<i>'By early 2002, the CIA, the Justice Department, and the National Security Council were debating whether the legal and humanitarian protections of the Geneva Conventions would apply to captives suspected to be members of al-Qaida or the Taliban. After weeks of debate, and over objections from the State Department, President George W. Bush ultimately issued the final word on the matter. In a February 2002 memo, he stated that al-Qaida and Taliban detainees were not protected by the Geneva Conventions.'</i><p>This is one of the roots of the problem. Once you have a class of people without rights, you can arbitrarily identify people as part of that class and they have no chance at due process. Unless absolutely everyone has basic legal protections, no one has them.
Time for war crime trials.<p>Blatant violation of Article 2, United Nations Convention against Torture, United States Signatory 18 April 1988, ratified 21 October 1994.<p>To be proven by ACLU:<p>"...For more than a month, Suleiman endured an incessant barrage of torture techniques designed to psychologically destroy him. His torturers repeatedly doused him with ice-cold water. They beat him and slammed him into walls. They hung him from a metal rod, his toes barely touching the floor. They chained him in other painful stress positions for days at a time. They starved him, deprived him of sleep, and stuffed him inside small boxes. With the torture came terrifying interrogation sessions in which he was grilled about what he was doing in Somalia and the names of people, all but one of whom he’d never heard of. ..."
The actual 'torture report' by the Senate intelligence committee is worth reading at least in part (it's long...) and goes into some good detail about how the psychologists were recruited and operated.<p><a href="http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://www.intelligence.senate.gov/study2014/sscistudy1.pdf</a><p>Take an hour or two to read the executive summary at the beginning and you will be better informed that just about anyone. Going to the primary sources is easy enough, and it's really enjoyable (a weird word in this context) to form opinions based on the rawest information available. Of course the actual report is a political document in itself, but that aspect is as much a part of the coverage of the report as the contents itself.
"Today, Abu Zubaydah is imprisoned at Guantánamo. He continues to suffer as a result of the torture. He has permanent brain damage. He suffers from searing headaches, sensitivity to noise, and seizures. He can’t recall his father’s name or his own date of birth."<p>-- That is simply fucking abhorrent.
I am always annoyed by the argument that torture is unacceptable AND it doesn't work. It's not totally implausible that this is true, but I think it's very likely that torture "works" in some sense and certainly everyone practicing it expects it to work.<p>So... for an anti-torture position to have some meat to it, you have to make it clear that you think torture is unacceptable <i>even when it does work</i>.<p>If you're not willing to sacrifice real lives and safety to avoid torture, I don't think you are meaningfully against it, and you certainly stand no chance of persuading those convinced of its efficacy.
Small, but important point:<p>There are two APAs:<p>1. American Psychological Association - PhD/PsyD Psychologists - (torture scandal)<p>2. American Psychiatric Association - MD/DO Physicians - (unambiguously opposed to medical involvement in torture)<p>People get psychiatrists and psychologists confused all the time, and the distinction here is really, really important.<p>Bias: I'm a psychiatrist, and I am proud that our professional organization has been clear from the start that torture is unacceptable.
How do these guys still exist? Anyone who has the opportunity to do so should damage these guys. Turn off their accounts, refuse to sell them goods or services, anything not required by law.<p>By no means am I suggesting anything illegal or dangerous. But it's appalling that James Mitchell and Bruce Jessen are allowed to participate in society.<p>If you are an engineer or executive at any company, you have a duty to check for accounts belonging to these people and turn them off. If they subscribe to your services, their money is no good. If they want to buy products, they are not for sale. No credit cards, no bank accounts, no cellular phones.<p>They don't belong in our society and anyone in a position to eject them ought to do so.
Reading this article, I was wondering about the logistical costs of this torture (on top of the fees paid to Mitchell and Jessen). Wouldn't it have been more efficient to arrest the suspected men and try to have an honest conversation with them in the line of "We suspect that you are part of a terrorist network that wants to harm us. If you speak, we can protect you and your family, if you don't, well we will detain you for couple of weeks - without harming you - to see if you change your mind, and then we will simply release you."<p>It may sound too innocent, but how is someone able to trust the information given by someone who has been driven crazy? If Suleiman forgot the name of his father due to the torture, he may as well forget crucial details of the terrorist plot he was supposed to be part of.<p>And on a totally unrelated note, please disable the autoplay of the videos when scrolling down to them, I think this is one of the most annoying misuse of javascript I ever came across.
It remains a tremendous national shame that there have been absolutely no movements toward prosecution for those that perpetrated this incredible regression from civilization.
Btw, for those that aren't aware, it might be timely to mention the legendary German interrogator, Hanns Scharff:<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff#Auswertestelle_West_Interrogation_Officer" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanns_Scharff#Auswertestelle_W...</a><p>as he is often brought up in discussions on interrogation techniques.
Compelling article. I think the extended interview Jon Stewart did with John Yoo is another good document if you want to get the perspective of the people who authorized this. I don't mean that as an endorsement of what happened...<p><a href="http://www.cc.com/video-clips/flktqb/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-exclusive---john-yoo-extended-interview-pt--1" rel="nofollow">http://www.cc.com/video-clips/flktqb/the-daily-show-with-jon...</a>