Eat Damnit — You Are Ours — It's Our Duty to Feed You

Detainee Force-Feeding Chair at Gitmo

Update (May 20, 2013): Story from the NY Times headlines: "Hunger Strike by detainees at Gitmo" ... a major part of the story and major concern for all of us, the story in part:

"They (the detainees some there for nearly 12 years) can’t tolerate it anymore. It is despair, in their faces. Sure, there are people who would say: They’re bad people. They deserve it. But that is not how we as Americans think about our punitive systems," says Karen J. Greenberg, American historian, professor, author, and Director of the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law.

I say give them justice ... not more torture. Just imagine this were American soldiers held in captivity. We would be (and did so in fact) move Heaven and Earth to get them released and treated fairly, etc. Why this double standard today. Really?

The events at Gitmo, vis-à-vis force feeding nearly all the detainees there (100 of the 166 by latest count) are described in these two articles:

1.  "The practice of force-feeding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay as a response to the mass hunger strike there has been increasingly criticized" (here from Alternet.org).

2.  "It’s about three months into an ongoing Guantanamo Bay hunger strike, which began with a few detainees protesting guards’ alleged mishandling of Korans and has escalated to a larger and nearly camp-wide demonstration against the Obama administration’s failure to close the facility as promised or to free detainees it has cleared for release. Now, as attention on the hunger strike mounts, a U.S. Army public affairs unit has released photos from the camp that show hints of the hunger strike as well as the guards’ regimen for force-feeding. Some of those photos, taken by Sgt. Brian Godette in early April," are posted here from the Washington Post.

Worth reading is this article from OpenChannel at NBC News (written by Michael Isikoff, NBC News national investigative correspondent) is offered to complete this picture:

"Hunger-striking detainees at the Guantanamo detention facility are being force-fed through tubes inserted into their noses twice a day -- causing them to gag for air and vomit -- during a procedure that a U.S. military defense lawyer just returned from the U.S. base in Cuba described as brutal and agonizing."

"Lt. Col. Barry Wingard, who represents two Kuwaiti detainees at Guantanamo, told NBC News on Sunday that one of his clients described being shackled by his wrists and around his waist — while food is dumped into this throat for up to two hours at a time. His comments came as the U.S. military released new photos showing the chair (shown above) to which hunger-striking detainees are strapped, and bottles of Ensure, the nutritional supplement, that they are being fed."

The stain on our country and our values continue ... the stench will linger for decades. Stay tuned.

Drones: Same Death, Same Destruction, Many More Questions

Drones: Like the MQ-9 "Reaper" the Hunter/Killer UAV  

Update from Think Progress (May 12, 2013): Highlights from this update:

1.  The State Department’s former top lawyer, Kenneth Koh, has offered another scathing critique of the Obama adminsitration’s lack of transparency related to the use of drones and other tools in waging a campaign of targeted killing against alleged al-Qaeda operatives.

2.  Koh isn’t the first former Obama administration official to offer criticism of the targeted killing program.

Former Department of Defense counsel Jeh Johnson in March told an audience at Fordham University, “The problem is that the American public is suspicious of executive power shrouded in secrecy. In the absence of an official picture of what our government is doing, and by what authority, many in the public fill the void by envisioning the worst.”

Koh echoed Johnson’s own engagement at Oxford in declaring that the war against Al Qaeda can’t go on forever.

Update from Mother Jones here (March 11, 2013): Extract from this fine piece follows:

"While the administration says it does not have the authority to use drones within the United States to kill a suspected terrorist who is not engaged in combat, between 3000 and 5000 people have been killed by drone strikes in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Many have been civilians. Many of the strikes themselves have not been targeted at specific individuals, but in so-called signature strikes against anonymous targets who are singled out and believed to be militants based on a pattern of behavior.

"While the administration has publicly defended the use of targeted killing against suspected terrorists, it has said little publicly about signature strikes. Civil liberties and human rights advocates hope that Paul's filibuster — which did at times touch on drone strikes abroad — will help draw attention to the targeted killing program as it actually exists."

Original Posts Follow From Here:

Just when you thought the "War on Terror" label could not get any stranger, or more odd, or just plain unexplainable, this pops up to erase all those descriptions.

The headlines from this NBC News exclusive:  Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans.

The punch line as it were: "... [the DOJ] memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaeda, or an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S." 

Then add this piece: "Anticipating domestic boom, colleges rev up drone piloting programs."  And, recent Air Force Academy grads mostly now choosing to be Drone "pilots." 

War is a Racket: Always has been and still is without a doubt just as Marine Corps General Smedley D. Butler wrote about in 1933. He had two Medals of Honor, too.

So, have we gone insane, or are we just too scared to death to no longer can fight a war to win as we resort to "clean" unmanned Drones (whose pilots are thousands of miles away) and thus that makes the war really a Nintendo style game. Apparently that is the trend and Mr. Obama has signed on big time, and this is his ongoing legacy - what a deal. 

My Footnotes:  Imagine Mexico flying over Texas or New Mexico or Arizona or Southern California a pack of Drones without our permission while saying, "We are tracking drug and arms dealers who are our brand of terrorist." Would there be American outrage - bet your ass there would be and as Dick Cheney might say, "Big time."

This update points out one aspect and potentially an outcome about use of torture from the NY Times:

FORT MEADE, MD — The military tribunal case stemming from the 2000 bombing of the American destroyer Cole bogged down on Monday when prosecutors asked for a mental health evaluation of the defendant, citing defense lawyers’ repeated assertions that he is suffering from post-traumatic stress because of torture by the Central Intelligence Agency.

Note: History of his detainee: Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri is a Saudi Arabian citizen alleged to be the mastermind of the bombing of the USS Cole and other terrorist attacks. He is alleged to have headed al-Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf states prior to his capture in November 2002 by the CIA's Special Activities Division.

Al-Nashiri was captured in Dubai in 2002 and held for several years in secret CIA prisons in Afghanistan, Thailand,and Poland before later being transferred to the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. While being interrogated, al-Nashiri has been water boarded twice.

In 2005 the CIA destroyed the tapes of Nashiri's water boarding. In another incident he was hooded and restrained and threatened with a gun and a power drill to scare him into talking. Al-Nashiri was granted victim status in 2010 and a Polish prosecutor began "investigating the possible abuse of power by Polish public officials with regard to a CIA black site" in 2008.

In December 2008, al-Nashiri was charged before a Guantanamo Military Commission. The charges were dropped in February 2009 and reinstated in 2011. Al-Nashiri is currently on trial before a military tribunal in Guantanamo on charges that carry the death penalty. As it is extremely unlikely he would be freed if found not guilty, his lawyers have called the proceeding a show trial.

This now ties into the update from the NY Times story about his mental health (link above).

Justice for the 2000 act? Swift, eh? So, does torture work or not - probably as intended, but not for the results we say we want ... a fact.  Stay  tuned - this topic is not going away anytime soon.

Gitmo Hunger Strike: Stains Our Values and Principles Forever

All the Prayer in the World Can't Correct the Course at Gitmo



The detainee hunger strike at Gitmo is impacting half the detainees. Guess what our solution to this decades-old problem is right now?

"We (the U.S.) is sending more medical personnel to help force-feed the prisoners. Here are some of the facts you should know about the protest and the prison camp."

Those six main facts are from Alter Net.org:

1.  U. S. Medical Reinforcements Have Arrived to Force-Feed Prisoners...

2.  Hunger Strike Sparked by Raids, Fueled by Indefinite Detention

3.  86 Detainees Have Been Cleared for Release -- But, They’re Still There

4.  President Obama Can Help Change the Situation

5. Clashes at Camps

6. Torture Was Endemic

One example that illustrates the plight of most of those others cleared for release: 

Slate magazine has a sharp reminder of this illegal and inhumane treatment. The news outlet has published the memoirs of Guantanamo detainee Mohamedou Ould Slahi. He has been locked up there for 11 years, despite the fact that in 2010 a judge ordered his release. Slahi’s brutal interrogation was personally signed off on by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. The U.S. questioned him on his associations with known terrorists, but the U.S. never found Slahi to have been involved with a specific plot.

Despite the fact that the detainees do not have the precise rights as Americans citizens who are in federal custody for various reasons, proper authority has authorized their release, but sadly, no country is willing to take them, either their native land, a third country, or the U.S. (the outrage here would be too much politically, and we can't have the detainees be a pawn in a nasty partisan fight, right)?

Imagine our POW's who were held in North Vietnam were still held there since the North Vietnamese government said they were "war criminals" in an illegal war. Think seriously about that. Guilty detainees should be tried and jailed and hundreds have been under our judicial system and it works just fine ... but then the politics raised its ugly head and suddenly our system can't work for the remaining detainees in Gitmo? Give me a break. 

Finally, the cost to maintain the facility and their detention is staggering. No matter what, it is not right or just from any angle and the stain on the country will last forever - is can never be erased or washed away or brushed aside. That's is the worst part. At least until the next war and detainees come under our control once again.

Detainee Treatment and Torture Report Taints American Values

U.S. Detainee Policy: We got cha' ... now what???

Latest report (602 pages) on the treatment of detainees under U.S. control since 9/11 is out and published by The Constitution Project here.

This is a very extensive report that was published by their Task Force on Detainee Treatment. It can be accessed here in total.

Its release appears in in this NY Times editorial.

A one-hour presentation can be viewed wherein the report is introduced and explained by Task Force members.

As any savvy school-trained and experienced professional interrogator knows and will tell anyone who will listen and trust them, is that torture does not work.

The results of the so-called "enhanced interrogation techniques" are questionable at best and in most cases not even actionable results are obtained to warrant military action or serious follow up, let alone serious discussion and consideration about their effectiveness.

The problem is that those interrogators are seldom listened to and that is the worst part. People tend to believe what they see on TV (like the series: 24) or worse, what they are told by their political "leaders" and I use that term "leader" loosely. There are hundreds of examples to underscore and reinforce those points in this report and my contention that torture does not work and is not effective except for its intended purpose: to inflict pain and nothing else.

The soul of the country has been damaged for years to come. Our values have been tossed aside in favor of nonsense and political BS about how effective it has has been and how it has "kept us safe." It is torture and torture is has been illegal, unlawful, and a war crime for decades and we should call it what it is and those in office now or show were in office while following a policy that condoned it must shoulder the blame and carry the shame. But, will they? That is the key question.

It is a national disgrace the height of hypocrisy for our "leaders" to continue to speak about against other countries who violate human rights and such all the while we never practiced what we preached as we made torture a national policy and worse: denied it when it favored some for political gain.

More for Gitmo Detainees Less for Our Vets: One Perspective

Gitmo Detainee Care: Better Than This Photo Show and Getting Better

Lookback on this Issue:  From President Obama in a Septembre 2010 Press Conference (in part):

“Just from a purely fiscal point of view, the costs of holding folks in Guantánamo is massively higher than it is holding them in a Supermax maximum security prison here in the United States.”

That statement is true. The issue about Gitmo detainee cost vs. Supermax inmate cost started when the Federal Bureau of Prisons was asked to provide information on the cost of holding a prisoner in a U.S. Supermax vs. at Gitmo. The Miami Herald (at the time) had followed up on the numbers provided, which seemed "off." 

For example at Gitmo, staffed by a variety of U.S. military personnel, the Pentagon said the cost was about $116 million a year. With a 2010 detainee population of 176 that’s more than $650,000 for each detainee.

By contrast, it costs nearly $5,575 a year to keep a prisoner in federal detention, said Bureau of Prisons spokeswoman Traci Billingsley. Supermax prisoner’s cost might be a bit higher, she said, because of additional security.

A few days later that figure was readjusted to about $27,251 a year per federal prisoner compared to $650,000 per detainee at Gitmo. The per prisoner cost has exceeded $25,000 for several years now in the federal system and Supermaxes: ADX Florence, or the the notorious Federal Supermax in Colorado, or for the “Communications Management Units” (CMUs) at Marion, IL or Terre Haute, IN, both Federal penitentiaries that most resemble any proposed future home for Guantánamo detainees.

We do know that the average annual cost for a Supermax prisoner, according to one study by the Urban Institute, is $75,000 a year, as opposed to $25,000 for a prisoner in the general population. At the Illinois State Tamms Supermax, it’s about $92,000 a year.

And this does not take into account the cost of building Supermax prisons in the first place. The price tage for ADX Florence, completed in 1994, was $60 million, and it houses only about 400 prisoners. Obama’s proposed future home for Gitmo detainees, an unused state prison in Thomson, Illinois, would cost $237 million to buy, retrofit, and activate.

The Southern Command has requested $49 million to build a new prison building for “special detainees” on top of other renovations it says are necessary since Congress has decided to keep it open indefinitely. That brings the potential taxpayer bill for upgrading the deteriorating facilities to an estimated $195.7 million.

Funny, in a sick and ironic way, we don’t hear the GOP talk about that cost $650,000 per detainee at Gitmo vis-à-vis varying cost from $27,000 to $75,000 for Supermax prisoners in the U.S. Why is that.

The original story follows here (March 23, 2013) from MediaMatters re: a FOX story and their spin (that does not necessarily match my post below or intent): 

Fox News ignored military testimony in order to claim that the proposed overhaul of Guantanamo Bay facilities is intended to improve conditions for alleged terrorists, when in fact U.S. troops would be the primary beneficiaries.

Earlier this week, General John Kelly, head of U.S. Southern Command, spoke before the House Armed Services Committee on the immediate need for upgrades to U.S. detention facilities in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Kelly testified that the proposed overhaul to the base would cost between $150-170 million and would, among other things, build a new dining facility, hospital, and barracks for U.S. troops stationed there. Gen. Kelly urged Congress to approve the expenditures, stating, "We need to take care of our troops."

"Notably, as NPR reported, "Kelly said none of the projects are aimed at improving the 'lifestyle' of the detainees. But the improvements will increase security and improve the ease of movement for the detainees, which will benefit the guards by making their jobs less complicated."

Fox & Friends Saturday omitted any mention of how the proposed renovations would improve facilities for U.S. troops. Instead, guest-host Jesse Watters, a producer for The O'Reilly Factor, suggested that they were intended to better the lives of suspected terrorist detainees (which is totally not true) adding: "These are terrorists. They were living in caves in Afghanistan, in mud huts, basically. Now we're saying Guantanamo bay, a federal facility in the Caribbean is not good enough for these guys?"

Original Story - click to read. Let's make a comparison, shall we???

Introduction:  The Pentagon is considering plans for a $150 million overhaul of the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba–including building a new dining hall, hospital and barracks for the guards–as part of an ambitious project recommended by the top general in charge of its operations, officials tell NBC News.

The proposed spending comes amid mounting signs of unrest among Guantanamo detainees.

The goodies as it were:  “Gitmo seems to be the one place they don’t care about spending money. They will spare no expense to keep these men there rather than bring them to the United States,” says David Remes, a defense lawyer who represents detainees, noting that the plans for the overhaul are moving forward even as the sequester is forcing costs and layoffs throughout the government.

Simple math: 166 detainees, and 848 U.S. guards ...  nice ratio, I guess? Gen. John Kelly, the commander of the U.S. Southern Command has signed off on construction projects that include:

—  new $12 million dining hall for the troops
—  new $11.2 million hospital and medical units for the detainees
—  $9.9 million “legal meeting complex” where lawyers can meet their detainee clients
—  $10.8 million “communications network facility” to store data, including computer records and tapes of interrogations, which has been required by a federal court order.

Note: All these projects have been forwarded to the Pentagon, where they are being reviewed by budget officials in Secretary Chuck Hagel’s office. We shall see and wait with bated breath.

Now compare that with this that our Vets face:  As I said, Gitmo detainee treatment for the 166 down there to improve and expand vs. what our Vets can expect at home - a few examples of Vet Care and the VA, and the apparent message for our Vets:

1. Your health care is a mess even for the over 32,000 WIA in the two current wars
2. Your waiting time for care or treatment approval will be about 273 days
3. You are committing suicide about 22 times a day
4. Your unemployment rate is high with over 230,000 now unemployed
5. You join the 600,000 or so still waiting for care and service
6. Your VA claim - well, about 96% of them are still made on paper, not electronically. So, have a seat. 

VA and Congressional Message: Welcome home, great job, now get lost.

Here is an excellent segment on the mess. It is worth watching ... FYI   So, who's to blame? Let's get an update shall we. Take your pick - a sample:

The GOP’s leading line of criticism hinged on blaming Obama’s aides for introducing the budget trigger in the first place, while the administration’s allies were determined to illustrate the consequences of the cuts as the product of Republican stubbornness. (a little bit of both I suspect, but get them to admit it).

America: Taking care of its own? Sure ... that is until we need them again. Then wave the flags, put on fresh bumper stickers, and praise them until the war ends. Then put them back in a dark place and keep them sealed until needed. Who says history does not repeat itself?

No matter your view on detainee handling, treatment, torture, or whatever, the GOP defends everything bad (torture) about them saying "it keeps us safe," or ignoring the bood (get them tried and locked up or released if warranted by law). Either put  up or shut up.

Finally, in a sick and pathetic way, why don’t we hear the GOP talk about that cost $650,000 per detainee at Gitmo vis-à-vis varying costs from $27,000 to $75,000 for Supermax prisoners in the U.S. Why is that. Seems the GOP does not trust our Federal court system where hundreds of terrorists have been tried and convicted and are now serving life terms in those Supermaxs ... seems the logic is void in that thinking. Must be politics at play you think. 

ACLU 1 - CIA 0 — Small Win, Much More to Reveal

Pick A or B: The Answer Will Be the Same. It's National Defense. We Don't Talk Drones.

Pete Williams reports from NBC News: 

"A federal court of appeals handed a victory — although a very limited one — to the ACLU on Friday (March 15, 2013 - ironically, the Ides of March) in the civil rights group's effort to use the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get documents from the CIA about US drone strikes overseas."

This is what a 3-Judge Panel of the DC Court of Appeals ruled and said in part:

"A 3-judge panel of that 8-member court unanimously they ruled that the CIA cannot simply refuse to respond by saying that it cannot confirm or deny the existence of any records. That position, the court said, has been completely undercut by public statements about the drone program made by President Barack Obama, CIA Director Leon Panetta and White House counter terrorism adviser John Brennan. Given these official acknowledgments that the United States has participated in drone strikes, it is neither logical nor plausible for the CIA to maintain that it would reveal anything not already in the public domain to say that the Agency 'at least has an intelligence interest' in such strikes," the court said.

I totally agree. This "new warfare" is fought and managed and handled on the our best interest, and I think most people understand that, however, the public does have a compelling right to know as much as possible without revealing major secrets about the program, and especially when Drones take out innocents all over the globe. Don't we? That is the only question to be addressed and answered. Fight a war in our name, but give us the facts.

We can handle the truth, but can our government — that too is a compelling question.

Will UN Call for Justice be Effective — Doubtful in U. S.

One of many photos that show how detainees are handled by U.S.

Part of the story comes from Reuters here:

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations investigator called on the United States on Monday to publish its findings on the CIA's Bush-era program of rendition and secret detention of terrorism suspects. Ben Emmerson, U.N. special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights while countering terrorism, voiced concern that while President Barack Obama's administration has rejected Central Intelligence Agency practices conducted under his predecessor George W. Bush, there have been no prosecutions. "Despite this clear repudiation of the unlawful actions carried out by the Bush-era CIA, many of the facts remain classified, and no public official has so far been brought to justice in the United States," Emmerson said in a report to the U.N. Human Rights Council, which he will address on Tuesday (March 6, 2013) at the UN.

History shows that we, the U.S. even under Mr. Obama, want to "move forward, not look back, etc., etc.," on this issue as reflected in many places, including this look back in time: 

WASHINGTON (May 13, 2009) — President Obama said Wednesday that he would fight to prevent the release of photographs documenting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States military personnel, reversing his position on the issue after commanders warned that the images could set off a deadly backlash against American troops. 

So, we did torture as Mr. Bush admitted, and there is evidence to show it, but we can't or won't prove it. I wonder if we'd have that same attitude if U.S. personnel were mistreated, tortured, or socked away forever in time of war? Yes, we would just like we did about our POW's and their treatment during the war in Vietnam. Oh, but I see. The detainees today are not the same as POW's then, right (at least in new defined legal memo sense). Okay, but illegal handling and treatment and certainly torture still cannot be condoned no matter what the fancy label or secret (John Yoo) memo says otherwise, but apparently they are now. 

The question is complex and simple at the same time, just as it should have been all along: Our actions were illegal, unlawful, and constituted a war crime. Hiding those facts now will not make them go away. But, I see we still try nevertheless. Let's hope the UN can put some pressure on to get justice where justice is needed, but most of all let's we our elected officials stop hiding the facts about this nasty chapter in our history. I always thought we were better than that ... maybe I've been wrong all these years?

Senate Report Findings: Harsh Interrogations Ineffective

Capture, Abuse, Enhance, or Torture: Take Your Pick — Still Doesn't Work

Setting the scene for this updated post is from a top notch former FBI interrogator, Mr. Ali Soufan.

He is the man who broke Abu Zubaydah, who gave up the name of KSM, which later led to his capture. Mr. Soufan got the information through standard, non-enhanced (torture) interrogation techniques.  

The film "Zero Dark Thirty" (in military lingo that phrase means the time sometime late at night but before dawn) opens with the words “Based on Firsthand Accounts of Actual Events.” But the filmmakers immediately pass fiction off as history, when a character named Ammar is tortured and afterward, it’s implied, gives up information that leads to Osama bin-Laden.

Ammar is a composite character who bears a strong resemblance to a real-life terrorist, Ammar al-Baluchi. In both the film and real life he was a relative of bin-Laden’s lieutenant, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed (KSM). But the CIA has repeatedly said that only three detainees were ever water boarded. The real Mr. Baluchi was not among them, and he didn’t give up information that led to bin-Laden. In fact, torture led us away from bin-Laden.

Further, the long-awaited Senate report, a 6,000-page document, still has not been released to the public. In fact is was adopted by Democrats over the objections of most of the committee’s Republican members (most of whom like most other GOPers advocate and condone and support torture).

The outcome about that report reflects the level of partisan friction that continues to surround the CIA’s use of water boarding and other severe interrogation (the so-called 'enhanced' techniques) even some four years after they were banned.

All the while Congress sits on his hands hoping the matter will just go away (that is until the next war and high-value detainees end up on our custody).

This is a key part to keep in mind:

It could be months, if not years, before the public gets even a partial glimpse of the report or its 20 findings and conclusions.

Professional interrogators, those who are loyal to the country, their own training, the nation's values and principles, and their education, training and skills, who know torture does not work, were never asked about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of torture, because people like former President Bush and VP Cheney, and many others in office at the time, plainly did not want to hear the truth about what the pros would say: Torture does not work, it never has, and it never will.

Putting the Puzzle Together on Torture Takes Time

May/May Not Be Photos of Ali Abdul Hamid al-Fakheri (aka: Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi )

The story that is now, once again, making headlines that got my attention for this update is this from msnbc and the series aring tonight about one key aspect that led us into Iraq with the headline: "The co-author of ‘Hubris’ on torture, secrets–and what we still don’t know..." which states in part:

"The documentary, which includes interviews with insiders such as President Bush’s Undersecretary for Defense Douglas Feith, Gen. Anthony Zinni, the former commander in chief of U.S. Central Command, and many others, takes viewers through the key decisions that put American troops in harm’s way."

"The reporting raises tough questions about the administration’s decisions, actions–and motives. It also, at a time when the movie Zero Dark Thirty has drawn attention to the issue, shows viewers the role that torture played in intelligence-gathering after 9/11. The real-life role of torture in pre-Iraq war intelligence, which is reported in Hubris, has far scarier implications than the Hollywood version." 

"The documentary is hosted by Rachel Maddow, and premieres Monday at 9 p.m. EST on MSNBC. We spoke with Isikoff about the impact of this story as the ten-year anniversary of the invasion of Iraq approaches."

Continue the article 

My background research follows - FYI:

First, from the Public Record:  "New Revelations About The Torture and Alleged Suicide Of Ibn al-Shaykh al-Libi..." (June 19, 2009). This is a very detailed and extensive article worth effort to read and research.

The heart of that article, along with the msnbc piece and that which follows is this: al-Libi lied and made up stuff to stop his torture.

To wit - key points of fact (my emphasis added):

"He (al-Libi) was the high-ranking al-Qaida figure captured in Afghanistan in late 2001. At first, he’s questioned by the FBI–then “rendered” by the CIA in early 2002 to Egypt, where he was subjected to torture: beatings, a mock burial and God knows what else."

"He suddenly coughed up a story – that Iraq was training al-Qaida members in chemical and biological weapons – that nobody in the U.S. intelligence community really believed.

"The CIA internally even wrote an assessment concluding that al-Libi was likely fabricating much of what he told the Egyptians.

"Yet suddenly in September 2002, the White House starts using the claim that Iraq is training al-Qaida in “poisons and gases”–a claim based entirely on al-Libi. After the war, al-Libi is returned to U.S. custody and recants the whole thing, saying he made it up because the Egyptians were torturing him.

"It is a classic example of why (apart from any moral issues) torture does not work: it produces false intelligence."

Second, from the Guardian (UK):  "What happened to Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi?..." (May 13, 2009).

This article is more compact and less detailed with some 250 reader comments that follow.

This drip, drip of important and key information is both historically important, and at the same time, very disconcerting for us in a free society whose government is still able and willing to lie us into war and make torture a matter of national policy while keeping a straight face about our values and principles ...

The footnote to the al-Libi part of this gigantic puzzle is stark:

Al-Libi is the only “high-value” detainee who was not sent to Gitmo for eventual trial before a military tribunal. Instead: "He was quietly turned over to Moammar Gadhafi’s henchmen in Libya (his home country).  Just days after being visited by Human Rights Watch, was found hanging from his neck inside a Libyan prison. His family believes he was murdered to cover up the true story of what happened to him. We’ll never know the answer to that, but we do know with certainty that an American president (George W. Bush) used bogus intelligence from a tortured detainee to make a false claim to the American public and to the world."

The drip, drip continues and the puzzle is yet compete.

Peddling Torture and Rendition: An American Tradition

Gotcha' ...

Just Keep The Details Quiet, okay???

Story that is part of this series on torture from The Nation here, in part: 

You think that rendition is strictly a unique American problem, right? Think again:

Some nations, such as Poland and Thailand, allowed the CIA to establish secret prisons, or “black sites,” on their territory. Some, like Syria, Jordan, Pakistan and Egypt, tortured suspects the CIA rendered to them. Some, like Macedonia, Georgia and Sweden, delivered suspects to the CIA, essentially handing them over to be tortured.

Some, like Canada and Britain, provided intelligence that the CIA then used to capture, render or interrogate suspects. Some, like Germany and Britain, participated in the interrogations themselves. Many, including Belgium, Iceland, Greece and Denmark, allowed rendition flights to use their airports and airspace. And nearly all have failed to conduct serious investigations of their complicity in the US turn to the dark side.

What are we to make of these worldwide tentacles of the extraordinary rendition program? The involvement of so many other nations in a program that, once it became public, was almost universally condemned suggests that hypocrisy is not the exclusive domain of Bush officials (who claimed they did not “torture” even as they secretly authorized Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) to be water boarded 183 times).

The widespread global condemnation of the rendition program voiced by other countries, it turns out, often masked quiet support for the program by those very same countries.

The bottom line as they say: It almost seems as if the United States affirmatively sought to implicate as many other nations as possible, to reduce the likelihood that anyone would call it out.

Refocus: Detainee Handling, Treatment, Torture, Responsibility

Detainee Rights — An Ugly Subject for Some, But, Still a Right

Follow-up to the next story follows this update also from the NY Times, who has been reporting on this aspect of the treatment of detainees in Afghanistan. Highlights include:

Within days of the UN report (see below) being published for the world to read, the National Directorate of Security (Afghan Intelligence Agency) which was strongly criticized by the report, took its case public, inviting Afghan television reporters to see some of the detention centers and talk to detainees.

President Karzai’s spokesman (Mr. Aimal Faizi) said the government was especially perturbed by the endorsement of the report from the International Security Assistance Force because the military has had a program of reviewing Afghan detention facilities for the past year. If it had concerns, he said, the military should have raised them sooner.

The U.S. response includes a response that referred to a letter written by Gen. John R. Allen, the ISAF commander, that was in an appendix to the United Nations report. In it, General Allen said that he and his deputy had written to Afghan government ministers about 80 cases of abuse. In some cases, he wrote that he made pleas to remove individuals who were involved in the abuse, but that only one detainee had been removed. Faizi, said he was not aware of the letters.

Even before the report was made public, General Allen halted transfers of detainees to all of the facilities named in the United Nations report because under international human rights law it is prohibited to transfer any detainee to a government where there are “substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture.”

Further, “Allegations have come out repeatedly and have not been taken seriously. The Afghans are responsible for knowing what’s going on in their own facilities; that’s their obligation, and they are either aware of it and do nothing about it or they are not aware and it’s a lack of oversight,” said John Sifton, the Asia advocacy director for Human Rights Watch. He then added that the ultimate solution was to empower the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to take on an oversight and ombudsman role on behalf of detainees.

My input: The U.S. reported them out on this abuse, but our hands are not clean regarding the whole issue detainee handling, treatment and torture, not by a long shot. This story is still unfolding. That's the nature of secret prisons, illegal handling of detainees, their treatment, and memo saying torture is okay because we say so. This is a huge stain on American policy across many lines.

Original Story Starts Here: The headline is both stark and encouraging (from the Jan 16, 2013 NY Times piece here):  U.S. Military Stops Sending Detainees to Some Afghan Prisons on Rights Fears.

Highlight from the article:  "Transfer of prisoners to Afghan control throughout the country was restored last year, after it had been cut off in response to a United Nations investigation published in October 2011 that found widespread use of torture at prisons run by Afghan police and intelligence agencies. Now a second United Nations report on the subject is to be released, possibly as early as next week (see that update here), and according to American officials the move by the security assistance force was prompted by revelations expected in that report. United Nations officials involved, however, had no comment."

That update cited above:  "Intense efforts to halt torture and other harsh coercive methods that are used in a number of Afghan intelligence and police detention centers have failed to produce any appreciable improvement in the treatment of detainees, according to a report (dated January 22, 2013) released by the United Nations, raising questions for the international military coalition here."

The issue of detainee handling has been a festering sore for us ever since we first started detaining people in Afghanistan shortly after the invasion. Had experts in the field been really consulted perhaps the outcome would not be what we are seeing all these years. But, when secrecy surrounds an issue as important as this, well ... the results are just what we have seen.

Stay tuned and continue reading from this library and all the others, and thanks for stopping by.

Reinforcing the Argument that Torture Does Not Work

They approved and advocated torture saying it works ...

This man knows torture does not work ...

John McCain released March 14, 1973 from Hanoi, North Vietnam as POW

Update on the topic and film (Zero Dark Thirty) kinda of showing that torture works and led to bin-Laden.

Headlines from the story:  McCain says torture scene in ‘Zero Dark Thirty’ inaccurate in leading to Osama bin Laden.

“Not only did the use of enhanced interrogation techniques on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM) not provide us with key leads on bin Laden’s courier, Abu Ahmed, it actually produced false and misleading information,” McCain said in a speech on the Senate floor.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, backed up McCain’s assessment that water boarding of Mohammed did not produce the tip that led to bin Laden.

Yet the "torture works crowd" won't trust or accept the facts — they prefer the TV Show 24 model — one that says and shows that torture works. Torture does not, it never has, and it never will. (BTW: I am a huge fan of  "24..." but, it's TV, a show, it is not real).

A look back at recent history is very timely right now. Cite:  In his book, "Decision Points," former President George W. Bush recounts being asked by the CIA whether it could proceed with water boarding of KSM, who Bush said was suspected of knowing about still-pending terrorist plots against the United States. Mr. Bush writes that his reply to them was "Damn right." He further states that he would make the same decision again to save lives.

Mr. Bush previously had acknowledged endorsing what he described as the CIA's "enhanced" interrogation techniques — a term meant to encompass irregular, and harsh coercive methods — after Justice Department and other top aides assured him they were legal (the so-called John Yoo secret memo written from the White House OLC).

Even former Vice President Dick Cheney once said, "I was a big supporter of water boarding."

The Bush Justice Department later repudiated some of the underlying legal analysis for the CIA effort, but Mr. Bush still told an interviewer a week before leaving the White House that, "I firmly reject the word torture."

I surmise he would say that because to him torture was not torture because of that secret memo from John Yoo and approved by others in the DOJtold Mr. Bush is was legal.

It mattered not that the actions were unlawful, illegal, and a war crimes and had been for decades.

My summary: Why Americans do not demand justice in this matter is beyond my comprehension. However, it does show the power of the office and power of slick politics by powerful people in powerful positions (positions of trust in the country). 

Imagine what that means for you if they suspected you of being a terrorist and decided to follow that "Bush model." 

The bottom line: When does a legal opinon supercede written law?

CINC Backpeddles on Gitmo Permanent Detention — Why

Gitmo Today

Original Post Follows this Update, in Part from Here (January 3, 2013):

President Barack Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act of 2013, January 3, 2013, despite his own threat to veto it over prohibitions on closing the Guantanamo Bay prison camp.

Civil liberties advocates had roundly criticized the bill over Guantanamo and a separate section that could allow the military to indefinitely detain American citizens on suspicions of supporting terrorism. 

Just as he did with the 2011 version of the bill, however, Mr. Obama decided that the need to pass the NDAA, which also sets the armed forces' $633 billion budget for the 2013 fiscal year, was simply “too great to ignore.” (According to the presidential signing statement released in the early morning). 

Background:

Members of the human rights coalition that had urged Obama to follow through on his veto threat blasted his decision as a cave to congressional Republicans.

One example comes from the ACLU President Anthony Romero: “President Obama has utterly failed the first test of his second term, even before inauguration day. His signature means indefinite detention without charge or trial, as well as the illegal military commissions, will be extended.”

This from Shadid Buttar, Executive Director of the Bill of Rights Defense Committee: “It's the second time that the president has promised to veto a piece of a very controversial national security legislation only to sign it. He (Obama) as a habit of promising resistance to national security initiatives that he ultimately ends up supporting and enabling.”

After the president issued his veto threat just recently in November, a House-Senate conference committee made one minor change, … it shortened the length of the bill's prohibition on transferring Guantanamo detainees to the U.S. to one fiscal year, instead of the open-ended ban in the original Senate version.

Original Post starts here:

From the Daily Caller in part: 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) released a GAO report analyzing the feasibility of transferring the 166 detainees currently in custody at Guantanamo Bay to domestic prisons in the United States. She had requested the report back in 2008. 

Feinstein said: “This report demonstrates that if the political will exists, we could finally close Guantanamo without imperiling our national security. To say that high-risk detainees cannot be held securely in a maximum security prison is just plain wrong. The United States already holds 373 individuals convicted of terrorism in 98 facilitates across the country. As far as I know, there hasn’t been a single security problem reported in any of these cases.”

Then the Fox News struck in their usual fashion: fear and hype with this headline: "Why Gitmo won't be closing during Obama's second term" ... 

Fox News said it obtained a leaked copy of the 63-page GAO report and then Feinstein (Chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee) released it after Fox published information on it. Since 2008, Congress has barred detainees being transferred to civilian U.S. prisons. Guantanamo still holds 166 prisoners.

Why does the GOP persist in their attitude about trying terrorist in our courts - we have an excellent record (those 373 sitting in prison today is ample evidence). Why does the GOP not trust our system? Couldn't be for partisan politics could it - naw, not that cynical (smile).

This update from the Senate:

Defying a veto threat, the U.S. Senate Thursday approved an amendment that would bar the government from transferring detainees at Guantanamo Bay to other facilities. The amendment, attached to a defense spending authorization bill by Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), is one in a long string of congressional moves to block the Barack Obama administration from shifting inmates out of Guantanamo Bay. Language in a 2010 defense spending bill, for example, prohibited the use of federal money for transferring Guantanamo inmates to the United States for trial. (Ayotte is jockeying for 2016 - bet on it).

Then this voice of reason (sort of ): "The American people don't want to close Guantanamo Bay, which is an isolated military controlled facility, to bring these crazy bastards that want to kill us all to the United States,. Most Americans believe that the people at Guantanamo Bay are not some kind of burglar or bank robber. They are bent on our destruction," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

Memo to Sen. Graham: How do you know what 'most' American want or don't want? Just curious - tell us your method of ascertaining that, okay?

Imagine a country holding our captured or detained personnel this way, this long? We would be going nuts. So, why not try those we now hold at Gitmo, convict them, then lock them up and move on with more critical issues.

Justice is only justice when it is swift, fair, and open. We have proven that our civil court system works in trying and convicting terrorists (a review can be seen here).

Are are you listening, Mr. and Mrs. GOP???

Brass to President: Close Guantanamo Detention Center Now

Yes, We Can (close Gitmo, remain aggressive against terrorism, and be safe)

This extract from a recent letter signed by 27 retired Generals and Admirals to President Obama ... in part:

GEN. JOSEPH P. HOAR, USMC (RET.); GEN. CHARLES C. KRULAK, USMC (RET.)

GEN. DAVID M. MADDOX, USA (RET.); GEN. MERRILL A. MCPEAK, USAF (RET.)
LT. GEN. ROBERT G. GARD, JR., USA (RET.); LT. GEN. ARLEN D. JAMESON, USAF (RET.); LT. GEN. CLAUDIA J. KENNEDY, USA (RET.); LT. GEN. CHARLES OTSTOTT, USA (RET.); MAJ. GEN. PAUL D. EATON, USA (RET.); MAJ. GEN. EUGENE FOX, USA (RET.); REAR ADMIRAL DON GUTER, JAGC, USN (RET.); REAR ADMIRAL JOHN D. HUTSON, JAGC, USN (RET.); MAJ. GEN. MELVYN S. MONTANO, USAF (RET.); MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM L. NASH, USA (RET.); MAJ. GEN. THOMAS J. ROMIG, USA (RET.); MAJ. GEN. GENERAL WALTER L. STEWART, JR., USA (RET.); MAJ. GEN. ANTONIO M. TAGUBA, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. JOHN ADAMS, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. STEPHEN A. CHENEY, USMC (RET.); BRIG. GEN. JAMES P. CULLEN, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. EVELYN P. FOOTE, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. DENNIS P. GEOGHAN, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. LEIF H. HENDRICKSON, USMC (RET.); BRIG. GEN. DAVID R. IRVINE, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. JOHN H. JOHNS, USA (RET.); BRIG. GEN. MURRAY G. SAGSVEEN, USA (RET.); and BRIG. GEN. GENERAL STEPHEN N. XENAKIS, USA (RET.)

December 4, 2012


President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear President Obama:

Nearly four years ago, many of us stood behind you as you made a historic commitment to defend our national security while upholding American values and the rule of law. You banned the use of torture, closed the CIA’s secret sites, and ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay.

¶  Summary Follows:

Nearly four years ago, Mr. President, many of us stood with you as you promised that you would close Guantanamo to protect our national security and our ideals. Today, nearly four years later, with sustained commitment and a concrete plan, you can move forward on that promise — and we will stand with you again. We would like to discuss with you the concrete steps forward.

Memo to Morning Joe: Torture Does Not Work - You Are Wrong

Waterboarding and Torture DID NOT Lead to bin-Laden

Waterboarding is Torture: It is Illegal, Unlawful, and a War Crime

This story:  Despite Morning Joe "Joe Scarborough" and his opinion (he is entitled to his opinion but not to the facts) and premise that torture works and in the end led to us finding and killing bin-Laden, allow me to lay out the facts and not from the new movie "Zero Dark Thirty."  Scarborough rants about movie as factual — it is not on that point about torture and finding bin-Laden.

Highlight: In textbook Morning Joe fashion, Scarborough joined the assembled panel in "debate" about some of the finer points of the movie and reviews about it. However, none of the panel members challenged Scarborough’s assertion that the film proves that torture works and was crucial to the killing of Osama bin Laden on May 1, 2011 — both assertions that the film’s screenwriter admits, and that the facts demonstrate, are false.

Also, false: 

Rep. Peter King (R-NY), chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on Fox: "We obtained that information through water boarding. So for those who say that water boarding doesn’t work, who say it should be stopped and never used again, we got vital information which directly led us to bin Laden."

Plus this oldie but goodie from the CIA (letter from then-Director Panetta to Sen. John McCain): In the private letter, Panetta offers the most detailed answer yet to questions about the relationship between torture and Osama bin-Laden’s death — he undercuts the claim by former Bush administration officials that torture was key to Bin Laden’s killing.

Continue story at the link above and at various other sources cite below:

1.  Surveillance, not waterboarding, led to bin-Laden

2.  McCain: Torture did not lead to bin-Laden death

3.  More from ABC News

and

4.  Firsthand account about the effectiveness of non-torture vs. the so-called "enhanced" techniques (fancy word for torture that the pols avoid for obvious reasons) that do not work. From a great source, former FBI agent and interrogator Ali Soufan, the man who broke the man who gave up KSM. Soufan didn't even lay a finger on Abu Zubaydah to get the info that led to the capture of KSM.

Bottom Line: The professional interrogators know — the novices like Scarborough and others do not.