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."

[DoughtyOne]

The differentiation between troops and terrorist is an important one. I appreciate you making that distinction. It should be made emphatically clear that the treatment of terrorists is in no way linked to that of combatants covered under the Geneva Convention. I should have caught that myself. These continuing battles sometimes blur the line in your mind what is actually taking place. And in this instance we are clearly talking about terrorists. At least IMO...

[hobbes1]

You only need know one thing.

They target civilians.

That is a crime for which no treatment is out of line.

[hobbes1]

1000 Percent in agreement.

[Just another Joe]

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

Torturing any human being is morally wrong, IMO.
There is a fine line between "stress and duress" and torture. Once you cross that line I would think that it would be very easy to continue deeper and very hard to cross back over and convince others that you wouldn't do it again - for any reason.
It could start with enemy terrorists and become an ordinary thing for anyone considered as a POTENTIAL enemy.

[DoughtyOne]

I should add to that series of comments, that I still think there are limits to what we should sign on to. I would agree that the interrogation process should be able to incorporate an elevated set of physical tools to encourage cooperation, since these are terrorists. After all, they are not targeting regular combatants but the general public, and generally vast numbers of them.

[Lumberjack]

You only need know one thing. They target civilians. That is a crime for which no treatment is out of line.

I'll determine what I need to know to make my own judgements, thank you very much.
How do you know these specific guys targeted civilians? Do you have the dossiers on these two fellows? Care to share your insider information? What precisely do you know about them?
Please, I'm awaiting your response on tenterhooks.

[US admirer]

"I know that you would just sit idly by and ask "please tell me where the bad guys are?" maybe keep him awake for 24-48 hours while time ticks away and the bad men move.... "

Your presumptiveness and arrogance are impressive but nevertheless not necessarily correct. The ease with which you exhibit your lack of respect and comprehension for the views of others, I suspect, reflects the depth to which you have contemplated the issues before you.

Let me be more specific. Very simply, you have no grounds for concluding what I would do in the situation that you describe. More importantly nothing I said implies a pacifistic point of view with regard to saving my relative’s life in the scenario your presented. Furthermore, even in the event that I would be moved to take the pliers to someone, there is a difference between the actions of an individual, operating under extreme personal duress, and the policy of the state. I would have hoped that you were capable of understanding that difference.

[hobbes1]

No. The difference is quite clear.

When dealing with an entity that commits cloaked military style actions, against unsuspecting civilian targets, you are no longer dealing with Human Beings, you are dealing with Animals.

They may look human, but their actions say otherwise.

And as I Pointed out, it is inhuman to let concern for an animal like that cost the lives of innocents.....

[hobbes1]

If they are a Member of a terrorist organization, Al Queida, Hamas, Hezbollah....whatever, then treating them in a manner as you propose, puts innocent lives at risk.

How do I know? you ask...I am not there, nor am I tasked to know, however, I do have enough trust in the men and women in harms way that have that information to act on it accordingly.

You seem to wish to ask ridiculous questions, as a means of avoiding the fact that you obviously place innocent life, on the same plane as that of a terrorist....unless i misunderstand your point?

Do you mean that....

By allowing terrorists to remain silent, or delaying the transmittal of information does not unnecessarily place inoocents at risk ?

Or that Innocent civilians should die, because your sense of Moral Superiority says so.

Thank God it was Truman that called for the Bomb to be dropped, bc obviously your sense of moral equivlancy would have prohibited that too....

[hobbes1]

Of course I disagree, are people like Ted Bundy

I am sorry, Who was at risk once Bundy was in Jail ?

And Which Nazis were dressing like civilians, ad comitting acts of war against unsuspecting populations....?

The Bundy argument Is so inane, I'll let my question stand as the argument, HOWEVER....

As to the Nazis....They were agents of a STATE. You can Retaliate against a STATE, and bring it's killing to an end.

You do see the difference dont you ?

[Just another Joe]

When dealing with an entity that commits cloaked military style actions, against unsuspecting civilian targets, you are no longer dealing with Human Beings, you are dealing with Animals.

I can't agree with that. An animal acts on instinct, not premeditated reasoning.
No matter if they are misguided, wrong, acting from hatred, or many other reasons, they are still human.
In any case I wouldn't condone the torture of an animal either.
While there is a difference between soldiers in the military, to be treated under the Geneva convention, and terrorists, there is NO justification, IMO, not even close, for torture.

[hobbes1]

Mar. 7, 2003
Hamas claims responsibility for Wednesday suicide attack
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

The military wing of Hamas, Iz Adin a-Kassam, on Friday claimed responsibility for a suicide bombing Wednesday in the northern city of Haifa that claimed the lives of 14 Israelis and one American and wounded scores.

SO then, what you two are saying is that if a member of Hamas was caught two days ago, it would be wrong to torture them to extract information, even though this is the result of inaction....

These animals are not soldiers, and Human in name only. Torture, while grotesque, is sometimes necessary.

Just like Hiroshima.

[hobbes1]

So then Truman was wrong for dropping the Bomb?

[river rat]

America wore the "White Hat" for too long...
Our enemies mistook the white hat for weakness...

Time to wear the "Black Hat"....and convince the bastards we are NOT to be trifled with.....EVER!

The task has been forced upon us to destroy large numbers of the enemy and to expose our false allies as FALSE ALLIES.

Semper Fi

[FeliciaCat]

The UK Independent is more to the left then the Guardian. (if thats possible) I would treat ANY story they do on the US as very suspect.

[L,TOWM]

Caspera gave a good response to the Geneva Convention prong on this issue, I will question your assumption that torture aka "Physically Intensive Interogation Methods" runs counter to our values.

I presume that you are referring to the amendments to the Bill of Rights which prohibit the government from engaging in certain activities in prosecuting or punishing criminals. That may have some merit, were these people domestic criminals, being brought to justice by a Law Enforcement Agency.

They are not, and while the UCMJ has a lot to say about the treatment of "lawful combatants" it is fairly silent on the subject of "illegal combatants" (terrorists and pirates). Given that silence, interrogation methods may have some latitude.

Another objection may be founf in the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition in the Bill of Rights. Beyond the non-domestic civillian aspect of this case, is the question of an "interrogation" being "punishment". I would argue that the two are seperate issues. There is also the nature of "unusual". It is not "unusual" for nations to co-operate on intelligence matters, so what would the problem be with us say, handing over one of our prisoners to Pakistan, so that their intelligent officers can ask him a few friendly questions? Does'nt sound "unusual" to me.

[Just another Joe]

What makes you think that dropping the bomb on Hiroshima was torture?
That was an act of war.
Show me the country that we are at war with at this moment and I'll consider dropping a bomb.

There is a vast difference between torturing an individual, be it a soldier or a terrorist, for information and dropping a nuclear bomb to end a war.

[L,TOWM]

Cut out the dramatics. Sounds like one of 'em took an M-16 butt in the belly, knocking loose a blood clot, and the other got a shot in the ribs, causing a clot.

Now if the autopsy reports come back with a description of physical injuries that sound like the results of a two day makeover with the Ton-Ton Mercout, you would have something to mourn...

Maybe.

[hobbes1]

That was an act of war.

Yes it was. And it produced massive suffering on a Civilian population.

That's the point. with a State actor, you can end the killing, by fighting a war.However, sometimes civilians suffer extremely (like radiation poisoning...) because of it.
And that is to save MILITARY LIVES.

Now take your garden variety terrorist Ahole. every moment he withholds information, another civilian target may be at risk.

How is it, then, that you can consider the collateral damage done to civilians during a war, fair game, but not the deliberate inflicting of pain, on someone actively targeting civilians in an Undeclared war?

[Just another Joe]

And again, it will take more than this to convince me that the US military are torturing prisoners.

I'm arguing from a position of IF they have/did/do/will.
Dramatics?