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."

[Just another Joe]

What is certain is that the US is being made to look like the rogue and all the libs are wringing their hands.

You got that right.

Lesson #1 - Don't make deals with dictators that harm Americans or support those that harm Americans.

I'll agree with that one, also.

[mrsmith]

The article certainly encourages one to speculate that they died of torture.

... and not previous injuries, or any other likely explanation.

Dealing with the facts- they died in our custody.
Interrogation subjects should be kept alive for effective interrogation, so if their deaths were avoidable there has been a failure in our administration of these detainees that will be- or has been- investigated.

[FITZ]

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.

Yes ---very likely that. Besides it would be easy enough to torture a Muslim without physically hurting them ----force feed them pig fat or something similar.

[L,TOWM]

I kind of figure that was in the business of having female military personnel kicking them. I'd pony up $24.95 for the pay-per-view on that.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What principle is that? Be nice to terrorists?

G. Washington would have tortured these men too.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

What American principles say "be nice to terrorists"?

Do you have any examples of these previously unknown American principles in action in the last 227 years of our history?

What did the US do to partisans and terrorists in the Philipines? How about in Vietnam?

Terrorists and unrecognized illegal combatants neither deserve nor should exepct any quarter from US regular forces.

[Just another Joe]

Already posted here with 166 replys.

[Just another Joe]

Dang, wrong thread.

[zip]

Its a violation of the Constitution

HUH???When did these sub human pieces of feces become American citizens?

[zip]

From the Geneva convention
A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:
1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
(a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) That of carrying arms openly;
(d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
If they weren't wearing military uniforms they don't qualify

Please see 2 b, c, and d. I don't believe they were wearing uniforms, carrying their box knives openly, and flying aircraft into civilian building killing 3000 plus people is in accordance with laws and customs of war. Ergo, they are not covered. Torture on and upward.

[zip]

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.

Talk to some old MI personnel and find out the truth about war and method of interrogation. 'nuff said.

[zip]

Has something fundamental changed in the nature of government recently that nobody has informed us silly civilians about?

Nope, it's always been this way. Apparently you were one of the 10% that didn't get the word. But now you know.

[DoughtyOne]

Thanks for the post. I appreciate being able to read the information. I appreciate what you are saying, but there are limits. I do think it is fair to use more pressure than with actual troops. Under the right circumstances I might okay quite a bit.

[ZULU]

When you stoop to using the same tactics as lowlife vermin, you become like them.

These guys are either criminals or P.O.W.s or both.
If they are P.O.W.s they are protected by the Geneva COnvention. If they are driminals, they are protected by criminal statutes which protect lowlifes like child molesters, murderers, rapists, etc.

There are other ways to get information out of somebody other than torture. Torture is useless if the guy doesn't have the infomration you are looking for. The use of torture brutalizes the inflicter as well as the victim.

Look at my prior posts. I am a radical on the entire issue of terrorism. I advocate the forcible removal of ALL Muslims in America to an Islamic paradise of their choice. I hope Bush pounds Iraq into dust and Saddam with it. I would like to see Israel drive all the Palestinians into Saudi Arabia. I think a state of war exist between all islamic states and all non-islamic states even if the latter refuse to acknowledge it.

But TORTURE??? Did you EVER read the Declaration of Independence?? How about the Constitution? How about the Age of Enlightenment and the Dignity of man?? Think about what you are advocating. It is un-American and has no place here or we become little better tham Muslims, Nazis and Communists.

[justshutupandtakeit]

bttt

[hobbes1]

No, you can take it from my silence that I left for the Day.

To begin with the Japanese mainland was not combative territory. They were civilian manufacturing centers (part of the War effort yes, but civilian areas nonetheless.).

Secondly, The tactical nature of that incident, and the torture of ILLEGAL COMBATATANTS is the same. To gain an Immediate advance in the saving of innocent lives on our side of the equation.

And from a Moral Standpoint, you cannot coherently compare the intentional infliction of severe physical discomfort of one illegal combatant atr a time, to he mass infliction of slow sure tortorous death to civilians.

Truman, to his credit said he never lost a minutes sleep.

That's because he did the Right thing. As are those that go to the necessary legnths to extract the information that keeps innocents alive.

[hobbes1]

ROTFLMAO!!!!! I had'nt gotten that far yet.

but for some other reason, as for example a presumed “greater good” of saving someone else from injury.

Presumed????? you're joking right.

Look at it like this.

We catch KSM, on 9/9, the next day we capture Atta. do you seriously mean to assert that the greater good acieved by FORCING these guys to divulge, is merely Presumed?

[NotJustAnotherPrettyFace]

Could it possibly be that the blunt force injuries were caused by........... other terrorists who didn't want their compatriots to spill the beans?

[8mmMauser]

Butttt... those poor babies, poor lambs. I'm choking up.

Somebody please e-mail me a kleenex real quick.

Hmm, on the other hand, maybe they just couldn't take a joke.

I would have needed to be there in person to witness that. Wish I had been just to make sure it was all as they say.

[US admirer]

You have a disturbing propensity to misquote and then use your own fantasy to rebut a non-existing argument. To begin with, I never said the Japanese mainland was "combative territory". Perhaps if you would carefully read what I posted you would realize that I said "a hostile, enemy controlled, territory". Yes? Good!

Secondly, the reasons that the tactical nature of bombing and the torture of ILLEGAL COMBATATANTS are not the same are contained in the second paragraph written to you.

Specifically I listed 4 points that differentiate aerial bombing from torture of an individual. To remind you, these were:

1) 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

2) 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

3) 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)

4) 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.

Let me help you a little more, as you seem to have difficulty in grasping the substance of the argument.

I have stated that there are differences (see 1-4 above). It is implicit that I believe these differences are relevant and substantive. You have every right to disagree with this position. It is incumbent on you to demonstrate either the inaccuracy of these assertions or, if true, their lack of relevance to the argument. If you can offer substantive, thoughtful reasoning, as to why they do not constitute significant differences, have at it. If not, do us both a favor and shut your pie-hole. Whatever you decide, don’t expect further responses from me unless you agree to address the specific issues outlined above. Have a good day.