avowed terrorist, or allow an innocent to have his life taken ?

[Truthsearcher]

You're missing the point. I don't care about the Geneva convention. I don't think the Geneva convention should be a replacement for our conscience.

We respect the rights of human beings because it is the foundation of everything we stand for, and we abandon it at great peril to us.

[Truthsearcher]

Again, our reason for being against torture should be based on some Geneva Convention, but that it violates our fundamental principle.

[hobbes1]

I think there are ways to motivate without physically or mentally imparing a person long term.

One, you are motivating a terrorist, not a person. These guys forfeited humanity, when they undertook the targeting of civilians.

Two, there is a time component involved in saving innocent life from possible terrorist acts.

You take a guy and put him on rice and water for a month in isolation.

And the members of his cell you didnt catch and don't know about have four weeks to kill some more innocents....

that is neither Civilized, nor intelligent.

To treat of torture like it is some unmitigated evil, is to put yourself at the mercy of those that would kill you.

[Just another Joe]

Is it barbarian to injure, or kill an avowed terrorist, or allow an innocent to have his life taken ?

Injure or kill, in the heat of the chase, or during a firefight trying to capture the terrorist? No.
Torture? That just brings the US down to the terrorists level and gives them a justification for hating and wanting to hurt any US citizen. I know that a terrorist doen't need any justification but it could justify the terrorist in the eyes of the rest of the civilized world.

[hobbes1]

We respect the rights of human beings

Then obviously you disagree, that the targeting of civilians makes one claim to be human automatically forfeit?

[hobbes1]

Perhaps, but by their actions they are already willing to take your life, hating you more is of no consequence.

Giving them pause to think twice is.

[Sloth]

US officials previously admitted using "stress and duress" on prisoners including sleep deprivation, denial of medication for battle injuries, forcing them to stand or kneel for hours on end with hoods on, subjecting them to loud noises and sudden flashes of light and engaging in culturally humiliating practices such as having them kicked by female officers.

Awesome. :)

[Lumberjack]

After reading most of the posts here, I must say that this is quite a display of people's adherance to Christ.

They don't know these two men, they have no idea who they are or if they were even involved with 9/11. They know *nothing* about them except that they were in Gitmo. With that lack of knowledge they cheer their deaths, even if those deaths *may* have occured via torture (agreed that it isn't conclusive one way or the other).

Very telling of where their true allegiance lies.

[Spiff]

There is nothing in the article to support the "while under interrogation" claim.

Further, there is nothing in the article to support the claim that the "torture" was carried out by U.S. military personnel. Afghan troops may well be responsible for the torture, but this article doesn't make it clear at all. And, maybe, these guys were in "general population" and got pummeled by their islamonazi friends because it was thought that they were cooperating with us too much.

[DoughtyOne]

You make some good points.  On the other hand how do you know the person you're demanding information from actually has that information?

Every excuse you use to justify mistreatment of foreign troops is an excuse they can use to mistreat ours.  Do you really want a situation that sees hundreds or thousands of our troops subjected to "anything goes" in future conflicts?

What you are supporting is the crushing of bones, joints, dismemberments, inflictions of blindness, other mutilations in the interest of information you can't be 100% certain the individual even has.

I'm not seeking to denegrate the points you made, because I happen to think they are valid and powerful.  I'm just very leary of opening up this can of worms.

 The FRN Sign Bank is Open

[Truthsearcher]

Of course I disagree, are people like Ted Bundy, or the Nazis at Nuremberg, any less detestable? Those people got a trial or a tribunal, and after they are found guilty, received their appropriate sentence. Al Queda members deserve no more and no less.

This isn't about them, it is about us, they made the decision to be who they are, but how we deal with them defines who *we* are. If we abandon our principles, then we will have done far greater damage to ourselves than they did to us on 9/11.

[Just another Joe]

hating you more is of no consequence.

I agree with that statement.
Giving them justification in the eyes of the rest of the world, however, should be enough to give us pause.
Not to mention that it is morally wrong, IMO.

BTW, I'm still not convinced that the US military actually did torture these two.
Like doughty1 said, it will take more than this to convince me.

[hobbes1]

Every excuse you use to justify mistreatment of foreign troops

Troops?????? Not troops...Terrorists. I woyuld not support torturing troops. Combatants take risks. Thats the Job description.

Those that target civilians OTOH...

[hobbes1]

Not to mention that it is morally wrong, IMO.

Torturing Soldiers, is morally wrong. Torturing SubHuman terrorists is not.

[Lumberjack]

SubHuman

Gosh, that word has such a familiar ring and cadence to it, doesn't it? Though it does fit in with the whole "I support torture of people of whom I actually know nothing" motif I suppose.