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."

[US admirer]

"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?"

Ever hear of "res ipsa loquitur"?

[hobbes1]

The thing speaks for itself....so?

[Lumberjack]

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.

So let me sum up so far.
1. You cheer torture or death of people whom you don't know and know nothing about.
2. You admit that you don't know who they are or what they did.
3. You call them "subhuman".
4. You trust the government at its word, unequivocally.
Ok, let's proceed.

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?

And I ask again, what do you know about these people? Can you prove any of the claims you're making against them? Prove to me they were a member of *anything* besides the local Parent Teacher Association. Go ahead, I'll wait.

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

What organization did either of these men belong to, exactly? Prove it. That's what it boils down to. You don't know. You admit as much. For all you know, they could have entered a college library and sat down at a terminal already logged in by the real terrorist and been picked up as they left, clueless as to why they were being taken away. You have no way of knowing one way or the other. Yet you cheer their deaths and glorify in the fact it may have been torture that caused it.

because your sense of Moral Superiority says so.

Yes, that "God" Fellow is such a demanding Entity, isn't He? Sorry that objection to torturing human beings you've never met nor know anything about offends you. Make up all the faux scenarios you want till the cows come home, but in the end, YOU ARE JUST BLOWING HOT AIR INTO THE ETHER. You don't know. And still you cheer.
How "Christian".

[Truthsearcher]

Exactly, all I said I hope it isn't true, and that *if* we are doing it, it is wrong and we should stop.

Nowhere did I say there is conclusive evidence that we are actually doing it.

[hobbes1]

I am hoping that you are not seriously saying the INTENTIONAL INFLICTION of RADIATION POISONING on THOUSANDS...or more to save combatant lives , is somehow morally superior than Inflicting severe pain on a terrorist to save innocent lives

[Just another Joe]

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?

You just said it.
The collateral damage done civilians in a state of declared war is not torture, per se.
Even spies are not tortured. They are given a trial and killed outright.
I wouldn't condone torture in a declared war, why would I condone it in an undeclared war?

[L,TOWM]

Dramatics?
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.

Dramatics. Over a couple of shots to two illegal combatants.

If we're talking about the CIA alternating sodium pentathol injections with electrodes on the nuts being administered to a domestic dissenter; for example, that idiot college professor in New Mexico that said "Anyone who blows up the Pentagon has my vote", than we have a valid analogy.

OK dramatics may not have been fully accurate either. Let's try 'hyperbole' on for size.

[hobbes1]

4. You trust the government at its word, unequivocally.

I see.

OK When you and Harry Browne get off the bong, maybe you will see to reason.

What organization did either of these men belong to, exactly? Prove it. That's what it boils down to. You don't know. You admit as much. For all you know, they could have entered a college library and sat down at a terminal already logged in by the real terrorist and been picked up as they left, clueless as to why they were being taken away.

See, I knew it. Bong Smoke.

One of two possible scenarios for these guys.
A; Captured in the Hills of Afghanistan, lotsa college libraries there....

Or, B: in a raid on an Al Quieda Cell....

I cheer no deaths, point to where i said I was GLAD they were dead.

However, the use of torture on Illegal Combatants is Morally Justifiable.Period.

As in Trusting the Government, I was a Marine, and yes, Believe the men and women risking their lives act with honor, hardly the same as a bureaucrat.

[hobbes1]

Because DECLARED wars seek to avoid killiing mommies daddies and children, whereas Terrorists do not.

So, the choice is Torture, or risking more innocent lives. Simple as that.

The Chance of another Terror incident, and the amount of time a terrorist is allowed to hold information are DIRECTLY PROPORTIONAL.

[Riley]

My concerns have nothing whatsoever to do with the Geneva Convention, or America's observance of it.

[Lumberjack]

OK When you and Harry Browne get off the bong, maybe you will see to reason.

It was cute, it was funny, it wasn't an answer. I give it a 2.5 out of 10 Rodger. Before I continue, I wish to inquire whether you intend to actually address any of my questions and assertions, or shall it be simply a name calling fest from this point on? Just for reference sake, you understand.

However, the use of torture on Illegal Combatants is Morally Justifiable.Period.

Oh yes, I see. Well since you put the "Period" there, it must be true. Gosh, and all this time I've been following the Word when I could have just made outrageous immoral claims and justified them with "Period". Thanks for showing me the True Path pilgrim.

One of two possible scenarios for these guys. A; Captured in the Hills of Afghanistan, lotsa college libraries there.... Or, B: in a raid on an Al Quieda Cell....

Ok, prove it. You made these claims, one of two situations. Now prove to me that this would be the only place they could get these people. Use pretty pictures if you like.

As in Trusting the Government, I was a Marine, and yes, Believe the men and women risking their lives act with honor, hardly the same as a bureaucrat.

I too was in the military, so you don't get to pull that kind of stunt in this argument. Sorry. But nice try. Unless, you know, you're suggesting that we live in a military junta? These guys do report to and follow the orders of somebody, don't they? Has something fundamental changed in the nature of government recently that nobody has informed us silly civilians about? ;) I guess that's about it. You can't prove who they were, why there were there, what they did, even if they were guilty of anything. But you feel torture against them was "moral" (assuming that was the cause of death of course). Hey, whatever floats your boat. I'm just glad I won't have to stand in your shoes come Judgement Day.

[US admirer]

Ok if it does not speak to you I'll have a crack at it.

Any injury by any implement of war can cause horrible injury to combatants and non-combatants, whether it is a knife, a bullet a missile, bomb etc. Right? I’m certain that there are victims of torture who have not suffered as much as the victims of the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima. I trust you would agree. Does this fact mean that because a torture victim has suffered less they were not tortured? Of course not.

Therefore something else, some other component of action, is required to meet the definition of torture. What is it? Well we could consult a dictionary, or some treatise on the subject, but without rezsorting to such an authority, I would suggest to you that torture involves the deliberate infliction of severe suffering (as opposed to discomfort, of the sort associated with incarceration) that is designed to elicit some form of gain, for the party inflicting such suffering. Further, the circumstances under which that individual is subjected to such suffering, occurs while that individual is under the direct control of the party inflicting the suffering. Also the victim is unable to take any physical action (moving, body armor, gas mask, bomb shelter etc) to avoid the consequences of a noxious stimulus (bullet, missile, bomb, pliers, bamboo chutes etc). Finally, the harm is directed at a specific individual, not to prevent that individual from further supportive or direct hostile action towards the party inflicting the suffering (after all he is under the control of the party inflicting the suffering), but for some other reason, as for example a presumed “greater good” of saving someone else from injury.

That is how the two situations are different.

[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.

I stand by that statement.
IF it is true that the US military is now in the business of torturing prisoners, whether they be soldiers of another country, alleged terrorists, or proven terrorists, that is not the country I have known and loved for the past 40 years and it does sound more like the old Russian KGB than the US military I served.

Dramatics. Over a couple of shots to two illegal combatants.

If that is all it was, a couple of shots because they were instilling a riot, fighting their captors, etc, I have no problem with it.
Again, IF it was deliberate torture, then I have a problem with it.

And again, it will take more than this article to convince me that these two were tortured by anyone in the US military..

[L,TOWM]

Understood.

Let me give you a hypothetical:

Prisoner being interogated does'nt say $#!+ for hours. After one question the prosoner spits on or insults a tired and po'd S-2 that is being pounded on for results by the CO. Rifle butt goes into the gut, S-2 regains composure and that's it.

Does the S-2 deserve a CM and the stockade?

I ask this only because that is the limit of what abuse may have occured in this situation; some one that lost it or got out of hand for minute.

I believe it far more likely that the two guys who died were part of the prison riot in 11/01 or got hurt at the time they were being captured.

[Feiny]

IZ IT SAFE?

[US admirer]

I take it, by your silence, that you now comprehend, the "seriously" different nature, moral and otherwise, of torture of a captive individual, as compared with radiation injury suffered by non-combatants, in a hostile, enemy controlled, territory.

[Just another Joe]

Does the S-2 deserve a CM and the stockade?

Court martial and Stockade?
Perhaps not a court martial. Commanding officers punishment (Reduction in rank, half pay for two months) - maybe. Stockade - would depend on many things.

My point being that the scenario you describe isn't torture. It may not be quite the way it should be but it's not torture.

[MEGoody]

Maybe these guys killed each other. Radical Muslims aren't exactly known for their ability to get along with each other over the long haul. One is always trying to overpower the other. Usually, the only way they can keep this in check is by both of them turning their attention to some other imagined 'enemy'.

[Dick Vomer]

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.

The example of "your relatives" is done on purpose. Those in the military are defending their loved ones and you and your loved ones from nuclear and biologic as well as conventional weapons on AMERICAN soil.

I have and would do everything in my power to defend my family and country...

I've re-read the article. If "blood clots" are the cause as well as blunt force chest... a 18-20 hour plane ride after a battle could cause deep venous thrombus to form in the legs. If they were at Gitmo and were in a cell and confined or chose to not eat or drink in order to "hunger" strike or were made to lay or sit for long periods of time.... same result blood clots in the lower extremities. then any movement breaks them loose and causes... what appears to be "heart attack" but may be a pulmonary embolus. This is all speculation in that we haven't seen the bodies, don't know the history of the prisoners involved and most importantly don't know who leaked this or why.

I can assure you that any of the prisoners during transport to Gitmo could have been diverted to UAE, or Indonesia, Phillipines, Russia or any number of smaller countries for "interogation" using what ever techniques needed. Then they could have "disappeared". There is no reason to "kill" or "torture" anybody that the "public" would need to ever hear about.

There has been no "list" of prisoners and we don't know if they have 200-600 people in custody. Nobody in the public knows that. What is certain is that the US is being made to look like the rogue and all the libs are wringing their hands. Screw them.

they are hoping that our Armed Forces are given sufficient casualties that Bush can be "damaged" but not enough to "lose" or have mass casualties in the US.

Maybe some of them do want us to get beat.... that would show us a lesson. Then we could elect Dems to "fix" everything. (spitting on the ground) screw Daschle, Kennedy, Hillary and the rest of the "hate America first" crowd and you too if the shoe fits pal. I'm through with the mealey mouthed critics who've forgotten the 3000 American casualties. When was the last time that we've heard from Khadaffi or Noriega or any dictator that killed Americans and was bitch slapped? Lesson #1 - Don't make deals with dictators that harm Americans or support those that harm Americans.

sorry for the rant... lots of buddies with boots in the dirt and no limit hunting season starting.

[L,TOWM]

Understood and agreed.