Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

America Admits Suspects Died In Interrogations
Independent (UK) ^ | 3-7-2003 | Andrew Gumbel

Posted on 03/06/2003 6:23:26 PM PST by 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."


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: admits; america; antiamerican; antibush; died; interrogations; prisondeaths; propaganda; quitealeap; suspects; wherestheproof
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 last
To: US admirer
Look, if you wish to be incoherent and only adress one side of the argument, that's fine,

What i was pointing out, was the DIFFERENCE between combative territory, where we generally fight wars, and bombing civilian centers, which we condemned the Nazis for in London. there is a difference, and we jumped ship when it became part of the equation of saving Innocent American Lives, as opposed to simply continuing the Island Hopping Campaign.

Secondly, as to points 1,3 ...? So, yes, that is what torture is....what isyour point, i thought we were pretty much in agreement on that.

As to point 4, we are not talking about a Presumed good.

An Uncertain, and anticipated good, maybe, but in the final analysis, you are talking about trading off deliberately inflicted suffering on someone that has committed, or is presumed to be in league with those committing acts of hostility SPECIFICALLY disavowed by the Geneva Convention, to save the lives of Not presumed, but definitively innocent people.

And Before you argue that last point, consider, the Courts currently confirm that is the nature of these Illegal combatants.

181 posted on 03/12/2003 5:20:04 AM PST by hobbes1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson