[UPDATE: "The American Civil Liberties Union is calling on Congress to demand an independent prosecutor to investigate possible violations by the Bush administration of laws including the War Crimes Act, the federal Anti-Torture Act, and federal assault laws." Here's a PDF of the ACLU's letter on that which you can address to your rep in Congress] Here's the ACLU statement on George Bush's Friday admission of "approving" torture.]
This post concerns the arc of revelations making it increasingly clear that authorization for such abuses probably came from the very highest level of the White House, and it makes suggestions on how to make the issue, of US government authorized torture, more salient. And, it provides information resources so you can learn about the issue.
For me, this issue is important even beyond the issue of US government sanctioned torture itself : the danger that the Bush Administration will try to attack Iran or do something else almost as horrible, before the upcoming election, remains. Promoting the story of Bush/White House authorized torture is one of the few, and the best, ways we have of undercutting the strength of the Bush White House.
"The unreleased images show American soldiers beating one prisoner almost to death, apparently raping a female prisoner, acting inappropriately with a dead body, and taping Iraqi guards raping young boys, according to NBC News." – The Boston Herald, May 8, 2004
FIGHTING TORTURE : action items
- The ACLU has a letter template you can use to send to your reps and which calls for a special prosecutor.
- There's an ad hoc template for another type letter you can send to your rep., near the bottom of this post.
You can even package the two letters together and send them VIA CERTIFIED MAIL to make sure your Rep. gets the letters and that he/she has to acknowledge having received the question about her/his position on torture.
This helps, electorally, because although both parties have been complicit in allowing and failing to stop or even significantly challenge torture, the GOP is more clearly tie to the Bush Administration torture programs.
Further, the issue needs all the publicity it can get right now, because in mid-May John Conyers is planning on holding public hearings on torture.
For a description of a torture-death, see this Daily Kos post: Died hanging from wrists and gagged, with over 25 rib fractures. Reports have described the documentary evidence of torture, which emerged from the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, as containing photos and videos which showed women and children being raped, which showed murder [according to Lindsey Graham]...
These abuses are extensive and highly disturbing, as the ACLU details, in a letter [linked to at the top of this post] that you can use to mail to your representatives in Congress and which calls for the appointment of a special prosecutor:
"Torture and abuse also took many other forms, all of them criminal. Federal government documents obtained by the ACLU through our Freedom of Information Act litigation and reports of the International Committee of the Red Cross documented torture or abuse against U.S.-held detainees, including acts such as: soaking a prisoner’s hand in alcohol and setting it on fire, administering electric shocks, subjecting prisoners to repeated sexual abuse and assault, including sodomy with a bottle, raping a juvenile prisoner, kicking and beating prisoners in the head and groin, putting lit cigarettes inside a prisoner’s ear, force-feeding a baseball to a prisoner, chaining a prisoner hands-to-feet in a fetal position for 24 hours without food or water or access to a toilet, and breaking a prisoner’s shoulders.
But unpunished crimes go even further, to include possible homicides..."
In the same month the United States invaded Iraq, justice department layer John Yoo wrote a memo describing how, in his opinion as a lawyer, a United States president has the right, in defense of national security, to order eyes poked out, limbs chopped off, testicles crushed or acid thrown on victims whom, needless to say, could very well be US citizens...
In 2004, when the Abu Ghraib pictures and videos surfaced, Greg Mitchell, for Editor and Publisher, reported:
'The American public needs to understand we're talking about rape and murder here. We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience,' Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina told reporters after Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee. 'We're talking about rape and murder -- and some very serious charges.'"
Graham was referring to the content of the videos which, according to Seymour Hersh, included footage of Iraqi boys being raped.
As Yoo rationalized it in his memos, as long as torture didn't actually kill the victim, it was legal. This position, from Yoo, had been in development at least August 2002 when Yoo drafted a legal memo not quite so specific on the treatment of the eyes, limbs, acid or testicles of torture victims as was his 2003 memo but which said essentially the same thing: just don't kill them. The implication was that George W. Bush, or any US president, had the right to order the eyes gouged out, limbs chopped off, testicles crushed and flesh burnt off a torture victim who could wind up technically alive on a respirator somewhere, insane and in more or less a persistent vegetative state.
Writing for Historians Against The War, John Cox details [with source citations] numerous reported instances of the rape of Iraqi women and children in US run prisons in Iranand gives a crisp overview of the ultimate agenda behind such human rights abuses:
[Seymour] Hersh reported that Donald Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone, the Under-Secretary for Intelligence, went even further than Miller's proposals, importing into Iraq a "special-access program" employed in Afghanistan that expanded the range of techniques to include physical abuse and sexual humiliation. "The roots of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal lie not in the criminal inclinations of a few Army reservists," Hersch concluded, "but in a decision approved by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld" to expand an operation into Iraq that "encouraged physical coercion and sexual humiliation" in order to "generate more intelligence about the growing insurgency in Iraq
One thing Yoo's 2003 memo didn't mention, though, was the idea that US presidents could, for national security, order that children be sodomized.
"Debating about it, ummm ... Some of the worst things that happened you don't know about, okay? Videos, um, there are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at Abu Ghraib ... The women were passing messages out saying 'Please come and kill me, because of what's happened' and basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children in cases that have been recorded. The boys were sodomized with the cameras rolling. And the worst above all of that is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking that your government has. They are in total terror. It's going to come out." - Seymour Hersh, from 2004 speech the the ACLU. [see Salon/Alex Koppelman story on Hersh revelations]
The White House acknowledged the images and video evidence but denied the existence of the program Hersh described:
"The abuse evidenced in the videos and photos, and any similar abuse that may come to light in any of the ongoing half dozen investigations into this matter, has no basis in any sanctioned program, training manual, instruction, or order in the Department of Defense.
"No responsible official of the Department of Defense approved any program that could conceivably have been intended to result in such abuses as witnessed in the recent photos and videos.
But, a December 20, 2004 ACLU press release seemed to contradict the White House denials -
NEW YORK -- A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as "torture" and a June 2004 "Urgent Report" to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up. . .
The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and "sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc." The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from "On Scene Commander--Baghdad" to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.
Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using "torture techniques" against a detainee. The e-mail concludes "If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the 'FBI' interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public."
There's a May 14th protest, at the Berkeley School of Law, calling for the firing of Yoo and I wouldn't want to discourage that but, rather, I'd like to encourage focus on the bigger picture. Yoo's memos did not exist in a vacuum, and the following point is one you'll rarely hear in any mainstream media coverage of the torture scandal or, for that matter, in alternative media coverage :
The meetings described by ABC, and other National Security Council meetings on torture, directly involved George W. Bush who, as NSC head, signs off on major NSC decisions and policy formulations. Such as on torture. Bush wasn't "insulated" : the use of that word is absurd and deceptive. Bush signed off on waterboarding.
George W. Bush has just admitted, to ABC, that he "approved" of the National Security Council "Principals" meetings with mssrs. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Tenet, Ashcroft and Powell in attendance, at which highly specific details on torture were discussed. Last Friday, ABC released details of an exclusive interview with ABC reporters in which George W. Bush stated that he knew of an "approved" those meetings. That means that Bush, who is the head and top decision making authority of the National Security Council, signed off on waterboarding and other forms of torture prohibited by the Geneva Conventions.
What we need to know is if Bush also signed off on, as NSC head, the sex-torture methods, including the rape of children, shown in the evidence that emerged from Abu Ghraib (not all public but which has been seen by some members of Congress), and which has been tied to a secret program initiated by Don Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone :
George Tenet was unwilling to implement even waterboarding without direct presidential orders, which he eventually got via Bush signing off and then delegating authority to Condi Rice who then instructed Tenet - "It's Your Baby. Go Do it."
We know Bush gave the green light to waterboarding. But the bar has been moved much, much farther...
How were the off-the-chart sadistic methods of "Copper Green", described in a 2004 New Yorker story by Seymour Hersh, possibly implemented with Bush signing off as NSC head given that those methods were CLEARLY war crimes and sex crimes which, in the US, might well be punished by life sentences in prison ? How could Don Rumsfeld and Richard Cambone possibly have set up "Copper Green" without direct presidential authorization through the NSC ?
Here's how we can make this issue politically hot, useful in the next election :
This is a formula for getting the torture meme, the REAL torture story into the public eye and the public mind -
Simply ask the questions wherever and whenever possible,
"Candidate/Rep/Senator X, do you think US presidents can legally order waterboarding ? What about the crushing of testicles or child rape ?"
"Do you think US presidents can legally order children sodomized ? Are you aware that's been done in our name, as American citizens ?"
"Were you aware of the torture videos shown in Congress ? Did you yourself watch them ? Have you spoken out ? Do you condone raping children in the so-called "'War on Terror' "
Letter template, courtesy of Valtin
"Mr./Ms. Senator/Congressperson, do you support the torture of human beings as implemented by this government? Do you support reducing human beings to scared animals? Do you support rape? Do you support sexual humiliation? Do you support torture and rape of children? [They'll say no to all the above.]
Well, then, why do you support the President of the United States [or the Speaker of the House who refuses to act against the President of the U.S.] who has said he approves of this behavior? Who authorized it?
Why, Senator/Congressperson, do you stand against civilization itself? Against all morality and political wisdom? Why are you allowing the social fabric to be shredded by illegality and sadisitic crime at the very top of the the leadership of this country?
Step down, Mr./Ms. Senator/Congressperson, unless you take affirmative action immediately to stop this cancer before it destroys the very foundations of this country. Step down, or join us now."
Note to all: unless and until we are willing to do more than make politicians "squirm", then nothing will happen... nothing... and then we all will share in the collective guilt for this crime. - Valtin
"Candidate/Rep/Senator, if you admit that it is illegal, do you think that a president who does order the crushing of testicles or child rape should be impeached? Should such a president be indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced to prison for the rest of his/her natural life?" (question suggested by wiscmass)
I'm sure, with all the talent representated here on this forum, that far more artful ways of putting such questions can be devised.
There are many ways to frame this.
Let's do it.
Background:
A Friday ABC interview confirms: Bush "approved" of the torture techniques ABC's Wednesday story detailed. But ABC fails to mention even more severe torture techniques that were implemented by Don Rumsfeld and Stephen Cambone - did George W. Bush give Rumsfeld the authority to implement what became known as "Copper Green" ?
Did George Bush sign an NSC document authorizing sexual torture methods, then delegate to Rumsfeld authority to implement those sex-torture methods ?
That's the real question, this new ABC story is only the prologue...
ABC news has developed a new component of the torture story almost in perfect sync with my Thursday post on torture which stressed that because Bush is head, as president, of the National Security Council, of course he would have known of the overall gist of the "NSC Principals" White House meetings on torture policy because, regardless of whether Bush sat in on all meetings or not, all major NSC decisions and policy formulations have go to Bush's desk for final approval, his signature. Bush is, indeed the "decider" [Read more from ABC: BUSH Says He APPROVED TORTURE. What About SEXUAL Torture?]
On Countdown Thursday night, George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley emphasized that there was a torture program and that it was authorized "AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL".
Turley said, about the "NSC Principals Committee" that discussed torture at a grotesquely specific level of detail, "this is like a meeting of the badda bing club".
Turley stated, bluntly,"This was a torture program... and it goes right to the President's desk."
But Turley went even further than that:
"Olberman: You said it goes to president Bush's desk here... Is it the smoking gun that president Bush authorized torture by the United States of America ?"
Turley: "We really don't have much of a question about the president's role here. He's never denied that he was fully informed of these measures. He in fact, early on in his presidency, he seemed to brag that they were using harsh and tough methods. And I don't think there's any doubt that he was aware of this. The only doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do something about it."
That's exactly what Valtin and buhdydharma ask.
RESOURCES:
In The Abu Ghraib Scandal and the U.S. Occupation of Iraq, by John Cox, details, with source citations, the scope and origin of torture and sexual abuse in Abu Ghraib and other US-run prisons in Iraq.
In Bush, Torture and American Values in Iraq, Frank Wallis gives overview and skewers the hypocrisy of US politicians who trumpet human rights at home while supporting massive human right abuses in Iraq.
In The Yoo Torture Memo: Break the Silence of the Lambs, "JURIST Guest Columnist Benjamin Davis of the University of Toledo College of Law says the recently released 2003 John Yoo memo on US military interrogation techniques opened up a path to torture and leaves a great number of persons potentially criminally liable for the acts that occurred pursuant to the memo, if only we break the "silence of the lambs" and speak out..."
In The Torture Democrats, Season 2, dKos member greensooner takes aim at specific Democrats who seems especially unwilling to take a principled stand against torture.
An extensive torture timeline, courtesy of the Cooperative Research Commons
A deep history of psychological torture techniques, courtesy of dKos member Valtin
Torture is wrong & it doesn't work, says interrogation expert
The Green Light Writing for Vanity Fair, Philippe Sands describes the evolution of the torture program.
[below: here's where the Bush Adm. torture program led, as described by Physicians For Human Rights]
The 135-page report, Break Them Down: Systematic Use of Psychological Torture by US Forces , by Physicians for Human Rights (PHR),is the first comprehensive review of the use of psychological torture by US forces. The report also examines the devastating health consequences of psychological coercion and explains how a regime of psychological torture was put into place in the US "war on terror."
"What the now infamous images from Abu Ghraib do not show is that psychological torture has been at the center of treatment and interrogation of detainees," said Leonard Rubenstein, PHR's Executive Director. "The Bush Administration decided to 'take the gloves off' in interrogations and 'break' prisoners."
Techniques of psychological torture used have included sensory deprivation, isolation, sleep deprivation, forced nudity, the use of military working dogs to instill fear, cultural and sexual humiliation, mock executions, and the threat of violence or death toward detainees or their loved ones. A source familiar with conditions at Guantánamo told PHR that deprivation of sensory stimulation and over-stimulation led to self-harm and suicide attempts.
Excerpt from Seymour Hersh's keynote speech July 8, 2004 to the ACLU
"Some of the worst things that happened that you don’t know about. OK? Videos. There are women there. Some of you may have read that they were passing letters out, communications out to their men. This is at [Abu Ghraib], which is about 30 miles from Baghdad — 30 kilometers, maybe, just 20 miles, I'm not sure whether it's — anyway. The women were passing messages out saying please come and kill me because of what’s happened. And basically what happened is that those women who were arrested with young boys, children, in cases that have been [video] recorded, the boys were sodomized, with the cameras rolling, and the worst above all of them is the soundtrack of the boys shrieking. That your government has, and they’re in total terror it’s going to come out. It’s impossible to say to yourself, how did we get there, who are we, who are these people that sent us there.
When I did My Lai, I was very troubled, like anybody in his right mind would be about what happened, and I ended up in something I wrote saying, in the end, I said, the people that did the killing were as much victims as the people they killed, because of the scars they had.
I can tell you some of the personal stories of some of the people who were in these units who witnessed this. I can also tell you written complaints were made to the highest officers. And so we’re dealing with an enormous, massive amount of criminal wrong-doing that was covered up at the highest command out there and higher. And we have to get to it, and we will."