A detainee in his cell at Guantanamo Bay. Lawrence
B. Wilkerson, one-time chief of staff to then-Secretary
of State Colin Powell, contends that many detainees
were innocent men swept up by U.S. forces.
(AP Photo/Brennan Linsley)
Torture of detainees at Guantanamo Bay has been systematic, extensive and a matter of deliberate policy, says a report originally prepared in 2007 by the International Committee of the Red Cross. Obtained by journalist Mark Danner, the report, which detailed the complicity of medical personnel in the mistreatment of detainees, has been posted online (PDF) by the New York Review of Books.
The allegations of the fourteen include descriptions of treatment and interrogation techniques that amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."
Techniques practiced at Guantanamo and elsewhere on the 14 detainees examined in the 41-page report include suffocation by water, prolonged standing with arms chained above their heads, beatings, confinement in a box, sleep deprivation and other tactics that involve both physical and psychological abuse. While written in somewhat technical terms, the report emphasizes that the detainees' treatment "amounted to torture and/or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment."
While the abuse described in the report is brutal and disturbing, among the more troubling aspects in the Red Cross account is the role of medical personnel, including "physicians, psychiatrists, psychologists, nurses and other para-health staff" in the application of torture.
For certain methods, notably suffocation by water, the health personnel were allegedly directly participating in the infliction of the ill-treatment. In one case, it was alleged that health personnel actively monitored a detainees' oxygen saturation using what, from the description of the detainee of a device placed over the finger, appeared to be a pulse oxymeter. ...
Other detainees who were shacked in a stress stanfding position for prolonged periods in their cells were monitored by health personnel who in some instances recommended stopping the method of ill-treatment, or recommended its continuation, but with adjustments.
The Red Cross report emphasizes that such participation in torture by medical personnel violates accepted standards of medical ethics.
Internationally recognized legal standards were also violated at Guantanamo, not just by the torture, which is illegal under international law, but also by the anonymous and unofficial detention of the men held by the CIA. The report points out that international humanitarian law requires that persons deprived of their liberty be registered, held in an officially recognized place of detention, and be permitted visits by the Red Cross so their condition can be monitored and relayed to their next of kin. "In the ICRC's view, the fourteen were placed outside the protection of the law during the time they spent in CIA custody."
The Red Cross report concludes by, in part, voicing concern about the fate of other detainees held by the CIA who remain unaccounted for.
President Barack Obama has promised to end the mistreatment of detainees approved by the Bush administration, eventually close the Guantanamo Bay facility, and to finally give inmates at the facility trials to determine their guilt or innocence. The current administration is also torn over the degree to which it will reveal its predecessor's formal role in the torture of detainees.
But the Obama administration also plans to continue the policy of holding alleged terror suspects indefinitely, without charges.
email J.D.: civilliberties (at) tuccille.com
You might also enjoy these:
- They're not 'enemy combatants' anymore, but Obama will still detain them without charges
- Investigate torture, wiretaps and other government abuses, say Americans
- Casual cruelty at Guantanamo
- Obama suspends military commissions, may close Guantanamo
- A look at the youngest prisoners detained and tortured at Guantanamo
Civil Liberties Examiner is now on Facebook!
Or follow the latest civil liberties news on Twitter: Libertywriter
Comments
This torture issue presents a moral dilemma. Recently I presented an example and will present this example again.
You, the reader, are in charge and must make a decision, quickly and decisively. You know a nuclear weapon will be detonated within one hour in an American city. You have a terrorist in custody you factually know has information about this pending terrorist attack.
Your choice is torturing this terrorist to attain information or allowing an American city to be blown up, killing a million Americans.
Which is your choice? Will you violate our moral taboo on torture to save a million people or not torture this terrorist and sacrifice a million people to abide by our moral values?
You have less than sixty minutes to decide.
This time, I will toss in a kicker moral dilemma. You are in a position to prevent the September 11, 2001 terrorist attack on America. Would you torture a person or persons, to prevent this horrific attack?
Strikes me ours is not moral question of torture being wrong rather is a moral question of when torture is right.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Even if your prisoner has the information, how do you know he will give you the right info when tortured, or just tell you what he thinks you want to know to make you stop?
The only way to have stopped the September 11, 2001 attacks was to have not implemented passenger disarmament in the first place. It was preventable, but government policies made it inevitable. Those who refuse to learn from the past.... well, it is going to get "interesting".
Torture is never right, since it makes you into a bad guy as soon as you use it. Even if the other guy is also bad, you are then on level moral ground.
Kent McManigal presents another dilemma, "Even if your prisoner has the information, how do you know he will give you the right info when tortured...?"
You do not know. You act on what information is given, then proceed accordingly. This is assured: no torture, no information.
This case example dilemma you present, Kent, still requires a decision to torture or not to torture, and a million lives hang in the balance.
Kent continues, "Torture is never right, since it makes you into a bad guy as soon as you use it."
Same moral dilemma. Are we willing to be the bad guy to save a city full of people? Should we be the good guy and allow a million to die?
This moral dilemma can be switched to a personal level. Your young daughter is taken by terrorists. You capture a terrorist who says, "Your daughter will be beheaded very soon."
As a mother or a father, do you hesitate to torture this terrorist to uphold your moral values? Do you sacrifice your girl?
Personally, as a mother, within seconds, I would take to torturing this terrorist in ways even the most calloused would not, and I would make a point to keep this terrorist alive to continue torture, even if our girl is rescued.
Each reader, you decide silently within your mind what you would do for your child or even for the child of another.
Another issue related to this is political correctness. Our world is chastising us for Gitmo and torture. Meanwhile, Muslims blow up children in Russia, behead nuns in Malaysia, splash acid in the faces of young school girls, set roadside bombs, destroy trains in Spain... on and on, for decades.
Then there is September 11, 2001.
Why is America the bad guy? Why is Obama compelled by political correctness and popularity concerns, why is Obama waving a French white flag of surrender before our world?
His is sending a message, "America is afraid." This message will embolden those whose intend is to slaughter us.
Gitmo is wrong, is a mistake. Torture is wrong but not always a mistake. In our world, there are frequent circumstances when torture is the only viable choice, no matter how morally wrong.
I am quite annoyed with peoples of our world casting America as "Satan" while those peoples turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to torture, death and genocide taking place around our world, while I type my words, literally while I type these words.
Theirs is rancid hypocrisy and theirs is denial of truth.
Right now, hitting my return key, at least one child out there in our world died a horrific death because of terrorists. Right now, a mother, a father, a sister, a brother, a loved one has died at the hands of a terrorist.
Right now a displaced family is starving to death. Right now a child is being butchered with a machete. Right now, a grandmother is being raped and about to be murdered.
This is the reality of our world, today.
How can peoples of our world deal with this issue of torture while almost all out there are hypocritical liars?
Millions of lives hang in the balance. I say to Hell with political correctness. I say we should get out there and save innocent lives no matter the means; anything less is morally wrong.
Not a single innocent life should be sacrificed in the name of arrogant political correctness. This is truly morally wrong.
Okpulot Taha
Choctaw Nation
Thanks for continuing to report on this JD. It needs to stay in the American forefront.
Good story. The situation at Gitmo is of concern all on its own, but I'm concerned that people are being detained without trial on the mainland. This is a particular problem in Texas where there are children being held along with their parents for the crime of trying to escape killers in their own country. Women are being raped in cells along with their children. I'm afraid that that Gitmo is not an isolated case. We have a serious problem!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!