Will the Brits finally be held accountable?

Amal Clooney, conseils gouvernement arménien

I’m glad this is finally going to be brought to worldwide attention. The British government should pay dearly for the things they did in the name of “fighting terror”:

Now Amal Clooney will represent Northern Ireland’s “Hooded Men,” 14 Irish prisoners who endured Britain’s version of Guantanamo in a case that, according to researcher Lauretta Farrell, has become “the benchmark by which other countries measure their ‘enhanced interrogation programs,’ and continues to be used to justify the use of torture by democratic societies.” The trial will be heard in the European Court of Human Rights, in Strasbourg, and its result could rewrite international law and help combat the use of torture globally.

Decades before Abu Ghraib’s hooded captives would become symbolic of torture in the public consciousness, the Hooded Men were subjected to dehumanizing, horrific “special treatment” at the hands of the British army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary—Northern Ireland’s former police force. Several of the men, who were arrested on suspicion of belonging to the Irish Republican Army, were in fact prominent civil rights activists, and one of them—P.J. McClean—was a founder of the Northern Ireland Civil Rights Association. None were ever convicted of any offense.

Twelve of the men were captured on Aug. 9, 1971, when 342 Catholics were arrested as part of Operation Demetrius, which ushered in one of Ireland’s darkest times with mass internment, or imprisonment, without trial. During the first half of the 1970s, almost 2,000 people were interned and 7,000 people fled or were forced out of their homes amid sectarian violence. Under the notorious Special Powers Act, which rescinded habeas corpus and allowed almost free rein to British forces, internment had been employed by the Unionist government in every decade since the creation of the Northern Irish state as a means to suppress Republican opposition.

The 14 men would later describe themselves as “the guinea pigs” for what became known as the five techniques for in-depth interrogation: prolonged “wall-standing,” hooding, subjection to noise, sleep deprivation and deprivation of food and drink. Wall-standing involved forcing prisoners to stand balanced in the “search position” against a cell wall for hours at a time, causing painful muscle cramps. One of the men described being forced to remain in this position for 43½, and there were many other recorded instances of prisoners being kept this way for more than 20 hours. According to Amnesty International, hooding meant that a prisoner’s head was covered with an “opaque cloth bag with no ventilation” except during interrogation or when in isolation. Subjection to noise meant placing the prisoner in close proximity to “white noise” from machinery, such as a generator or compressor, for as long as a week. One of the men described to Amnesty International how he was driven to the brink of insanity by the noise and how he tried to commit suicide by banging his head against metal pipes in his cell.
Continue reading “Will the Brits finally be held accountable?”

The kill team

Since so many people are successfully selling us on the hagiography that is “American Sniper,” I thought I’d remind you of this film that came out last July: “Kill Team”. It was on PBS’ Independent Lens last night:

Kill Team is not just a video game anymore, not just the inevitable pairing of two of the most popular words in American English.  “Kill Team” is now a movie, and against the odds it’s not a celebration of killing, but a particular take on an actual series of events made widely known by Rolling Stone.

U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan developed the practice of killing civilians for sport, placing weapons beside the bodies or otherwise pretending to have been attacked, keeping body parts as trophies, and celebrating their “kills” in photographs with the corpses.

For months, according to Rolling Stone, the whole platoon knew what was going on.  Officers dismissed complaints from the relatives of victims, accepted completely implausible accounts, and failed to help victims who might still be alive (instead ordering a soldier to “Make sure he’s dead.”)

A key instigator, Staff Sgt. Calvin Gibbs, arrived in Afghanistan recounting a successful murder of a family in Iraq and bearing tattoos recording his kills.  “Get me a kill” soldiers asked who wanted to participate in the kill team.  Killers were treated as heroes, and the widespread understanding that they were killing civilians who’d never threatened them didn’t seem to damage that treatment.

“Drop-weapon” has been a common term among vets returning to the United States from Afghanistan and Iraq for over a decade, referring to a weapon used to frame a victim.  “We’re just the ones who got caught,” says Pfc. Justin Stoner in the film.  He also raises an important question that the film does not seriously pursue, remarking: “We’re training you from the day you join to the day you’re out to kill. Your job is to kill. You’re infantry. Your job is to kill everything that gets in your way. Well, then why the hell are you pissed off when we do it?”

Eleven soldiers have been convicted of crimes as part of the kill team, including Gibbs who has been sentenced to life in prison.  Why were these kills crimes and others not, wonders Stoner. (I might add: Why are the murders committed by the “American Sniper” not crimes?)  It’s a question worthy of consideration.  The cover stories for the kills, including claims that people made some threatening movement, don’t seem enough to justify these murders even if they had been true.  What were the soldiers doing in these people’s villages to begin with?

That’s the question the movie opens with the soldiers asking themselves.  They’d been trained for exciting combat and then sent to Afghanistan to be bored, hungry for action, eager to test out their training.  This is a point often missed by those who advocate turning the U.S. military into a force for good, an emergency rescue squad for natural disasters, or a humanitarian aid operation.  You would have to train and equip people for those jobs first.  These young men were trained to kill, armed to kill, prepped to kill, and left to kick sand around.

They began premeditating the worst sort of premeditated murder.  They openly recount their conversations in the film.  They had weapons to drop, grenades that weren’t “tracked,” they’d pretend someone had a grenade and kill him. Who? Anyone. They saw everyone as fair game.

And they did as planned.  And they were welcomed back to the “FOB” as heroes.  And they did it again.  And again.
Continue reading “The kill team”

Why not Bush?

'05 * Rare. ~ " 2nd INAUGURATION OF GEORGE W BUSH " ~ Button / 125 Made

Seems to me they’re missing a rather prominent player:

In a Monday editorial titled “Prosecute Torturers and Their Bosses,” The New York Times called on the U.S. Department of Justice to launch an investigation of former Vice President Dick Cheney and several other Bush administration officials for actions they took to counter terrorism and root out terrorists, post Sept. 11, 2001.

The press for a federal query came in response to the Senate’s Democratic-fueled analysis on the administration’s response to terrorism — the so-called torture report.

“[This] report erases any lingering doubt about their depravity and illegality: In addition to new revelations of sadistic tactics like ‘rectal feeding,’ scores of detainees were waterboarded, hung by their wrists, confined in coffins, sleep-deprived, threatened with death or brutally beaten,” The New York Times opined. “These are, simply, crimes. They are prohibited by federal law.”

As such, the Justice Department should launch a full investigation of the key players, The New York Times said.

“The question everyone will want answered, of course, is: Who should be held accountable? … Any credible investigation should include former Vice President Dick Cheney; Mr. Cheney’s chief of staff, David Addington; former CIA Director George Tenet; and John Yoo and Jay Bybee, the office of legal counsel lawyers who drafted what became known as the torture memos,” The New York Times wrote.

Holy torture

For nearly 700 years, the Catholic Inquisition spread terror around the world, torturing and killing Jews, Muslims, gays, witches or who dared to think differently. Was death at the age of heretics. The #christians are still doing this. Ask yourself when

Conservative Christians are invoking their God-given right to support torture. Somehow, this does not surprise me. After all, conservatives are people who like to ignore the transcendental and instead refer to the Bible as a cosmic penal code.

The Catholic Church has an unfortunate history in these matters (as do the Protestants) but I don’t think anyone should claim those episodes as templates. Or as truly Christian. But that’s just me!

The author quotes Thomas Aquinas reducing criminals to beasts. Maybe Tom was just having a bad day:

Perhaps before he had a chance to clarify his writings on the matter, St. Thomas Aquinas declared he would write no more. On 6 December 1273 he reportedly experienced a long episode of ecstasy during Mass, and later said that such things had been revealed to him that his previous writings seemed nothing in comparison.

You see? He had a transcendent experience that put his writings in a whole new light.

This has always been the problem with religions. Somebody has a transcendent experience, he or she tells their friends, who eventually try to form a group and try to codify the sublime. It’s silly. And conservatives do love their rules, so when you give them authority to use a Bible as a blunt instrument, they’re never happier. Imagine how disingenuous the author of this statement must be:

If we choose not to torture someone so we can save a life, then we are placing the dignity of the criminal over the life and dignity of the innocent person who is about to die.

You have to love that. You’re not “choosing” to torture, the circumstances force you. It’s actually the Christian thing to do! But here’s the hole in that little scenario: The times of which we speak are not episodes of “24.” Nope. There is no timer on a nuclear bomb, we do not “know” anything. We torture on the off chance we’ll get some useful information. And if the person we torture gives us gibberish (because he’s being tortured), let’s torture him some more.

For many years now, representatives of our nation (propped up by the bed-wetting night terrors of our neocon establishment) used this morally bereft argument to torture. And conservative Christians embrace it! The author argues at great length and with a deep fervor that God wouldn’t have a problem with torture. She quotes the Old Testament (conservatives love the Old Testament — none of that pesky “turn the other cheek” stuff) to illustrate that God is actually quite bloodthirsty. So there!

You know, you can argue all you want about torture (incidentally, we did sign the Geneva Conventions, promising not to use it), but don’t go fucking blessing yourself over it. Just don’t.

Everyone knows the Devil can quote Scripture for his purposes — and in this case, does.

I don’t think I like this country much anymore

Guantanamo prisoner recounts ordeal, tortured by guards

If half the people are this fucking immoral:

Just over half of Americans say they believe the interrogation methods the CIA used against terrorism suspects in the years after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were justified, polling data released Monday showed.

About 30% said they believed the tactics were unjustified, and the remaining 20% said they did not know, according to the survey by the Pew Research Center.

Opinion on the CIA’s torture of its prisoners differs notably by partisanship. Democrats were split, the poll found, with liberals much more likely to say that the CIA’s tactics were not justified. Republicans across the board said the interrogations were justified.

President Obama banned the CIA’s use of methods such as waterboarding, extended sleep deprivation and beatings, which had been authorized under President George W. Bush. Obama and other Democratic elected officials have referred to the CIA’s actions as “torture.”

Intravenous bullshit

Michael Hayden, War Criminal

Jake Tapper shows occasional signs of actually doing his job:

Former CIA director Michael Hayden on Thursday defended the agency’s use of rectal rehydration, calling it a “medical procedure.”

The back and forth with CNN’s Jake Tapper was in reference to the Senate’s report released this week that describes interrogation techniques the CIA employed in the years after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

When Tapper began talking about specific torture methods and mentioned the use of rectal rehydration, Hayden interrupted the host, saying, “Stop, that was a medical procedure that was done because of detainee health.”

Hayden said officials saw dehydrated detainees and had “limited options” and that using an intravenous needle would be “dangerous with a non-cooperative detainee.”

Tapper retorted, “But puréeing hummus and pine nuts?”

“Jake, I’m not a doctor and neither are you, but what I am told is this is one of the ways that the body is rehydrated, these were medical procedures,” Hayden said.

“You’re really defending rectal rehydration?” Tapper asked.