Report: 'indisputable' evidence of US torture

FriendlyFire

Codex WMDicanious
Joined
Jan 4, 2002
Messages
21,761
Location
Sydney
Report: 'indisputable' evidence of US torture

President George W. Bush's administration engaged in torture after the September 11, 2001, attacks, a bipartisan panel says, blaming "the nation's highest officials" for "allowing and contributing to the spread of torture".

Torture was used against detainees in many instances and across a wide range of theatres.
Republican Asa Hutchinson

The 560-page report by a task force of the Washington-based Constitution Project also takes aim at the Obama administration for maintaining secrecy on past abuses and failing to prosecute acts of torture.

The task force – led by Republican Asa Hutchinson, a former Arkansas congressman and Homeland Security official under Mr Bush, and Democrat James Jones, a former Oklahoma congressman and US ambassador to Mexico in the Clinton administration – offered what it called the most comprehensive report so far on prisoner interrogations.
Advertisement

"It is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture," the report said.

The torture question dogged the Bush administration after the disclosure that three prisoners held by the CIA had been waterboarded, an interrogation technique that simulates drowning.

While the Bush administration denied the practice amounted to torture, the task force said the issue should no longer be subject to debate.

"The United States may not declare a nation guilty of engaging in torture and then exempt itself from being so labelled for similar if not identical conduct," the report said.

The group, which had no access to classified information or subpoena power, said the public record provided ample evidence of torture.

"Torture was used against detainees in many instances and across a wide range of theatres," Mr Hutchinson said at a news conference, citing instances of waterboarding, stress positions and sleep deprivation.

The report said much of the torture that occurred in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, "was never explicitly authorised". Still, it found the administration laid the groundwork for torture by declaring that the Geneva Conventions, which require humane treatment for prisoners of war, didn't apply to the war on terrorism.

"The administration never specified what rules would apply instead," the report said.

It faulted Justice Department lawyers for providing "novel, if not acrobatic" legal opinions that permitted torture and other mistreatment of prisoners.

The report also challenges the CIA's claim that only three al-Qaeda prisoners were waterboarded.

The task force confirmed an account first provided by Human Rights Watch that at least one Libyan militant was waterboarded by US forces in Afghanistan. It said a second Libyan militant was subjected to a "similar water-suffocation procedure" that didn't involve a board.

The two incidents "caused some consternation at the CIA, which had always maintained that only three people had been waterboarded", the report said.

Mr Jones faulted the Obama administration for keeping documents classified in a practice that he said serves only "to conceal wrongdoing".

Mr Obama, in his first term, decided against creating a commission to study the Bush administration's interrogation and detention policies, saying it was unproductive to "look backwards".

The task force, which interviewed scores of prisoners, military intelligence officers and interrogators, said its report "should not be the final word on how events played out". It called on the Obama administration to declassify as much information as possible to expose wrongdoing and correct past abuses.

The report was less definitive on whether torture provided any valuable information to US officials tracking potential terrorist plots.

Without access to classified information, the group said it couldn't be sure whether torture yielded any breakthroughs. The Senate Intelligence Committee produced a report on interrogations that remains classified.

Still, the task force said there was no "firm or persuasive evidence" to indicate that torture was beneficial and called on those who disagreed to offer some factual basis.

"The public record strongly suggests there was no useful information gained from going to the dark side" and engaging in torture, said David Irvine, a former Republican Utah state legislator and retired Army brigadier-general who served on the task force. "We have been badly misled by false confessions derived from brutal interrogations."

While most of the report's findings were unanimous, the task force could not agree on one key issue: how to address the indefinite detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

A majority of the group said the indefinite detention was "abhorrent and intolerable" and called on the Obama administration to bring prisoners to court or deport them.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/report-...-us-torture-20130417-2hz79.html#ixzz2Qu8wLbzP

Republicans lead bipartisan report says the US engaged in wide spread torture of prisoners. Despite the Bush administration insistence they do not torture, and at the same time torture produced useful Intel. Turns out to everyone's surprise they lied.

Now what ?
 
I guess we see how many important people we can get tried for war crimes and related charges.

In a better world.
 
Excellent that this is all out in the open and not in dispute.

Now we can expect AG Holder to send the US Marshalls to Wyoming and Texas to round up Cheney and Bush, and issue warrants for the rest of his posse legal advisers and some secretaries.

I expect everything will be wrapped up in a week.
 
I really wish we'd never stooped to torture. Never. I don't, personally, feel it's negotiable.

I guess it's easy to say that in the safety of my home, but shouldn't there be a few limits to our conduct? Even if they are tactically useful?
 
It's a shame how a vague pretext of "national security" can trump human rights and the laws of the land, not to mention international treaties.

How is the rest of the world supposed to look at the U.S. and see a leader? I'm sure those people exist, but that number is fast dwindling. Not that I have anything against the U.S. really, but there really isn't much legitimacy there anymore.

During the cold war I lived on both sides of the Iron Curtain. During that time, and for many years afterwards, I viewed the U.S. as "the good guys" and the Soviets as "the bad guys". I've since learned that the situation was far more complex than that.. and since then the U.S. has really fallen a couple pegs in terms of being "the good guys".

Leaders of the free world? No.. Leaders of the free world would not torture and lie about it.. That's the sort of thing I expected of the Soviets, not the "good guys"
 
Haven't we known this for years ?
Is it going to have consequences for anyone of importance ?
 
The difference is that higher-ups in the United States government are acknowledging it rather than flat-out denying and lying about it. This means that at least the official record is in the process of being corrected, even if no one is being thrown in jail for it.
 
Hmmm. Torture, eh?

Well, well. Who'd have thunk it?

Why anyone thinks torture works, I don't know. I mean, you can certainly get people to admit whatever you want by using it. That much is true.

The fake execution, I've heard, is one of the best techniques. Apparently people will beg to be executed for real rather than have to go through another fake one.
 
The fake execution, I've heard, is one of the best techniques. Apparently people will beg to be executed for real rather than have to go through another fake one.

Ah come on, it's just fun. They should grow a sense of humor!

Actually I've never heard of that being a torture method for info or whatever. Just a really sadistic thing that guards sometimes do to captives for fun.
 
Why anyone thinks torture works, I don't know.

The anti-torture argument needs to just flat out state that torture is wrong even if it works extremely well. No sense beating around the bush with nonsense like this. Torture might very well work in some cases, but that's not why it should be forbidden. It's just like when the conservative Christians say stuff about "the gay lifestyle" or stress things like HIV. It's that sort of stupid beating around the bush. Just STFU and say what you really mean.

I'm not opposed to torture because it doesn't work. I don't know, or care, if it works or not. My opposition to torture isn't some kind of equation where a certain degree of utility would make it acceptable.
 
Not even getting into that. The important part is stopping and never doing it again.
 
No one should be thrown in jail for torturing terrorists.

Yes, I'm sure your system works perfectly and that zero of the tortured people were actually innocent.

Not that I would support torture even if that were the case.
 
The anti-torture argument needs to just flat out state that torture is wrong even if it works extremely well. No sense beating around the bush with nonsense like this. Torture might very well work in some cases, but that's not why it should be forbidden. It's just like when the conservative Christians say stuff about "the gay lifestyle" or stress things like HIV. It's that sort of stupid beating around the bush. Just STFU and say what you really mean.

I'm not opposed to torture because it doesn't work. I don't know, or care, if it works or not. My opposition to torture isn't some kind of equation where a certain degree of utility would make it acceptable.

Well that's fine and dandy. And very admirable I'm sure.

But some pragmatic person will pipe up that when push comes to shove you need that information and if torturing someone is the only way to get it then so be it. The argument against that is that the information you get that way is useless.

It's the same sort of argument I have against capital punishment.

Generalizing: If an action doesn't have the effect you desire then it's not rational to use it. All considerations of morality aside.
 
We knew this. Everyone but the most partisan even admitted it. :dunno:

How much you want to bet Obama's still doing it?

I guess we see how many important people we can get tried for war crimes and related charges.

In a better world.

All of them, deserve it, yes.

Excellent that this is all out in the open and not in dispute.

Now we can expect AG Holder to send the US Marshalls to Wyoming and Texas to round up Cheney and Bush, and issue warrants for the rest of his posse legal advisers and some secretaries.

I expect everything will be wrapped up in a week.

Sadly, no, they're above the law, just like the current POTUS.

It's a shame how a vague pretext of "national security" can trump human rights and the laws of the land, not to mention international treaties.

How is the rest of the world supposed to look at the U.S. and see a leader? I'm sure those people exist, but that number is fast dwindling. Not that I have anything against the U.S. really, but there really isn't much legitimacy there anymore.

During the cold war I lived on both sides of the Iron Curtain. During that time, and for many years afterwards, I viewed the U.S. as "the good guys" and the Soviets as "the bad guys". I've since learned that the situation was far more complex than that.. and since then the U.S. has really fallen a couple pegs in terms of being "the good guys".

Leaders of the free world? No.. Leaders of the free world would not torture and lie about it.. That's the sort of thing I expected of the Soviets, not the "good guys"

We haven't been "The Good Guys" since 1812...

The anti-torture argument needs to just flat out state that torture is wrong even if it works extremely well. No sense beating around the bush with nonsense like this. Torture might very well work in some cases, but that's not why it should be forbidden. It's just like when the conservative Christians say stuff about "the gay lifestyle" or stress things like HIV. It's that sort of stupid beating around the bush. Just STFU and say what you really mean.

I'm not opposed to torture because it doesn't work. I don't know, or care, if it works or not. My opposition to torture isn't some kind of equation where a certain degree of utility would make it acceptable.

Yeah, pretty much.
No one should be thrown in jail for torturing terrorists.

I agree, they should be executed.
 
Props for admitting it, but unless a whole bunch of people end up on the witness stand facing war crime charges, it's all just window dressing.
 
We knew this. Everyone but the most partisan even admitted it. :dunno:

My reaction to this and the reflections-on-the-Iraq war thread is pretty much the same: The focus shouldn't be on assigning blame.

It should be on making clear that those where were wrong were WRONG, and that the next time something similar comes around they should *STFU*. And if they don't, they should be ignored... if not ridiculed.

At least until they make themselves considerably better informed and/or apply a more critical eye toward their sources.

I guess what I'm trying to say is we should be trying to make people not guilty, but foolish. Guilt has all sorts of legal and ethical complications that make it hard to stick. Stupidity, however - given a little repetition - should be "indisputable."

OTOH, if some sort of legal preceding - one with some teeth - is a real possibility: Nail the bums to the wall.
 
Back
Top Bottom