Torturing Democracy" Documentary: Must See on PBS & Bill Moyers

[edward]

This documentary has played on PBS as well as Bill Moyers Journal on PBS.

THIS IS A MUST SEE

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/torturingdemocracy/program/


In the link below click on watch the full documentary on the right. Other options are available.

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/05292009/profile.html

 

[fourier jr]

watching right now actually. it's great (sort of). if it's on the website of the national security archive it must be.

 

[edward]

watching right now actually. it's great (sort of). if it's on the website of the national security archive it must be.

It is also now on youtube in 10 minute segments.

 

[Astronuc]

An interesting contrast -

After Waterboarding: How to Make Terrorists Talk?
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1901491,00.html

The most successful interrogation of an Al-Qaeda operative by U.S. officials required no sleep deprivation, no slapping or "walling" and no waterboarding. All it took to soften up Abu Jandal, who had been closer to Osama bin Laden than any other terrorist ever captured, was a handful of sugar-free cookies.

Abu Jandal had been in a Yemeni prison for nearly a year when Ali Soufan of the FBI and Robert McFadden of the Naval Criminal Investigative Service arrived to interrogate him in the week after 9/11. . . .

Soufan, now an international-security consultant, has emerged as a powerful critic of the George W. Bush — era interrogation techniques; he has testified against them in congressional hearings and is an expert witness in cases against detainees. He has described the techniques as "borderline torture" and "un-American." His larger argument is that methods like waterboarding are wholly unnecessary — traditional interrogation methods, a combination of guile and graft, are the best way to break down even the most stubborn subjects. He told a recent hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee that it was these methods, not the harsh techniques, that prompted al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah to give up the identities of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-confessed mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and "dirty bomber" Jose Padilla. Bush Administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, had previously claimed that Abu Zubaydah supplied that information only after he was waterboarded. But Soufan says once the rough treatment began — administered by CIA-hired private contractors with no interrogation experience — Abu Zubaydah actually stopped cooperating.

. . . .

The story has been picked up by many news organizations including Fox and Huffington Post.

Forget Waterboarding, Try Cookies
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/new...hod_Cookies_Waterboarding_fc_20090529_2522477

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

The sort of persons who are likely to be dertermined to require extreme measures are also likely to be too stuborn to give into them. Certainly I don't think I could with stand waterboarding for long periods of time but if I truly felt I and my fellows are justified I would be quite unlikely to cooperate. I may resort to doing and saying things that may stop the treatment but the intense feeling of shame and guilt that would accompany giving up my compatriots would keep me from giving up any useful information.

Anyone who would endure all of the interrogation techniques all the way to the waterboarding phase would likely rather die than give up information. People not so stuborn would be unlikely to make it to that phase.

To make brutal interrogation techniques (or torture) work one has to be willing to go all the way. You can't use soft torture like waterboarding. From what I have read out right torture was never really used so much for information gathering as making an example to strike fear into those who might wind up in the turture chamber. Occasionally to break a person and get them to say what you wish them to and place them up as a puppet to serve as further example.

Police primarily use psychological manipulation to fairly good effect.

Thank you Edward. I started watching it and may finish it later.

 

[Tibarn]

Torture is a rather dubious method for providing solid information. Waterboarding is a relatively light torture method. Other, more painful methods will get just about anyone to talk, but by that point they'd say anything to make it stop.

Psychological ploys are better. If you can get someone to doubt their cause and bend them to your own, they'll willingly hand over good information.

 

[fourier jr]

Police primarily use psychological manipulation to fairly good effect.

jesse ventura brought that up on the view. why didn't the police waterboard mcveigh & nichols after the oklahoma city bombing to see if there were anyone else involved?

 

[mheslep]

This documentary has played on PBS as well as Bill Moyers Journal on PBS...

Yes Moyers, the http://www.slate.com/id/2211601/".

 

[Al68]

jesse ventura brought that up on the view. why didn't the police waterboard mcveigh & nichols after the oklahoma city bombing to see if there were anyone else involved?

Because they didn't want to be convicted for assault, obviously.

Domestic law enforcement isn't war, everyone is presumed innocent of any crime pre-conviction. Is that not commonly known?

Why do people keep asking these questions?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Because they didn't want to be convicted for assault, obviously.

Domestic law enforcement isn't war, everyone is presumed innocent of any crime pre-conviction. Is that not commonly known?

Why do people keep asking these questions?

Some people have a problem with the fact that what we generally consider natural rights are often only applied to citizens.

 

[fourier jr]

Because they didn't want to be convicted for assault, obviously.

Domestic law enforcement isn't war, everyone is presumed innocent of any crime pre-conviction. Is that not commonly known?

Why do people keep asking these questions?

because many of those detainees haven't even been convicted, nor even charged, with anything, such as a *war crime*

 

[Al68]

Some people have a problem with the fact that what we generally consider natural rights are often only applied to citizens.

I'm one of those people, but it's easy to see the obvious difference between domestic law enforcement and war. The presumption of innocence has never been used in war.

 

[drankin]

because many of those detainees haven't even been convicted, nor even charged, with anything, such as a *war crime*

Setting the torture issue aside, when people are captured during a "war" (whether you agree that there is a war or not) they are considered POWs. POWs do not get charged or prosecuted, they simply get detained until the "war" is over and/or they are not deemed a threat. POWs, traditionally, do not get their day in court.

 

[Al68]

because many of those detainees haven't even been convicted, nor even charged, with anything, such as a *war crime*

How would that make a difference? No one has claimed that their detention or treatment is punishment for any crime. In war, people are killed and maimed without ever being charged with a crime. In domestic law enforcement it's illegal to intentionally harm someone except defending against an immediate threat.

I'm not claiming that the treatment of those POW's was justified. Just that the reasons police can't torture suspects don't exist in their case. So it's a bad analogy that only detracts from the real issue of how to treat POW's.

 

[edward]

My concern on this particular documentary isn't the torture. It is the devious ways by which it was darkly approved.

 

[edward]

Yes Moyers, the http://www.slate.com/id/2211601/".

Good lord man that was during the Lyndon Johnson White House. Slate is going way back to try to discredit Moyers. The article is full of other peoples opinions about what may or may not have happened in 1964. Times have changed.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I'm one of those people, but it's easy to see the obvious difference between domestic law enforcement and war. The presumption of innocence has never been used in war.

If they are POWs then they have obviously been treated in an illegal fashion.

 

[Al68]

If they are POWs then they have obviously been treated in an illegal fashion.

Illegal according to what? The Geneva Convention is an agreement between parties at war and only prohibits severe torture of POW's of a party to the Geneva convention, or an enemy that observes the convention, and clearly states such.

Can you provide the specific law that was violated?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Illegal according to what? The Geneva Convention is an agreement between parties at war and only prohibits severe torture of POW's of a party to the Geneva convention, or an enemy that observes the convention, and clearly states such.

Can you provide the specific law that was violated?

If they are not covered by the articles of the Geneva Convention then they are not POWs. Also if they are not members of a state with which the US government is at war then they are mere criminals (which the Bush Admin's legal manuevering asserts). So if we agree that all criminal detainees regardless of origin deserve the same natural rights that we believe all persons should enjoy I don't see where our disagreement lies.

Of course the Supreme Court has already determined that detainees at Guantanamo should receive such rights (at least habeas corpus anyway) so I guess we're in good company yes?

 

[russ_watters]

If they are not covered by the articles of the Geneva Convention then they are not POWs. Also if they are not members of a state with which the US government is at war then they are mere criminals (which the Bush Admin's legal manuevering asserts).

Could you provide some substantiation for the second statement?

The reality is that yes, they were not considered POWs (the first statement), which is why Bush called them "enemy combatants", a classification functionally similar to but not really the same (for legal jurisdictional reasons) as the Geneva Convention "POW" definition. But how do you justify the second statement? It most certainly does not follow from the first (the way you word it, it sounds like you think you've found a catch-22 or a 'gotcha'. You haven't.) The US legal system (typically) has no jurisdiction over actions taken in another country. This is a jurisdictional gap, similar to the problem we're facing with the pirates. The Bush admin specifically tried to avoid labeling them as "mere criminals".

As with the issue of the pirates, the evolution of the POW/foreign criminal has passed beyond what is reasonable and has rendered such international attempts to deal with these issues completely impotent. Perhaps Bush miscalculated when he didn't give them POW status, but IMO, even that has gone too far. It is my understanding that Bush set up the tribunals to determine the status of the detainees wrt that supreme court ruling on the writ of habeas corpus. The reality is that a healthy fraction of former Gitmo detainees are back in action against the US.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Could you provide some substantiation for the second statement?

The Bush Admin tried to call them unlawful combatants. Unlawful combatants are covered by the Geneva Convention though. So what is there left to call them? What are they that they are not covered by the Geneva Conventions other than mere criminals?

Edit:

The reality is that yes, they were not considered POWs (the first statement), which is why Bush called them "enemy combatants", a classification functionally similar to but not really the same (for legal jurisdictional reasons) as the Geneva Convention "POW" definition. But how do you justify the second statement? It most certainly does not follow from the first (the way you word it, it sounds like you think you've found a catch-22 or a 'gotcha'. You haven't.) The US legal system (typically) has no jurisdiction over actions taken in another country. This is a jurisdictional gap, similar to the problem we're facing with the pirates. The Bush admin specifically tried to avoid labeling them as "mere criminals".

"Enemy Combatant" refers to any opposing combatant regardless of eligibility for POW status. That term and "Ulawful Combatant" have both been used by the US with definitions differing from the standard. I'll expand my previous undetailed explanation. I have been doing a bit of reading around trying to figure out the mess. It seems to me it comes down to this...
In article 2 the GC III states

Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.

Which Al68 refers to in his last post implying that the Taliban is not a party to the convention. Afghanistan though is a party to the convention. The Bush Admin attempted to side step this by declaring Afghanistan a "failed" nation. This is covered in article 4 which defines what makes a prisoner eligible for POW status though...

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.

3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

Now you may certainly argue that the Taliban do not fit these criteria. But then we get to the next section which deals with "unlawful combatants".
Article 5

The present Convention shall apply to the persons referred to in Article 4 from the time they fall into the power of the enemy and until their final release and repatriation.

Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

One could argue that this article means that the GC covers all persons detained during a war until such time as they are determined not to be "by a competent tribunal". It is generally a basic rule of law that all persons will be protected by the law until such time as they have been shown not to be under its protection in a court of law. More basically "Innocent until proven guilty". Even if we don't take such a wide view Afghanistan is a party to the convention and article 4 spefically mentions protection both for resistance movements and forces of governments or authorities not recognized by the detaining power. Article 5 seals the deal with regard to questionable application of the terms in article 4.

So... if they are not covered by the Geneva Convention then what are they?

 

[fourier jr]

How would that make a difference? No one has claimed that their detention or treatment is punishment for any crime. In war, people are killed and maimed without ever being charged with a crime. In domestic law enforcement it's illegal to intentionally harm someone except defending against an immediate threat.

I'm not claiming that the treatment of those POW's was justified. Just that the reasons police can't torture suspects don't exist in their case. So it's a bad analogy that only detracts from the real issue of how to treat POW's.

so how is it not wrong then? because john yoo had a piece of paper saying it was ok?

 

[mheslep]

...

Now you may certainly argue that the Taliban do not fit these criteria. But then we get to the next section which deals with "unlawful combatants".
Article 5

One could argue that this article means that the GC covers all persons detained during a war until such time as they are determined not to be "by a competent tribunal". It is generally a basic rule of law that all persons will be protected by the law until such time as they have been shown not to be under its protection in a court of law. More basically "Innocent until proven guilty". Even if we don't take such a wide view Afghanistan is a party to the convention and article 4 spefically mentions protection both for resistance movements and forces of governments or authorities not recognized by the detaining power. Article 5 seals the deal with regard to questionable application of the terms in article 4.

Seals the deal? Without getting over my head into the 'failed state' legal argument that seems to be the core of legal memos, I can state that Art. 4 has specfic conditions, as in "fulfill the following conditions". Most of the Taliban, and particulary AQ, had absolutely no regard for those conditions. Really, when you see:

(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.

and then observe the suicide bombers and decapitations ordered up by this crowd, why don't you come to a full stop right here on Art 4? For comparison by the way, see the consideration of regular Iraqi soldiers captured in Iraqi Freedom - they were recognized without debate as being covered by the GC.

 

[Al68]

so how is it not wrong then? because john yoo had a piece of paper saying it was ok?

I never said it wasn't wrong. Did you read my post?

Did you accidentally reply to the wrong post?

 

[Al68]

If they are not covered by the articles of the Geneva Convention then they are not POWs.

Apparently part of the disagreement is semantics. I was using "POW" generically, not as a Geneva category. Geneva does not prohibit torture of POW's in general, just in certain cases. Specifically POW's of an enemy that adheres to Geneva by a party that adheres to Geneva. Geneva is a voluntary agreement between parties at war, despite common misconceptions.

 

[drankin]

Here is a question:

How many POWs were tortured?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Seals the deal? Without getting over my head into the 'failed state' legal argument that seems to be the core of legal memos, I can state that Art. 4 has specfic conditions, as in "fulfill the following conditions". Most of the Taliban, and particulary AQ, had absolutely no regard for those conditions.

Yes, seals the deal. If you reread article 5 it says, "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Essentially if any detaining Power wishes to challenge the aplication of protections provided by the Convention it must be determined by a court of law before said protections are are taken away.
The Bush Admin tried to side step this in their determination to torture detainees, or use 'enhanced interrogation techniques'. No judicial body ever recognized their legal argument as valid yet they striped these detainees of their rights anyway. And wouldn't you know it, the US Supreme Court upheld the legal rights of the detainees. A failed legal argument obviously can not protect illegal activities.

Apparently part of the disagreement is semantics. I was using "POW" generically, not as a Geneva category. Geneva does not prohibit torture of POW's in general, just in certain cases. Specifically POW's of an enemy that adheres to Geneva by a party that adheres to Geneva. Geneva is a voluntary agreement between parties at war, despite common misconceptions.

Please see this post and the above.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Here is a question:

How many POWs were tortured?

If you believe the Bush Admin, none. The GC protects against more than just torture.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, seals the deal. If you reread article 5 it says, "Should any doubt arise as to whether persons, having committed a belligerent act and having fallen into the hands of the enemy, belong to any of the categories enumerated in Article 4, such persons shall enjoy the protection of the present Convention until such time as their status has been determined by a competent tribunal."
Essentially if any detaining Power wishes to challenge the aplication of protections provided by the Convention it must be determined by a court of law before said protections are are taken away...

The logic of your argument is that in a war the GC applies to everyone, all the time, until a court of law says otherwise, period. This is not what is stated in the Articles. Your definition obliterates the clause "Should any doubt arise...". Let's stick to what is said in the Articles, and not wonder into 'essentially' and other redefinitions. And it does not state 'court of law', it states tribunal.

 

[drankin]

If you believe the Bush Admin, none. The GC protects against more than just torture.

According to you then. How many were tortured?