Skip to main content

A series of documents released on July 14 in the UK Binyam Mohamed civil case, Al Rawi and Others v Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Others, have produced a series of explosive revelations, reported in Britain and as yet unknown here in the U.S. The story has been reported at the UK Guardian, while the British advocacy group Reprieve has posted links to all the documents on its site.

The fate of the "ghost prisoners" in the U.S. rendition torture program has been the subject of much speculation. It was a central mystery explored in the recently released best-selling thriller by Barry Eisler, Inside Out, which takes the CIA’s secret black site torture and disappearances as the real-world scandal around which the book’s plot revolves. Eisler’s book implies that there were more killings in the secret prisons than we know.

Now, one of the most incendiary revelations in the documents concerns instructions given to MI6 Special Intelligence Service (SIS) over detention operations.

According to Chapter 32 of MI6’s general procedural manual, "Detainees and Detention Operations", "the following  sensitivities arise" (PDF – bold emphasis added):

a. the geographical destination of the target. Where will she or he be held? Under whose jurisdiction? Is it clear that detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation?

b. what treatment regime(s) for the detainees can be expected?

c. what is the legal basis for the detention?

d. what is the role of any liaison partner who might be involved?

The "objective" of "killing" points to the existence of extrajudicial murders carried out by the intelligence services. It’s not clear if the killings are by UK or liaison — including United States — forces. "Liaison partners" refers to instances of operational cooperation with non-UK intelligence agencies.

Both the Guardian and Reprieve make it clear, as does a perusal of the documents themselves, that official British policy was to cooperate with the U.S. rendition program. At more than one point, the UK government, led then by Labor Prime Minister Tony Blair, intervened to facilitate the rendition of prisoners, including UK citizens. At one point, in 2002, British officials discuss how to spin the leaks about UK cooperation with the rendition program: "Our line — that we are seeking information and reassurances and that the US is aware of our opposition to the death penalty — is not strong, but a stronger line is difficult until policy is clearer."

From the Reprieve report:

In a January 10, 2002, telegram from the  FCO [Foreign Office], officials made clear that the Blair Government wanted British nationals taken to lawless detention in Guantanamo Bay: "we accept that the transfer of UK nationals held by US forces in Afghanistan to the US base in Guantánamo is the best way to meet out counter-terrorism objective by ensuring that they are securely held"....

An FCO official recognized in an August 22, 2002, email that "we are going to be open to charges of concealed extradition" and that as a result of direct interference by Number 10 "we broke our policy" on consular access by failing to help Martin Mubanga. Mubanga, who was subsequently cleared of any wrongdoing after years in lawless detention without charge, was rendered first to Afghanistan and then to Guantanamo because Number 10 specifically refused to allow him to come home.

The Guardian article details a number of other details about "the Labour government’s involvement in the illegal abduction and torture of its own citizens." The UK government says it has identified half a million documents relevant to the Mohamed disclosure requests. The government’s request to stop the release of documents and force mediation with the plaintiffs was turned down by the British court.

Cameron Touts Secrecy for UK Torture Inquiry

The avalanche of documents has not escaped the notice of the new  Cameron/Clegg coalition government. Just last week they announced the formation of a UK "judge-led investigation" regarding the complicity of intelligence personnel in the torture and rendition of detainees. The investigation is being conducted by a panel of three, whose head is  the intelligence-connected Sir Peter Gibson, who is Intelligence Services Commissioner, responsible for monitoring secret bugging operations by MI5, MI6 and GCHQ (Britain’s version of the NSA). Many  questions have been raised by the appointment of Gibson, and it is startling to think that British human rights groups will accede to the appointment, given Gibson’s likely bias, not to mention his track record in other "judge-led" investigations.

In any case, the six cases involved in the Mohamed civil proceedings are among those to be considered by the Gibson inquiry. While the government may not be able to stop the flow of documents in the Mohamed case, the Prime Minister was not going to let this be a precedent for the upcoming torture investigation.

From the UK Guardian:

Cameron also made clear that the sort of material that has so far been made public with the limited disclosure in the Guantánamo cases would be kept firmly under wraps during the inquiry. "Let’s be frank, it is not possible to have a full public inquiry into something that is meant to be secret," he said. "So any intelligence material provided to the inquiry panel will not be made public and nor will intelligence officers be asked to give  evidence in public."

Maybe Cameron will be mollified if he looks at released documents  like this  one (PDF), in which almost 29 of 36 pages are totally redacted.

Exposing U.S. Torture

While on the surface this appears to be a story about Britain and torture, it is really about the United States. Tony Blair bent British rules and policies, including adherence to international treaties, such as the Convention Against Torture, at the behest of and to placate and cooperate with the United States.

At many points in the documents, it’s evident that British intelligence agents were witnessing serious abuse of prisoners. While they were told not to participate (actively) in the torture and cruel, inhuman, degrading treatment, the policies were written such that cooperation could proceed with ministerial approval.

Meanwhile, in other countries, news of CIA murders of foreign nationals is surfacing. Vanity Fair reported recently that the CIA sent a Blackwater (now Xe) team to Hamburg to "find, fix and finish" Syrian-born Mamoun Darkazanli. A UN report earlier this year on secret detentions reported on the disappearances of anonymous U.S. rendered prisoners in Syrian and Egyptian prisons. But these and other details rarely even make a stir in the corridors of American government. As this Human Rights Watch report noted, the Bush administration never even briefed the appropriate congressional intelligence oversight committees on the workings of the rendition program. Scandalously, neither the Democratically controlled Congress or Democratic administration has investigated the Bush-era rendition program.

The silence meeting these latest revelations in the U.S. press, the lack of ongoing interest in the UK torture inquiry, the failure by the so-called "progressive" components of the Democratic Party to strenuously take up the call by the ACLU, Center for Constitutional Rights, Physicians for Human Rights, and other human rights groups for greater accountability and official investigations over torture is an ominous development. One can only hope at this point that the continuing revelations about great crimes and cover-up will reach a tipping point, and the outrage over other issues — the BP massive oil blowout, Mel Gibson, etc. — will attach to the torture issue, which goes right to the heart of what this nation is. And right now, that heart is rotten.

[See also Andy Worthington's story, UK Sought Rendition of British Nationals to Guantánamo; Tony Blair Directly Involved]

Adapted from original posting at FDL/The Seminal

Originally posted to Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 10:30 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  I forgot about this auto tip jar thing (26+ / 0-)

      Well, what I wanted to say is that crimes too horrible to contemplate have taken place, and the criminals responsible in many cases are still in charge.

      The refusal of the Obama administration, and to a large extent, the Democratic Party-controlled Congress, to investigate the torture and rendition programs, is the greatest outrage of our times. And as the failure to investigate and prosecute the criminals who launched this country into the Vietnam War, or more recently, into the Iran-Contra affair, led directly to those same individuals leading this country into the Iraq War, so the failure to bring accountability for the crimes discussed in this diary will lead to greater horrors yet to come.

      Enough happy talk, enough following the scandal-of-the-day! Black site prisons exist even today. Disappearances and assassinations are still the program of the intelligence services, with the apparent approval of the Executive branch and the compliance of Congress.

      Is this the country you want for yourselves and your children?

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 10:35:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Valtin (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    northsylvania, burrow owl, Jagger

    These are important revelations, but I seriously can't see the "killing ghost detainees" in this quote.

    According to Chapter 32 of MI6’s general procedural manual, "Detainees and Detention Operations", "the following  sensitivities arise" (PDF – bold emphasis added):

       

    a. the geographical destination of the target. Where will she or he be held? Under whose jurisdiction? Is it clear that detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation?

       b. what treatment regime(s) for the detainees can be expected?

       c. what is the legal basis for the detention?

       d. what is the role of any liaison partner who might be involved?

    The "objective" of "killing" points to the existence of extrajudicial murders carried out by the intelligence services. It’s not clear if the killings are by UK or liaison — including United States — forces. "Liaison partners" refers to instances of operational cooperation with non-UK intelligence agencies.

    Does this refer to rendition to the US, or rendition to one of the other countries (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.).  More so, the statement is posed as a question that is unanswered.

    This information is important, and damning, but I am not sure it warrants your headline or analysis.

    Further, the Guardian article you linked to in no way suggests that killing ghost detainees occurred.  Simply put, they had the same documents, and did not arrive at the same conclusion you did.

    I support bringing Bush and co. to justice on torture--really.  We already know they turned folks over to countries that did torture people to death.  The question, as posed by the headline, is did the US kill people in their secret prisons.  I don't think these documents provide any reason to believe they did.

    "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

    by Empty Vessel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:01:59 AM PDT

    •  Yes we did kill people (11+ / 0-)

      to our everlasting shame. This is just one:

      Death caused by the multiple blunt force injuries of the lower torso and legs complicated by rhabdommyolisis (release of toxic byproducs into the system due to destruction of muscle). Manner of death is homicide. Decedent was not under the pharmacologic effect of drugs or alcohol at the time of death.

      http://action.aclu.org/...

      •  But did we kill (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        burrow owl, marina, Jagger, Anorish

        Ghost detainees rather than bring them to Guantanamo or turn them over to other countries?

        Valtin is making the claim that the US intentionally killed prisoners in the ghost prisons rather than transfer them.  That is a major claim, that I do not see backed up in the documentation provided.

        I know we killed and tortured people, but the claim here is different than that.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:10:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Hard to accept, I understand (10+ / 0-)

      Here is what the UK Guardian article said:

      One of the most startling documents is chapter 32 of MI6's general procedural manual, entitled "Detainees and Detention Operations", which advises officers that among the "particular sensitivities" they need to consider before becoming directly involved in an operation to detain a terrorism suspect is the question of whether "detention, rather than killing, is the objective of the operation".

      So the Guardian found the remark "startling."

      As for your other questions... the manual refers to procedures during operations in the rendition program. I believe it shows MI6 far more involved in operations than ever before known, to the extent I am now taking to describing the rendition program as the U.S./UK rendition program.

      It doesn't matter if the prisoners were killed in Egyptian, Syrian, or other prisons. Or even whether they were killed by U.S., British, or foreign executioners/torturers. It was a U.S. program, the U.S. instigated the kidnappings. The U.S. is repsonsible for the killings, hence "U.S. killings".

      If I plan a kidnapping/murder, but have others carry it out, should I be caught, I would be prosecuted and found guilty of first degree murder. The criminals tried at Nuremberg were themselves clean, for the most part, of having actual DNA on their hands, but figurately, and as the court recognized, they did have blood on their hands.

      I must also say that since Congress and DoJ has refused to investigate this program, and since we know it was not completely disassembled by the Obama administration, that commentators as myself are somewhat flying in the dark on many aspects of the program.

      But I believe I am perfectly correct to accuse the U.S. of killing rendition prisoners, as a strong inferential case can be made, such case making up the bulk of the article.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:19:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Though (0+ / 0-)

        if that was a consideration, I think the implication is that if killing is the objective, then MI6 should not be involved.  By their involvement, then, the goal was not killing.

        MI6 may well have lied, covered up just as much as the US, but the document is not a smoking gun, IMHO.  The fact that they needed to ask is pretty damning by itself.  

        We are all flying blind, but the definitive admitted torture that occurred should be our case.  Adding in less substantiated claims, IMHO, only weakens our cause.

        "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

        by Empty Vessel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:24:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well (6+ / 0-)

          PHR and others have now also added accusations of illegal human experimentation to the list of charges against the U.S. government. If it is "less substantiated" vis-a-vis the evidence on torture, does that too weaken our cause?

          I have written more on the issue of disappearances and murder by U.S. intelligence services, who have a historical predilection for this sort of thing, i.e., there is a pattern of behavior.

          See the article currently at my own blog, Eric Olson on CIA's "Disposal" Problem: "Casualties Arising from Experiments":

          "The moral of my father's murder is that a post-Nuremberg world places the experimenters as well as the research subjects (my father was both simultaneously) at risk in a new way, particularly in countries that claim the moral high ground. Maintenance of absolute secrecy in the new ethical context implies that potential whistle blowers can neither be automatically discredited nor brought to trial for treason. Nor can casualties arising from experiments with unacknowledged weapons be publicly displayed. The only remaining option is some form of ‘disposal.’ This places the architects of such experiments in a position more like that of Mafia dons than traditional administrators of military research. The only organizational exit is a horizontal one. In the face of this implication the CIA enforcers of the early 1950's did not flinch, though historians along with the general public have continued to see the state in all its finery."

          Even more, seek out the research done on CIA "terminal experiments", e.g., Jonathan Marks' famous book, Search for the Manchurian Candidate, in print now for upwards of 30 years:

          With Cameron, Agency officials not only had a doctor willing to perform terminal experiments in sensory deprivation, but one with his own source of subjects.

          Or consider the evidence surrounding the CIA spiking of an entire French village with LSD, which resulted in a number of deaths in the early 1950s.

          War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

          by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:38:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think we can chalk this up (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Valtin

            to a difference in approaches.

            I am a prosecuting attorney at heart (though not by profession).  I care most about what I can definitively prove.  I believe that the war crimes cases can start at the known information, and by prosecuting those cases, we can gain the leverage to investigate the rest of the allegation.

            You, I suspect, are mortified by the lack of progress on getting prosecutions for the known crimes, so you feel you must bring out ever more damaging and horrific elements in order to have any prosecutions occur at all.  Even where the evidence is less solid.  Simply put, you are trying to shock the US into action.

            The sad reality is that I suspect both of us will fail in our goals, and the move to prosecute the war crimes of the Bush cronies is DOA.  This will be one of the things the US will apologize for in 40 years, pay some restitution in the same way that FDR and the rest were never prosecuted for the treatment of Japanese Americans in WWII.

            I cannot support your approach, but I cannot really condemn it either.  Whatever the case, we are both seeking--likely in vain--the same end.

            "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

            by Empty Vessel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:51:18 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I expect it to be more like Argentina or Chile (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, Empty Vessel
              - that when the political space can allow the investigation it will happen. I too wish that political considerations would never infringe upon war crime prosecutions but I don't expect us to be the first place it didn't.

            •  Two things (7+ / 0-)

              I don't need to try and shock, what has occurred, as much as what is suspected, is totally shocking.

              I also don't believe we will fail in our ends.

              History is made by those who believe.

              War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

              by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:43:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Once more, from the NE Journal of Medicine (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Garrett, dancewater

              from an article by Robert Jay Lifton in July 2004, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which peer-reviews its articles (unlike Daily Kos diaries!)(Bold emphasis added):

              Physicians are no more or less moral than other people. But as heirs to shamans and witch doctors, we may be seen by others — and sometimes by ourselves — as possessing special magic in connection with life and death. Various regimes have sought to harness that magic to their own despotic ends. Physicians have served as actual torturers in Chile and elsewhere; have surgically removed ears as punishment for desertion in Saddam Hussein's Iraq; have incarcerated political dissenters in mental hospitals, notably in the Soviet Union; have, as whites in South Africa, falsified medical reports on blacks who were tortured or killed; and have, as Americans associated with the Central Intelligence Agency, conducted harmful, sometimes fatal, experiments involving drugs and mind control.

              War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

              by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 01:34:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  An approach (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Valtin

              Especially given lack of prosecution, citizens must expose it.

              Documentation of torture is almost like a responsibility in and of itself. The treatment of the tortured should be witnessed and recorded and made publicly known and available, to the extent possible.

              There are inherent difficulties. Torture and rendition happens inside highly secretive security prisons. Torture is extremely well protected against exposure. Implausible deniability about accusations is a continual problem.

              There is just so much evidence available, about specific cases, at the prosecuting attorney level of definiteness.

              Also though, associative techniques like, one released MI6 document, expressing suspicions that murder is an intention, one documentation of a death where Special Forces implied that the prisoner should be killed, and recent press stories that prisoners are currently being killed rather than released in Afghanistan, help build up an understanding of what is going on.

  •  As per the Guardian article: (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Garrett, semiot, corvo, Valtin, skrekk, Empty Vessel

    Some are difficult to decipher, but together they paint a picture of a government that was determined not only to stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States as it embarked upon its programme of "extraordinary rendition" and torture of terrorism suspects in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, but to actively participate in that programme.

    Trust me, the British services under Blair would have been quite happy to instigate rendition on their own. That the US government was doing so just gave them a fig leaf to cover their respective asses. There is no reason to think that this won't continue:

    The coalition government is anxious to draw a line under what is currently described in Whitehall as "detainee legacy issues". It hopes that mediation, followed by the inquiry, will lift the burden of litigation that it is currently facing while restoring public confidence in MI5 and MI6.

    It also wishes to preserve what it calls "liaison relationships" – operational links with overseas intelligence agencies, including those known to use torture – on the grounds that they are a vital part of the country's counterterrorism strategy.

    If nothing is very different from you, what is a little different from you is very different from you. Ursula K. Le Guin

    by northsylvania on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:09:39 AM PDT

  •  Exactly, (0+ / 0-)

    too horrible to contemplate

    What's done is done and cannot be undone.  However, the past also won't go away.  What would have been the point of wading into this cesspool before any policy initiatives were accomplished?  

    What would have happened to health insurance, worker's rights, education funding, bank reform if the media were fixated on images of totured, mangled and deformed bodies and rotting corpses in black plastic bags?

    The pundits are now talking of a policy agenda for the second term.  That leaves the rest of the first term to confront the horror.

    The Constitution is not a menu for an exclusive diner.

    by hannah on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:10:48 AM PDT

    •  I can't agree (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, nio, Valtin, MsGrin, judyms9

      war crimes must be punished, and political calculation cannot be a part of the decision.  Same with SB 1070.  I don't care if it is unpopular to oppose it--oppose it we must.

      "Empty vessels make the loudest sound, they have the least wit and are the greatest blabbers" Plato

      by Empty Vessel on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:14:34 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  As a country, we'd still have a soul.... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, nio, Valtin

      something that we need in order to really accomplish all those things you mentioned.

      Education is too big to fail. Truth is too big to fail. Justice is too big to fail. Peace is too big to fail.

      by Burned on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:22:40 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Those reforms were all truncated (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, ferallike, MsGrin, judyms9

      because the powers that be bent to the national security state and its need for hundreds of billions of dollars to feed their wars.

      What would have happened? Justice, and then the clearing of the table, policy-wise, so we could have real, effective health care reform, education funding and the rest, instead of the half-way palliative measures that sold as massive reform by the spinmeisters of this administration.

      Look around at the state of this nation. We've achieved no great, societal changing reform. Instead, the criminals that raped and robbed this country blind continue to prosper, and the average person continues to struggle mightily.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 11:42:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The Culture of Impunity - where certain classes (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Valtin, enhydra lutris, judyms9

        of persons are exempt from the rule of law - is alive and well under the Obama administration and the Democratic congress.

        It's bad enough when it's the bankers, who will walk away richer than ever from the devastation they ginned up for us small people.

        It's a different thing entirely when the impunity extends to the sorts of actions perpetrated by the United States "national security" apparatus over the last few years.

        Impunity for these latter crimes go down to the everlasting shame every civilized human being.

        "Who am I to give science the brush?" Sugarpuss O'Shea

        by semiot on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 01:30:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Some people can't walk and chew gum. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      conchita, semiot, Valtin, judyms9

      That's the excuse you're making. And that's all it is, an excuse to ignore Crimes Against Humanity. Perhaps if the current regime had actually done anything even remotely positive on the issues you mention, one might be able to entertain your rationalization for a few more minutes.

      All that is needed is a real investigation with intent to prosecute those responsible. We have a thing called Department of Justice to do just that. It doesn't require everyone to "fixate on rotting corpses in black plastic bags."

      What the rationalizers still aren't willing to understand is this institutionalized system of kidnapping, torture and extra-judicial murder will eventually be done domestically if it's not stopped and those responsible put in prison.

      If you have any doubts, ask the people of Chile, Argentina and Guatemala for starters. Those, by the way, were all US client states at the height of their crimes.

    •  Statutes of limitation issues (0+ / 0-)

      are very much at play.

  •  Of interest, just posted (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Garrett, MsGrin

    Dengue Fever Outbreak Leads Back to CIA & Army Experiments by by Hank P. Albarelli Jr. and Zoe Martell

    The recent outbreak of dengue fever is being portrayed by the media as a fortuitous reemergence of the disease in Florida and elsewhere in the United States after 75 years. Yet Hank Albarelli’s probe reveals that the US Army and CIA have been experimenting with dengue fever for years with the aim of weaponizing insects to be released against unwitting populations, as was previously done in Florida and elsewhere. Moreoever, Albarelli draws attention to the eerie similarity between dengue fever symptoms and those linked to the toxic emanations in the Gulf of Mexico and warns of the looming disaster that could unfold from the overlap.

    War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

    by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 12:41:42 PM PDT

  •  And the crickets shirp away under the pulpits of (0+ / 0-)

    every church in the land as we continue to fuel our enemies' passions for war.

    •  I agree that organized religion is not (0+ / 0-)

      doing enough. But you should be aware of the good folks at the National Religious Campaign Against Torture (NRCAT). Read their press release on the Bybee revelations. They are also very supportive of the call for investigations and prosecutions.

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 01:52:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  An intentional killing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Valtin, enhydra lutris

    The death of Asad Jaleel in Iraq has strong suggestions of an intentional homicide. He was captured with IED making equipment, and interrogated by Special Forces, who showed up at his cell wearing black masks.

    His death was just unbelievably brutal. Every single rib was broken, and he died strung from a doorframe with a gag in his mouth.

    The reason to suspect an intentional killing is the level of violence, and Special Forces interrogator notes "this guy is too dangerous to ever let out" and similar.

    Jaleel had prisoner of war status, not Ghost Detainee. But Special Forces involvement ties it in pretty close.

    •  I think it is a more than reasonable question (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Garrett, enhydra lutris

      How many prisoners, held in U.S. custody, were intentionally and unintentionally killed. We know about Dilawar, but obviously, that is tip of the iceberg.

      The rendition killings -- whatever they were -- is a very particular animal, because the renditions often involved kidnappings from non-combatant areas. It is a horrific crime to rendition to torture, to rendition to secret murder (or torture and murder; or secret experimentation and "disposal") is an unbelievable war crime. What's even more unbelievable is that when there is some evidence such took place, Americans turn away their heads. (Not you, Garrett, but here I'm thinking of opinion makers, of Congress, etc.)

      War is the statesman's game, the priest's delight, The lawyer's jest, the hired assassin's trade Invictus

      by Valtin on Sat Jul 17, 2010 at 05:05:06 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site