« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Mayer: CIA Forced Detainee To Stand For Hours Without Prosthesis
It took a New York Times article; a dozen phone calls and an over-eager intern running to a publishing house in 92 degree heat-- but we got it: Jane Mayer's new book, "The Dark Side," which I've been poring through for the better part of the day.
So why the rush? The book reveals new details on the CIA's torture of high-level Qaeda captives with information from a secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross. According to Mayer, the 2007 report which was shared with the President and Secretary of State described the CIA's actions, "categorically, as 'torture'" and warned that the abuse placed the "highest officials in the U.S. government in jeopardy of being prosecuted."
But besides that enormous and, (possibly) devastating claim, Mayer's "sources familiar with the ICRC report" also give horrifying details about the CIA's techniques.
One detainee claimed in the report that he was forced to stand on one leg for hours without his prosthesis and his arms chained to the ceiling.
The detainee, Tawfiq Bin Attash, was linked to the attack on the USS Cole but is being charged as part of the Sept. 11 attacks. Attash, also known as Khallad, had lost his leg below the knee following an injury in the Afghan-Soviet War.
Other detainees described similar stress positions to the ICRC, Mayer reports:
They described not just standing, but being kept up on their tiptoes with their arms extended out and up over their heads, attached by shackles on their wrists and ankles, for what they described as eight hours at a stretch. During the entire period, they said they were kept stark naked and often cold.
The International Committee of the Red Cross isn't so happy that news of this report is out. As they told the New York Times, "its work is more effective when confidential."
Comments (20)
Okay, it's "only" 2008, and I know that action on reports like these takes time. So I'll give the ICRC a break there.
However, the NYT story says this:
Their work has been confidential up to now, and conditions for prisoners don't seem to be improving, at least not according to what the lawyers for prisoners report.
So how could publicizing the abuses, citing the ICRC findings, be any less effective than they are now? They're not doing enough with their "dialogues."
Open all the doors, pull back the curtains, and tear off the roofs, if that's what's needed. What's going on at Guantánamo needs to have the cold light of day on it so everyone can see.
July 11, 2008 5:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I recall, the first IIRC report was written in 2003. I understand their reasoning (nobody is letting them into even shed a tiny bit of light on their torture rooms if it's going to go public), but it's hard to see how much less effective this could have been.
July 11, 2008 9:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, amazing that the US has sunk to such low levels commensurate with Nazi behavior under this President. He would be wise to go into hiding after their party is replaced by Obama leadership in November. Because, they are war crimes perps. I will not be satisfied until they are marched in handcuffs into the Hague to be tried as war crimes perps. AND, that is exactly what they deserve. And if it never happens, I can guarantee that it will be useless for us to ask God to bless America after these criminals get away with their horrendous behavior.
July 13, 2008 12:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
But Donald Rumsfeld said he stood all day at work, so where's the torture? Maybe he'd have changed his mind if he had been shackled naked.
July 11, 2008 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, now this is just typical of how bloggers make uninformed snap judgments. Do you really know that Rummy wasn't shackled and naked?
Sorry....
July 11, 2008 9:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would someone PLEASE give Bush a bj so we can impeach him???
July 11, 2008 6:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
"with information from a secret report by the International Committee of the Red Cross"
Does this mean the galleys weren't approved by bubbleboy and the stovepipers?
July 11, 2008 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush: "What's the big hairy deal? It had 'em rollin' in the aisles at Skull & Bones."
July 11, 2008 9:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The ICRC's comments indicate to me that they are more concerned with playing the game and getting access than exposing or stopping torture.
It shows how a system, any system, even one that is designed to prevent abuse and protect basic human rights becomes distorted and twisted when it puts following the rules,preserving the illusion that the system works before exposing evil and relieving the suffering of even one solitary man.
Yes, God forbid they lose their access for not keeping the torture of men secret.
July 11, 2008 10:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, I kind of agree with you, and I kind of don't. I don't see the Red Cross as likely very effective in most cases. On the other hand, five years ago, it didn't seem like any information would necessarily come out about what goes on in Gitmo - in some ways, the knowledge that the ICRC had at least done some fact finding struck me as not unimportant even if it wasn't making an immediate difference. (And if I recall correctly, there were some very slight leaks around their original report then - I don't remember that there were any details beyond that the ICRC disapproved of what was going on, but I do recall very similar 'tut-tut' official Red Cross responses to what was appearing in the press. Back then, when nobody really gave much of a shit about what was happening (I worked for the group that brought the first habeas corpus suits - the ACLU refused to sign on, and some of my peers in similar organizations openly laughed at me), even that little hint was important.
July 11, 2008 11:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh, heh, I'm almost certain that John Yoo dropped a footnote in one of his memos opining that it would not be "torture" even if a detainee with BOTH his legs amputated below the knees was suspended by his arms from the ceiling, without his prosthetics. Something about the eliminated weight from both missing lower limbs reducing the pressure on the wrists and arms sufficiently so that it was not "torture". He further added that if an interrogator then beat the suspended detainee with both removed prosthetics in the technique known as the "human pinata", that too would be lawful.
These revelations get more and more like bad jokes, e.g., "What did the one-legged naked detainee say to his interrogators just before they removed his prosthesis and waterboarded him?"
July 11, 2008 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please Sir, may I have another? . . .
July 13, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heck, according to Administration logic it probably wouldn't be "torture" if they affirmatively sawed off the lower right leg of every detainee upon arrival at Guantanamo. After all, most of the partially amputated leg would remain; they'd have one whole other leg anyway; and they could recover a lot of the functionality of the partially amputated leg with a prosthesis (though of course they would not be allowed to actually have the prosthesis while a detainee). One kidney could also be removed as a bonus.
July 11, 2008 11:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
(Last post then I'll leave this topic alone, it's too easy.)
Did they play the Barney song to the one-legged chained naked detainee?
You just know that at some point Hollywood will come out with a series of bleak "Iraq war" movies, and that in each there will be an obligatory snippet of the Barney song played in the background of some scene.
July 11, 2008 11:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Absolutely amazing that so many people were aware of this horrendous treatment of POW's but just kept silent.
My only hope is that eventually these persons knowlingly guilty will be tried for war crimes . . . seems unimaginal for them to go unpunished.
July 12, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I think the persons guilty of engaging in torture as well as those who were aware of it will go unpunished. I think that the practice of "renditioning" people to 3rd countries for the purpose of torturing them should be unlawful. That our own federal agents, military personnel and contractors have been engaged in torture is beyond unspeakable. Call me a pessimist, but I think political expediency will get in the way of a democratic administration bringing any of these people to justice. Any such efforts will look too much like aiding and abetting the terrorists.
July 12, 2008 4:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democratic leaders being briefed by Bush on torture: "Are your sure you're doing enough?" Collaborators are war criminals as well.
July 13, 2008 9:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anybody know what became of the second half /part two of the General Tagube report that was to be submitted to the Oversight Committes ?
Does anyone know if there are any other open source reports regarding torturing detainees here or overseas ? I seem to recall hearing about a British Special Air Service General Officer that gave sworn testimony to the Parliment regarding torture of detainees at Abu Gharib , Gitmo , and elsewhere . This was at about the same time that then Prime Minister Blair was calling for teh closure of Gitmo .
For the amount of blood and treasure we have spent on the bushcheny "Walk on the Darkside " we could have had a PRT/with full security in every nook & cranny in Afghanistan - in fact in all the "STANS" -including the Tribal"stans " .
Do we want more NATO troops in Afghanistan . We all ready have our answer -German Prime Minister Merkel has alreadt said repeatedly -if we were to switch from combined arms operations that kill many civilains- to a counter insurgency strategy we would have more Nato troops in Helmand.
The war criminals need to be held to account not just for moral reasons - but for Western/International security reasons too. The USA's biggest national security asset is our soft power -our brand equity if you would . We must have accountabilty for the horrible war crimes because we must have our good name back .
We need to remember where we have been the last eight years- Right after 9/11 - Tehran helped us fix targets in Afghanistan -the Iranians hated the Taliban as much as we did - We know have 400 million dollar black operaion being run against Iran -by the same bushcheney crowd that bought us Abu Gharib in the context of a huge strategic blunder - we need not have illegally occupied Iraq (an illegal occupation is also a war crime ).
I start where I began does anybody know what became of General Tagube's second report. The good General was fired- but only recently stated open sourced in the clear across the msm spectrum that it is "Now clear tthat the most senoir elements of the Bush administration where aware of war crimes being committed -now the questions becomes will any one of them be held to account ?"
( I paraphrased that)
This is a national security issue - these war crimes - we are literally making enemies faster then we can kill them !
July 13, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Madam Speaker has tentatively put impeachment back on the table- we can at least maybe hold hearings. "It takes a very long spoon to sup with the devil" - Madam Speaker & Congresswoman Harmon need think very carefully about issues of complicity - regarding war crimes , and the so called "gang of eight " .
After the General Election is held - we will be having a general accounting of all actors that violated the USA's good name , and in so doing our national security .Madam Speaker all actors & all war criminal complicity will be on the table .
July 13, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course they did and rest assured Dictator Bush was full aware of it. I hope once he is impeached (Dethroned) he ends up in a place like that where he is made to answer for his crimes against humanity!
JT
www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
July 13, 2008 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink